The Days of “Trust Me” Science Are Over

Wizard

Last week was a complete disaster for the climate alarmists, and recent events only promise that things are going to get much worse. Toto finally peaked behind the curtain. On Wednesday the House passed a bill that would require the EPA to release its data to the public.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said “the days of ‘trust me’ science are over,” adding that the House bill would restore confidence in the EPA’s decision-making process.

Personally, I was shocked that that wasn’t already a requirement. Just what is the purpose of a taxpayer funded agency designed to serve the public’s interest keeping its data and methods secret? Worse yet, this secret data must have been used to influence the Supreme Court’s recent costly decision to label CO2 a pollutant. Stalin would have been very proud of this system, but it has no place in an open and free Democracy. Not surprising however 198 Representatives voted against it, and I bet you can guess what party they are from. I didn’t know Mother Nature’s medical records were protected under HIPPA.

Connecticut Rep. Elizabeth Esty and other Democrats said the bill would cripple EPA’s ability to conduct scientific research based on confidential medical information and risks privacy violations by exposing sensitive patient data.

Republicans should take this decision a bit further and not only demand the release of the studies and data but also demand “reproducibility” of the studies supporting the EPA regulation. Recently it was discovered that much of the research published in major journals like Nature and Science magazine are not reproducible. This throws the entire “peer-review” process and the “consensus” that results from such “authorities” into question. Climate alarmists never argue data, facts, experiments, they argue “consensus” “peer-review” and computer models. The lack of reproducibility completely destroys the main pillars holding up the entire AGW movement. Without reproducibility, there is no real science. Science that isn’t reproducible is nothing more than witchcraft, black magic, and sorcery performed by Oracles and Soothsayers, not real scientistsCapture16

Additional safeguards would be to divide and compartmentalize any major research initiative. The problem with climate “science” is that power is extremely concentrated in the hands of very few self-interested organizations that control the entire process both vertically and horizontally. When the military designs a new weapon system, the process is designed so that no one person knows or controls all the parts. Things are done on a “need to know” basis. The Federal Government should treat the EPA, FDA, DOE, DOE like they treated Standard Oil and break up the Monopolies. People like Michale “Climate Crusader” Mann should never be given power in such easily corruptible systems.

NOAA/NASA and HADCRU should break the temperature reconstruction process into their fundamental components.

  1. Data Collection: Google/Oracle/IBM/ADP could bid to collect all the temperature data from all the temperature centers.
  2. Data Compilation: Google/Oracle/IBM/ADP could bid to compile the data in raw form.
  3. Data Adjustment: A transparent open source method could be created for “adjusting” the data. No longer would a single person or small group make those decisions.
  4. Data Analysis: Statistical research firms like IBM, SAP or Oracle should be hired. Considering the decisions made based upon the conclusions may cost the taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars, this work is simply too important for government workers.
  5. Data Interpretation:  If research universities are going to play a part in developing the climate models and policy proposals they simply must demonstrate a political diversity of their staff. No conservative would have ever signed off on this climate change nonsense.
  6. Published Research: If published research is to be used, it must me reproducible by independent bodies, and the scientific method must have been applied.

the_mann_o_war_panel_scr

Also on Wednesday, the climate science equivalent of the Titanic hitting the iceberg occurred when Michael “I’m a Victim”  Mann got completely owned by Dr. Judith Curry in the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Hearings on Climate Change, and inadvertently gave the climate “deniers” the battle plan on how to defeat the climate alarmists. That “battle plan” will be detailed in future blog posts, so stay tuned. BTW, Michael “Owned by Judith Curry” Mann used “denier” 4 times in his written testimony.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Advertisements

American Lung Association Never Mentions CO2 as Harmful to Human Health

I just finished watching Chris Wallace grill EPA director Scott Pruitt and was shocked to see the questioning of Chris Wallace. It was if he got his talking points from MSNBC or Michael Mann. The one comment he repeated were highly speculative comments made about the clean power act saving thousands of lives. To support these claims he referenced the American Lung Association’s position multiple times. I found that extremely odd. If there is any organization that understands that CO2 is not a pollution, it is the American Lung Association.  The entire purpose of the lung is to manage the delicate balance between CO2 and O2 in the human body. CO2 is necessary for the lung and blood to function. Too little or too much CO2 in the lung and the pH of the blood can change, hyper- ventilating can cause a person to lose consciousness, too much CO2 and a person can suffocate.  The standard level of CO2 in the lung is between 2.7 to 7.5%. To put that in perspective atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm, or 0.04%. 2.7 to 7.5% or 27,000 ppm to 75,000 ppm is between 67 and 187x the level of the atmosphere. Submarines can have CO2 levels near 10,000 ppm. The lungs have absolutely no problem handling high levels of CO2. Plants are the same. Higher CO2 levels make plants more drought resistant and greatly increases their yields. Plants die when CO2 drops below 180 ppm.

typical or physiological CO2 levels in the lungs which range from about 20 to 50 mm Hg or from about 2.7 to 7.5%.

It is for that reason, I questioned Chris Wallace’s approach and had to check out the American Lung Association. Sure enough, the American Lung Association makes the obligatory platitudes towards “climate change,” but never with an “N” mentions CO2 as a harmful pollutant. Sometimes a half-truth is often quite the lie. They did nothing to clarify the critical role CO2 plays in improving and saving the lives of every living organism. They do vaguely mention “carbon pollution” and state that utility plants produce CO2, but conveniently never mention CO2 as a health risk. Interestingly, they do mention that “biomass plants” are major sources of pollution. I’m pretty sure far more people die and suffer from natural causes of asthma and hayfever than CO2. I’ve never heard of anyone having an allergic or asthma reaction to CO2.  The very concept is laughable.

Capture15

Climate “Scientists” Make the Election Pollsters Look Accurate…and 10x as Smart

160615_gma_dowd2_16x9_992What good is spending trillions of dollars on a “science” if it can’t accurately define what it is studying? Scientists that study gravity have a nice simple model of 9.8m/sec^2, scientists that study quantum physics have E=mc^2, and scientists have study motion have F=ma. The value of a real science is that it helps us understand the world in which we live. If that is the definition of a real science, climate “science” is about as unscientific as one can get. Their models and forecasts don’t even come close.Screen-Shot-2017-04-02-at-2.22.05-PM-down-1

Worst of all, their recommendations are extremely fluid and dangerous for society. Back in the 1970’s coming ice age scare, the climate alarmists were recommending spreading black soot over the North Pole in order to MELT THE ARCTIC SEA ICE!!! That isn’t a joke. Today they are hysterical about the natural variation of it being on the down-swing. Note how no matter what the situation, the answer is always greater government involvement and spending more of other people’s money.Capture13

While melting the Polar Ice Caps and stockpiling food back in the 1970s would have been one of the greatest misallocation or resources since Stalin collectivized the Soviet Farms, the political left just doesn’t seem to learn from history. In an effort to prepare for the “Endless California Drought,” California ironically didn’t build desalination plants to produce clean fresh water to address the water shortage, they implemented strict water rationing and built wind and solar farms. That may make sense to a population that buys “skinny jeans” to lose weight, and drive “smart cars” and use “smart phones” and live is “smart homes” on the “smart grid” to make these pseudo-intellectuals feel intelligent. To a real person, intelligence is demonstrated by developing proper and feasible solutions to existing real problems.

Capture14

Californians must have failed basic geometry, or slept through the class where the lecture was the “shortest distance between two points is a straight line.” To solve a water shortage, the most effective way to address the problem is by building desalination plants. California has an unlimited supply of water called the Pacific Ocean, they just need to process it for drinking. I fail to make the connection between a water shortage, CO2 and building wind and solar farms. If feeling smug and sanctimonious made it rain, then California would have its solution. Unfortunately, self-defeating symbolic efforts may make misguided Californians feel good about themselves, it doesn’t solve the water problem.

Anywho, that isn’t the point. The point is that by following the advice of climate “experts” California was focused on an endless drought when they should have been focused on the coming floods. California has a cyclical history of droughts and floods, man- made CO2 didn’t repeal that natural cycle. Californian droughts ALWAYS end, they always have, and they always will, regardless of the amount of man-made CO2. The real problem Californians now face is that their dams and other river/water control infrastructure have been severely neglected. Money that would have been better spent preparing for the near certainty of the eventual rains, was misspent on Quixotic ventures like building wind and solar farms. Now all reasonable people can do is sit back and say “see, I told you so.” To add injury to insult, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown is considering a run for the Whitehouse. I guess misery loves company, and Jerry wants everyone to suffer along with California.

California snowpack is one of the biggest ever recorded, and now poses a flooding risk

The 2016-17 winter created one of the largest snowpacks in California’s recorded history and it’s loaded with enough water to keep reservoirs and rivers swollen for months to come.

As of Thursday, the snowpack across the entire Sierra was at 164% of average for this time of year. The northern region was at 147%, the central was at 175% and the southern was 164% of average, respectively, state data showed.

When that spot was a dusty patch of land for Gehrke two years ago, he was filmed by a phalanx of cameras and joined by Gov. Jerry Brown, who argued that the absence of snow was emblematic of the state’s punishing drought and that water users needed to prepare for sacrifices.

The governor declared a state of emergency and instituted strict water use restrictions that remain in place for some people today.

California has been inundated with more than 30 atmospheric river events — warm, Pacific-based storms that drop massive amounts of rain — since October and is on track for one of its rainiest water years (measured from Oct. 1 — Sept. 30) in history.

In the meantime, cities and utility companies are preparing for what could be a paradoxically fruitful and disastrous spring and summer when all that snow begins to melt.

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate

Michael Mann Just Jumped the Climate Change Shark

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

WARNING!!! I’ve been Informed Facebook has blocked this article or at least parts of it. If you are a safe-space seeking, participation trophy collecting Snowflake,  please avoid reading any further. The information may be dangerous to your health. The truth can be very very painful.

I tried to post on Facebook. Got this message: “Warning: This Message Contains Blocked Content

This has been one very very very strange week for the self-defeating and self-destructive political left-wing. The first bizarre event was public comments made by Dr. Farkas — the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense specializing in Russia. She basically admitted on The Morning Joe Show that she led/participated in a conspiracy to leak sensitive information in an effort to undermine President Trump.

Dr. Farkas — the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense specializing in Russia, who said “get as much information as you can” to persons inside the intelligence apparatus — for the purposes of preserving intel on the Trump team in an effort to hide it from the incoming administration.

Listening to here comments I just kept asking myself, “does she understand what she is saying?” She was so blinded by her delusion that she didn’t even seem to grasp that not only what she was saying was highly unethical and most likely illegal, but also epically wrong. She seems to be suffering from “Noble Cause Corruption.”

Noble Cause Corruption seems to be endemic to the left-wing as Michael “Capone” Mann gave an absolutely catastrophic testimony to the US Congress, during which he as not caught lying but he also provided the answer to how best to address the climate change issue. The following graphic is an actual clip from Michael “Emasculated” Mann’s written testimony.

Denier 3

 

First the lying part. Michael Mann, playing the victim, made the absurd comment that “statements that have been attributed to me are not correct, and I don’t believe I called anyone here a ‘denier.” Dr. Judith Curry immediately interrupted by snapped back with the epic humiliating smackdown of “it’s in your written testimony, I’ll read it again.” This is an actual screenshot of Michael “Homer” Mann’s facial reaction. I would say this measures about a 100 on the “pucker factor scale.”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Ironically Michael “Slick-Willy” Mann may have been technically correct, much like Bill Clinton may have been technically correct when he stated “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ ‘is,'” but people expect much more ethical behavior from “Nobel Prize Winning” scientists than they do from developmentally arrested politicians. Michael “Silver Tounge” Mann’s comment is at best an unethical and deceitful half-truth and at worst criminal perjury.

Michael “McCarthy” Mann is the ring leader of a cabal of climate bullies who’s MO is to threaten, intimidate, censor and smear scientists that dare to question their climate orthodoxy. While Michael Piltdown Mann may have not actually verbalized in written testimony, his tactic of smearing others with the “denier” label is well documented. He wrote an article for the Washington Post titled “Deniers club: Meet the people clouding the climate change debate,” where he published the equivalent of a scientific black-list, naming names, and smearing the “heretics.” He also recently wrote a book titled “The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy.”

Michael “Drama Queen”  Mann’s attempt at feigning outrage and playing the victim, however, is the real gift that he gave his critics. Climate change is and always has been a political movement, using “science” as guise to fool the gullible. Up until now, real scientists have fought Michael and his ilk using scientific arguments, attempting to debunk the countless stream of nonsense that flows out of the climate “science” departments of our government funded universities. The problem with this approach is that the climate alarmists have almost limitless resources and a complicit educational system, media and until recently government. People seeking the truth simply don’t have the resources to debunk every piece of garbage produced by the climate alarmists.

The problem conservatives have arguing this issue is that we are conservatives. We look at the facts. We look for the truth. When the NYT or ex-President Obama makes a series to erroneous statements, we respond with rebuttals. The NYT and ex-President Obama reaches millions with their nonsense, conservatives reach very few with their rebuttals. Liberals are propagandists, conservatives are seeking the truth. Conservatives are only winning this battle because 50% of America lean right and their views are influenced by politics, not science.

Michael “Hollywood” Mann has his left-wing talking points rehearsed and can recite them in his sleep. Others are coached to recite similar talking points. The MO is obvious, appeal to authority, refer to the “consensus,” and never ever ever mention the results of the climate models or application of the scientific method. The climate alarmists are very very very comfortable with this approach, and challenging the climate “scientists” on the science plays to their strength. Not because the science supports their position, but because the left-wing propaganda machine favors that approach. To win the scientific argument, you have to have an extremely scientific literate public and congress, which simply doesn’t and won’t exist. It is unlikely the public will ever understand or even care about the difference between linear and logarithmic, and its relevance to global warming, but they can easily understand and have already accepted that being a bully isn’t good. Lion portrait

While Michael “Pope Urban VIII” Mann may be able to fool the public with his sophistry and intimidate the climate “heretics,” it is unlikely he and the climate alarmists can win a political war, and his actions prove it. Michael “Smoke-and-Mirrors” Mann has no trouble at all holding his own when it comes to reciting his focus group tested “scientific” talking points. Even his critics admire the ease at which they spew from his mouth.

For a scientist he speaks very well, very little equivocation that one would normally associate with having personal or professional doubts about the subject, seems to transition smoothly from one topic to the next, almost glib

Michael “The Bold” Mann is king of the jungle when it comes to scientific sophistry, but when the inquiry turns political he flees the battle and resorts to pathetic attempts of deceit, deception, half-truths and outright lies. In this video Louisiana Rep Mr. Higgins asks Michael “The Lamb” Mann about his affiliation with groups calling for the prosecution of climate “skeptics,” he behaves as if he was being accused of being a member of the Communist Party.

The other video evidence is his denial of smearing others as “deniers” which was already covered. If conservatives want to win this political war, they need to execute a two-front battle plan. The first front is to continue fighting the scientific arguements,  and the second front is to fight the political fight. Michael Mann’s actions have exposed the Achilles’Heel of the climate alarmists’ approach. Their support structure remains in place as long as they can maintain the illusion of moral and scientific superiority. All that comes crumbling down once Michael Mann and his ilk are exposed as the modern day equivalent of the black-listing Senator Joseph McCarthy and fear mongering Wizard of Oz. This most recent congressional testimony demonstrates how climate realists can take the offensive and finally put the arrogant, condescending, smug climate bullies on the defensive. It is time for Toto to pull away the curtain, and expose the climate “science” as the fraud that it is. In this “social media” world of hyper-sensitive safe-space seeking snowflakes, no one wants to be labeled a “bully.” The quickest way to get “unfriended” is by being outed as a bully, and if there is any label that truly fits Michael “Scott FarcusMann, it is bully.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate

Northern Atlantic Storm Shows How Natural Causes Affect Arctic Sea Ice

A few years ago the climate alarmists were going hysterical about the sudden loss of Arctic Sea Ice. Alarmist claims of an ice free North Pole dominated the headlines.

It’s been a little over four years since an “Arctic expert” claimed the North Pole would be ice-free by the summer of 2016.

That never happened.

When I dug further into the issue, I discovered that an Arctic Hurricane was responsible for the sudden loss of ice. I didn’t even know Hurricanes occurred that far north and the media did nothing to inform me of the event.

Monster Storm Becomes Strongest on Record for Alaska

A powerful storm has moved into the Bering Sea and has become the most intense storm to ever impact the region.
The former Super Typhoon Nuri has tracked northward into the Bering Sea, located in between Alaska and Russia, and has lost all tropical characteristics.
The system has undergone rapid intensification, producing howling winds as the central pressure plummets to near record levels.

1988-1996_oldice21 (1)Storms in the Bering Sea are most damaging because they tend to push ice out of the Arctic and into the Northern Atlantic.  Russia and Alaska create a natural barrier for the ice, so when the wind blows from Iceland towards the Bering Sea, the ice tends to get trapped and thicken. When the wind pattern reverses, the ice gets blown out of the Arctic, reducing the ice extent and thickness. The phenomenon has everything to do with wind patterns, and absolutely nothing to do with CO2. Just last year in 2016, two storms hit the Arctic, shrinking the extent and thickness of the ice. Never to allow a “good crisis go to waste,” the alarmists used the opportunity to try to influence the election.

Pair of Arctic Storms Sparked Severe Polar Warming, Sea Ice Melt for November 2016
Folks — we’re in a climate emergency. Tell everyone you know. — Eric Holthaus

There are weather and climate records, and then there are truly exceptional events that leave all others in the dust. Such has been the case across Earth’s high latitudes during this last quarter of 2016… — Bob Henson at WeatherUnderground

Global warming doesn’t care about the election. — Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS

This weather pattern, however, has been shifting, and the winds are now blowing in the direction that bodes ill for the climate alarmists. The winds are now resulting in the accumulation of Arctic Sea ice, as with wind pattern is now blowing from Iceland towards Alaska.N_daily_extent-8

While I’ve written about this event in the past, I wanted to post an update because the Weather Channel published a fantastic video demonstrating how a storm in the Northern Atlantic is pushing the ice towards Newfoundland and the Arctic. Here is the link to the video.

Massive North Atlantic Storm Sends Surge of Ice Into St. John’s, Newfoundland Harbornewfy-storm-31mar17-explain

My bet is that once the Arctic Sea Ice begins to increase in both extent and thickness, Arctic Sea Ice will simply disappear completely from the liberal media, and the only way you will hear about it is by visiting blogs like this one.

 

Scientists Not Served Here; Real Scientists Need Not Apply

18708fa864aa1dfc31e49e347abbbce2ef5e60500ead50a2c7694fcb78897754_1

Real science is a process, a process that follows the scientific method. The scientific method is designed to standardize the process on which scientific conclusions are based. In essence,  it establishes a common language for scientists.

The Scientific Method (as I was taught in 2nd Grade)

  1. Make an Observation
  2. Formulate a “Hypothesis” (Note: This Hypothesis is Different from the Status Quo/Null Hypothesis)
  3. Collect Relevant Data
  4. Test the Data Using Standard Statistical Techniques
  5.  Analyze the Results and Either Accept or Reject the Null Hypothesis
  6. If the Null Hypothesis is Accepted, Return to Step #1

Notably absent from the scientific method is taking a poll of one’s peers and joining a “consensus.” In real science, the “consensus” is the null hypothesis and represents what is called the “Tyranny of the Status Quo.” The other aspect that is inherent but unmentioned in the scientific method is that it establishes a means to verify the conclusion through reproducibility. If the conclusion is valid, other scientists can INDEPENDENTLY repeat the same experiments and get the same results. The process of reproducibility does not include running an identical or slightly modified computer model using the same “adjusted” data on a different computer by a different like minded researcher. Computer models are computer models, they are simulations, they are forecasts, they are estimates, they are not scientific evidence. Bernie Madoff had a wonderful computer model that fooled a lot of people, but it didn’t reflect reality.

The scientific method also requires a falsifiable hypothesis. Contrary to popular belief, science doesn’t prove anything, real science disproves. Science never “accepts” the hypothesis, it either rejects or fails to reject the null hypothesis. Because of this, science never allows situations like “heads I win, tails you lose,” or CO2 can cause both hotter and colder winters, more droughts and more rain,  higher crop yields and lower crop yields, more snow and less snow, etc etc etc. You simply can’t apply the scientific method to a hypothesis where the answer can be the mutually inclusive yes AND no AND maybe. The scientific method needs a hypothesis where the conclusion is based upon the mutually exclusive yes OR no, never both or maybe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that is why it is called the “Tyranny of the Status Quo.” Failed computer models based upon “adjusted” data and bogus experiments don’t qualify as extraordinary evidence.

Lastly, the scientific method assumes the hypothesis is based upon a causal relationship. The “cause” is the independent variable, and the “effect” is the dependent variable. In any properly designed experiments, all exogenous factors (outside forces) are controlled for, allowing for a pure reading of the impact changing the independent variable has of the dependent variable. The term “ceteris paribus” means “all else held equal,” and is essential to any real scientific experiment to accurately quantify the cause and effect relationship between the independent and dependent variable.

It is with that understanding of how real science works that the fraud of climate science is easily exposed. Climate “science” is the only field of science that doesn’t apply the scientific method to reach its conclusions. The field of climate “science” doesn’t rely on data gathering, empirical evidence, experimentation, reproducibility and falsifiable hypotheses, it relies on computer models, consensus, outright threats and intimidation, half-truths and outright lies, and “peer/pal review.” logo2

Even if one accepts the degenerate and corrupt form of “science” embraced by the climate alarmists, they still don’t succeed in making their case. Under further scrutiny, the climate “science” pillars of computer models, consensus, “peer review” and claims of being a “real science” crumble.Screen-Shot-2017-03-10-at-8.23.06-PM

Remember, in real science, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This is especially relevant when the conclusions reached are used to influence public policy that may result in the spending of trillions upon trillions of dollars. This isn’t a game, every public dollar spent on fighting climate change is a dollar not spent on building roads, hospitals, schools, bridges, and dams. The misallocation of resources has real consequences for society, especially given that societies thrive during warming periods, and will collapse during the next ice age.

In order for the climate change hoax/fraud to be perpetuated, one must first corrupt the critical centers of power. Eisenhower realized this threat and warned America about the threat of a “technological elite” in his farewell address.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Evidence of this was just published, exposing that applying of the scientific method isn’t a requirement for federal research grants and publication in “Scientific” Journals. What taxpayer dollars are going to fund is what is called “advocacy research.”

“The problem in journals, with government research, and with universities is that nobody asks them to follow [it]. I’ve been publishing for 55 years and can’t ever recall anyone saying ‘you should follow the scientific method.’”

“What’s happening now is, government research, universities — they’re asking for what I call advocacy research. They have something, they want you to prove it, make sure you prove it, you do, you keep getting paid.”

“Advocacy research is the bulk of these 99 percent of non-scientific studies, and they’re not done for scientific development, they’re done to support a political idea. If you want to make money in universities these days, you publish papers that support global warming and you live handsomely.”

This provides clear evidence of the claim made on this blog that climate “science” isn’t science at all, and is simply a cleverly disguised political campaign.

For conservatives to really put this issue to bed, they need to accept the hard truth that climate “science” isn’t science at all, it is a giant ruse used to promote an anti-capitalism agenda. Facts aren’t what is important to the supporters of climate change, the benefits promised them by politicians is what is important. The benefits of “believing” in climate change are measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, the benefit of seeking the honest truth is a huge pay cut and drop in their standard of living.

What kind of Orwellian world have we created when the magazine “Science” doesn’t require the application of the scientific method for publication, and what does that say about the validity of “peer review” and the value of reaching a “consensus?” But wait, there is some hope. Science magazine, at least for biological research, is requiring “reproducibility.” The strangely worded policy mentions only “preclinical studies,” with no mention of climate science research. Given drug companies are favorite targets of the political left, this isn’t surprising, nor is the failure to address climate change.Capture10

From the following headlines, one has to ask, “what took so long?” Nature was clearly aware of the problem.

About 40% of economics experiments fail replication survey

Rigorous replication effort succeeds for just two of five cancer papers

Most scientists ‘can’t replicate studies by their peers’

Another “highly respected” journal “Nature” discovered similar issues.

Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time.

According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments.

“What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what’s actually happened,” he says. “The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results. “What I think of as high-risk, high-return results.”

“It’s about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.”

“Everyone has to take a share of the blame,” she argues. “The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes.”

The journal Nature is going to begin requiring reproducibility of submitted papers as well, but once again, the wording is very strange, failing to address climate change.

 “The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process.”

Writing in the latest edition of Nature, he outlines a new approach to animal studies that calls for independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a paper’s central hypothesis before publication.

“Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don’t know if the facts out there actually represent what’s happening in biology or not.”

In the Nature article “1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility,  Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research” climate “science” is suspiciously never mentioned. Ironically, almost all these factors are highly applicable to climate “science.”reproducibility-graphic-online4

What “Nature” and “Science” failed to mention, and the reason climate “science” is conveniently overlooked is that transparency is a fundamental requirement for reproducibility. The field of climate “science” is notorious for not releasing its data, methods and models. After the “Hockey-stick” fiasco one can understand why.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case…

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”.

Fortunately for real scientists, things appear to be changing for the better. Just this week, “HOUSE APPROVES BILL TO FORCE PUBLIC RELEASE OF EPA SCIENCE.” The question that really needs to be asked however is “why was this “science” kept secret from the public in the first place, and why did 194 Representatives vote against it?”

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency, targeting the way officials use science to develop new regulations.

A bill approved Wednesday by the GOP-controlled House would require that data used to support new regulations to protect human health and the environment be released to the public.

The bill was approved 228-194 and now goes to the Senate.

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate

Climate Change Caused the Pre-Industrial Bronze Age Collapse

pharaoh-chariot-merl

File this under: “Damned if I Do, Damned if I Don’t.”

In a fascinating video about the collapse of the great Bronze Age Civilizations, it is revealed that the most likely cause was climate change. What should we call that? Catastrophic Non-Anthropogenic Climate Change? I also find it interesting how all the events being caused by CO2 today, including the fracking caused earthquakes, also happened back in 1177 BC without coal burning power plants, SUVs and fracking. Funny how the exact same observation can get totally different explanations, but then again, if you aren’t looking for the real answers, it is unlikely you will find them. Also, how do we know that CO2 hasn’t prevented a reoccurrence of the climate change of 1177 BC?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pollen Study Points to Drought as Culprit in Bronze Age Mystery

Study solves a 3,000-year-old mystery with pollen

Bronze Age Collapse: Pollen Study Highlights Late Bronze Age Drought

Climate change may have caused demise of Late Bronze Age civilizations

Drought Led to Collapse of Civilizations, Study Says

Drought May Have Doomed Bronze Age Civilizations

300-Year Drought Was Downfall of Ancient Greece

How globalization and climate change destroyed ancient civilization

The Collapse of Civilizations: It’s Complicated

A similar event occurred later in the Bronze Age in Europe around 800 BC. While scholars debate if the climate change caused the population decline, they all agree on the fact that the climate dramatically changed in a relatively short period of time without the influence of anthropogenic CO2. Also, cooling, not warming has historically lead to downfalls of society. There were no great civilizations during the ice age, great civilizations emerged as temperatures increased and crop yields reached the levels needed to sustain the great ancient civilizations.

Historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and scientists often find that connections between climate and human activity are particularly clear, and especially well-documented, in times of crisis. It is no surprise, then, that scholars have sought to link the Bronze Age collapse to climate change…They found that, in Northwestern Europe, populations began to decline more than a century before the late Bronze Age climate started to cool. Collapse in this part of Europe therefore cannot be tied to climate change.

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate