Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

Archive for November, 2009

Selected Alleged Climate Data and Programs posted by Real Climate

Posted by pwl on November 30, 2009

Extracting all of one’s teeth would have been preferable than what the alleged scientists of the Climategate scandal have done dragging their feet to post the data and code for their alleged ManN Caused Global Warming Climate Change (AGW Hypothesis).

Of course one must be suspicious of the data they have posted since their proven track record of doctoring the data leads many to consider their integrity.

The Real Climate web site is RUN by the Climategate alleged scientists who are now known to have doctored the data. A full audit is required of this new posting by them.

If only they had done their scientific duty when first asked YEARS ago!

The video summarized the details of the alleged crimes of the alleged scientists of Climategate who control Real Climate dot org (Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, et. al..

The data and code page need to be taken with suspicion due to the alleged crimes which the Climategate files show. The burden of proof is now squarely upon these Climategate alleged scientists to PROVE that this data is unprocessed RAW and that it was processed the way they claim. In science the burden of proof is upon those making the claims, and that is ten times the case when those alleged scientists have been shown to be unethical (which is being generous to them).

“This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science.”
Alleged Climate Science Data at Real Climate

Posted in Adult Supervision Required, Bad Science Attitude, Caustic Scientists, Climate Science, Climategate, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Hard Science Required, Ignorance to Knowledge, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada | Leave a Comment »

Al Gore Illegally Assaulting, Harassing and Detaining People With his Security Goons With Guns To Avoid Any Questions on Climategate and AGW

Posted by pwl on November 30, 2009

Three men assaulted by goons under orders from Al Gore.

Does Al Gore still think he has sovereign powers as an ex-president? Where does Al Gore get off illegally forcibly assaulting people who ask him questions he doesn’t like? I know of nothing in the US Constitution that would permit a private citizen to use force as was done here multiple times.

The evidence shows that Al Gore considers questions on Climategate and AGW from non-violent people to be an imminent security threat as he orders his (secret service?) security detail to forcibly remove three people who ask inconvenient questions Mr Gore doesn’t like.

“CHICAGO IL – On Tuesday, November 24th 2009, We Are Change Chicago attended a book signing with former vice president Al Gore, at the Borders Bookstore on 150 N. State Street.

First up was Saad Ali. As he approached Gore, he peacefully and respectably asked, “Sir, can you comment on the emails and documents that were hacked [ClimateGate] that reveal… that the research was a fraud and that it was all manipulated?” Gore, with an evil smirk, claimed that “he never read them.” By the look on his face and his stutter, it became quite clear that Gore was extremely uncomfortable with the question, so he quickly glared towards his security. The agents grabbed and assaulted Saad, escorting him away from Gore for merely asking a simple question. The press took notice and started filming and snapping pictures of what was going on. One of which appeared the next day in the Chicago Sun Times.”

Quotes, image and video from Al Gore Confronted On Climategate in Chicago

This of course isn’t the first time that Al Gore has used intimidation and assault to stifle free debate and free speech of his critics as these following videos testify to.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Adult Supervision Required, Awesome, Bad Science Attitude, Belief Stricken, Believe it or your a denier!, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Climate Science, Climategate, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Double Yikes!!, Eeek!, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Police State Insanity, Politics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Scams, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown, Stifling Dissent with Force, TerrorForming Earth, Terrorfying, Video | 1 Comment »

When Soothsaying, ahem, Predicting, the Future Weather and Climate, Accuracy Matters and as such the AGW Hypothesis fails while the Solar Weather Technique succeeds!

Posted by pwl on November 29, 2009

What is the difference between a soothsayer and an accurate prediction and forecasting foretelling the future weather and climate? Methodology and accuracy of results. First let’s define the terms.

A prediction is a statement or claim that a particular event will occur in the future in more certain terms than a forecast. The etymology of the word is Latin (præ-, “before,” and dicere, “to say“). Howard H. Stevenson writes: “Prediction is at least two things: Important and hard.” Important, because we have to act, and hard because we have to realize the future we want, and what is the best way to get there.

In a scientific context, a prediction is a rigorous, (often quantitative), statement forecasting what will happen under specific conditions, typically expressed in the form If A is true, then B will also be true. The scientific method is built on testing assertions which are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies.

A scientific theory whose assertions are not in accordance with observations and evidence will probably be rejected. Theories that make no testable predictions remain protosciences until testable predictions become known to the community.

Additionally, if new theories generate many new predictions, they are often highly valued, for they can be quickly and easily confirmed or falsified (see predictive power). In many scientific fields, desirable theories are those which predict a large number of events from relatively few underlying principles.


A soothsayer is a person who claims to speak sooth (truth or reality, smooth (political savy, gift of the gaff, able to smoothly con), or soft (the soft sell)): specifically one who predicts the future based upon personal, political, spiritual, mental, or religious beliefs rather than scientific facts.

Making up scientific facts or playing “tricks” with them to fit your theory disqualifies one from being a scientist as one is “soothsaying” and very likely committing fraud especially when claims are made that people act upon or when money is involved.

As we are learning from Climategate, clearly the AGW alarmist crowd would rather fudge the data than let the chips fall where they may. Phil Jones, Michael Mann et. al. have a lot to learn from those who accurately predict the weather and climate!

What is their [Phil Jones Climate Research Unit’s] success rate [at predicting the climate using their hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change (AGW)]?” – Corbyn

Let’s see. Here below is their infamous hockey stick graph and as the graph below it shows the actual data their success rate is, oh dear worse than zero since they faked the data… as proven with the Climategate revelations.

Fälschung (German) – forgery, forging, faking, counterfeiting, counterfeit, phoney, phony, falsification, fake.

It seems clear that the CRU forecasts of extreme climate warming of ten years ago have been falsified (i.e. they failed) due to the FACT that the last decade has seen a decline in temperatures. When predicting weather or climate it’s not just your “hypothesis” that is important it’s the actual predictions that you make that succeed or fail to predict the future. You’ve got it wrong Phil Jones, Michael Mann et. al. as anyone can see by looking at the temperatures, and you admit it privately in the Climategate emails, have the guts to be men and publicly admit that your AGW predictions have failed!

The purple line is the rising CO2 levels and as you can see from the blue temperature graph the last decade has declined and not followed the rise in CO2. Funny that. Oh wait, that's direct evidence that the AGW hypothesis failed to predict the last decade and thus falsifies the hypothesis. Oops, darn Nature not cooperating with the hypothesis.

Well it’s the evidence shows it’s conclusive, Phil Jones, Michael Mann et. al. are soothsayers as their Hockey Stick AGW forecasts failed to predict accurately the last ten years.

It’s conclusive Piers Corbyn is on to something significant using the Solar Weather Technique to with high accuracy predict the future weather and climate. Not a soothsayer but a true scientist working his craft.

Let’s explore the Solar Weather Technique of Weather and Climate Forecasting that seems to achieve remarkable results.

“Early Weather Action (Solar Weather Technique) skill was independently verified in a peer-reviewed paper by Dr Dennis Wheeler, University of Sunderland, in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63 (2001) p29-34.”

A verification of UK gale forecasts by the ‘solar weather technique’: October 1995–September 1997
In recent years the ‘solar weather’ technique of weather forecasting which takes into account of the influence of the sun has received much attention. No attempt has hitherto been made to determine the success, or otherwise, of elements of these forecasts, which include solar predictors and are prepared 6–11 months in advance of the events they predict. This paper conducts an evaluation of these forecasts but confines attention to the prediction of gales. Skill levels are assessed over different seasons. The results, whilst differing greatly between the seasons, reveal a degree of success that cannot readily be accounted for by chance and suggest that this system of forecasting continues to be assessed over a longer time period to further investigate these findings.

Further detailed successful results are found on the linked page above.

[Piers] Corbyn’s predictions are based on what is called “The Solar Weather Technique.”[8] The technique “combines statistical analysis of over a century of historical weather patterns with clues derived from solar observations.”[1] He considers past weather patterns and solar observations and sun-earth magnetic connectivity. Conventional meteorology claims that such influences cause minimal impact on the Earth’s atmosphere[9].

The Solar Weather Technique explained

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, History, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, It's weather AND climate!, Proofs, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Video | 2 Comments »

Growing calls for Climategate alledged scientists to resign

Posted by pwl on November 29, 2009

Posted in Climate Science, Climategate, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada, Video, WOW!!!, Yikes! | Leave a Comment »

Without this one thing there would be no Global Warming at all and we’d all freeze to death!

Posted by pwl on November 28, 2009

The Sun Sol

It matters, especially in modern times, what the Sun is doing.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Awesome beyond awesome, Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Conspiracy Theory, Double Yikes!!, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ideas Crazy Enough to Have a Chance, Philosophy, Proofs, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science Info Educational Videos, Science over Propaganada, Science Shows, Something to think about, Terrorfying, The End is Nigh, Video, WOW!!! | Leave a Comment »

Human Caused Global Warming Climate Change Doomsday Called Off due to the alleged science of the Climategate alleged Scietists

Posted by pwl on November 28, 2009

The amazing CBC documentary Doomsday Called Off.

This following summary updates the above documentary with the Climategate revelations.

Posted in Adult Supervision Required, Bad Science Attitude, Believe it or your a denier!, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Conspiracy Theory, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Double Yikes!!, Eeek!, Get some perspective people, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Reality Based Environmentalism, Respect Nature or Else, Science Info Educational Videos, Science over Propaganada, Something to think about, Terrorfying, Video, Yikes! | Leave a Comment »

Climategate has been ongoing for a very long time with Mosquitos in the Arctic telling the tale

Posted by pwl on November 28, 2009

Part Seven of this acclaimed documentary is highly relevant to the Climategate.

In this case of AGW the precautionary principle will cause more harm than good especially to people in developing countries who need the energy the most to survive.

A real application of the precautionary principle is to ensure that the claims of Human Caused Global Warming Climate Change are put through the toughest criticisms possible in science and that the conclusions are verifiable though a rigorous and OPEN process.

The full documentary:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Double Yikes!!, Eaten Alive, Eeek!, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Learning about Science Organizations, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Scams, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown, TerrorForming Earth, Terrorfying, Video | Leave a Comment »

Shuttle Atlantis Mission STS-129

Posted by pwl on November 27, 2009

STS-129 (ISS assembly flight ULF3)[2] was the most recent Space Shuttle mission to the International Space Station (ISS). Atlantis launched on 16 November 2009, at 14:28 Eastern: UTC -5[3][4] and landed at 9:44 a.m. EST on 27 November 2009 on runway 33 at the Kennedy Space Center’s Shuttle Landing Facility.

STS-129 focused on staging spare components outside the station. The 11-day flight included three spacewalks. The payload bay carried two large ExPRESS Logistics Carriers holding two spare gyroscopes, two nitrogen tank assemblies, two pump modules, an ammonia tank assembly, a spare latching end effector for the station’s robotic arm, a spare trailing umbilical system for the Mobile Transporter, and a high-pressure gas tank. STS-129 was the first flight of an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier. The completion of this mission leaves five space shuttle flights remaining until the end of the program.[5]

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Awesome, Dreaming, Fun, Hard Science, Science Education, Video | Leave a Comment »

The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Satellite Results Recently Proved That When The Earth Heats Up It Emits More Radiation Thus Falsifying the Simplistic Greenhouse Models used in AGW Hypothesis

Posted by pwl on November 27, 2009

Two streams of videos. First the series with Christopher Monckton interviewed by Michael Coren in Toronto, Canada and then the second series with Professor Lindzen. We also link to the professors new paper showing the new results on heat escaping from the Earth being ~1/6 that the IPCC guessed it was.

Here’s what you won’t hear on the CBC!

~”As the Earth warms it radiates more heat into space. Why is that important? The entire case of the AGW Alarmists is based on one false assumption that is built into all models is that as the world warms then less outgoing radiation will escape into space. That is contrary to reason and elementary physics. The computer models are told this wrong assumption. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Satellite measured that more radiation gets out into space when the Earth warms. We now know that more radiation escapes and if it escapes it’s not heating the Earth.” – Christopher Monckton (paraphrased).

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate Science, Climategate, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Ethics in Science, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Humbled by Nature, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada, Video | 4 Comments »

Mainstream Media Ignoring Climategate?

Posted by pwl on November 27, 2009

Posted in Climate Science, Climategate, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada, Video | Leave a Comment »

The Ice is Melting, The Sea is Rising, Hurricanes are Blowing, and it’s all YOUR FAULT!

Posted by pwl on November 26, 2009

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Believe it or your a denier!, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Climate Science, Climategate, Conspiracy Theory, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Fun, Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Respect Nature or Else, Science Education, Science Info Educational Videos, Science over Propaganada, Something to think about, Splish Splash Taking a Bath, TerrorForming Earth, Terrorfying, The End is Nigh, The Ground is Falling Up!, The Sky Is Falling, Total Control Over Our Lives, Video, Yikes! | Leave a Comment »

Ed Beg(ley)s the Question, circular reasoning, logical falisies and appeals to authority abound in the Blinded by Green Cult

Posted by pwl on November 26, 2009

Well obviously it “Beg(ley)s the Question” (sorry I couldn’t resist) about why Ed Begley hasn’t read or seen the part of Climategate that shows that the so called “peer review” was hijacked and stacked and thus can’t be trusted! Oops! Obviously Ed’s not up on the latest developments or is choosing to ignore the evidence of the Very Serious Climategate Peer Review Process Corruption that has taken place!

Begging the question (or petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”) is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Begging the question is related to circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin for “circle in proving”) or circular reasoning but they are considered absolutely different by Aristotle.[1] The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BC, in his book Prior Analytics, where he classified it as a material fallacy.

Worse than “Begging the Question” Begley uses the “Appeal to Authority” argument for constructing his belief based view of reality. In the video Ed Begley goes on and on literally yelling to control the interviewer with intimidation spouting “peer review” repeatedly in so many ways thus making an appeal to authorities. Unfortunately it fails for him due to the fraudulent representations of the Climategate alleged scientists. Regardless appeals to authority are not substantive in science, what is substantive in science is the cold hard verifiable evidence that either proves or refutes a hypothesis!

For intelligent people who require actual factual evidence of a claim in question the appeal to authority holds no value. What hold value to evidence based people is the actual factual verifiable and repeatable evidence! Prove your hypothesis conclusively with review by anyone with the skills to peer review it! Basing one’s important decisions on appeals to authority in science is just asking for serious trouble and invites cult style belief systems of thought. Verifiable Open Evidence is the knife that separates the facts from the fiction in science.

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

The Journals must be quivering under the Climategate revelations of peer review corruption. I wonder how many will crumble as a result? Or will they get their footing back and survive? I wonder how peer review journals will adapt their policies to correct for this pernicious corruption of the scientific process?

By Ed’s reasoning, excluding everyone who is “not a degreed climate scientist” that rather puts Dr. James Hansen out of the picture, and many others, including Al Gore.” – Anthony Watts

So yes, according to Ed Begley no one without a PhD in “climate science” can be trusted. Not even Al Gore!. Not even Ed Begley himself who is giving advice! Oh wait, if Ed Begley can’t be trusted then neither can his advice about people having a climate science PhD after their name! Oh the hypocrisy abounds as does the lack of understanding of the scientific process!
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bad Science Attitude, Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Green Religion, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Ignorance to Knowledge, Live Brains!, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Religion, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, TerrorForming Earth, Terrorfying, To Hell With You Buddy, Total Control Over Our Lives, Video, Violent, WOW!!!, Yikes!, Yikes! The sky is NOT falling!, Zombie Environmentalists, Zombies | 2 Comments »

The Muppets rule as Queen in Bohemian Rhapsody, plus the classic Mahna Mahna

Posted by pwl on November 26, 2009

Posted in Awesome, Awesome beyond awesome, Entertainment, Fun, Majestic Universe, Really Funny, Video, WOW!!! | Leave a Comment »

Call for Resignation of Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et. al. (Gavin Schmidt, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Ammann, …) for their role in Climategate

Posted by pwl on November 24, 2009

The alleged Climategate science criminals and the alleged crimes and unethical acts they committed.

If all you do is watch this one video this is the one video to watch to get a summary of what Climategate is all about.

If you’ve not heard the shocking news, the key scientists behind the main proof for human caused global warming (AGW) have had their internal emails and computer programs exposed by a whistle-blower revealing that they cooked the books to make it seem like the planet it warming.

They faked their data and committed other crimes such as deleting data when presented with a Freedom of Information Request which is a crime in Great Brittan. They are also the key players on the UN’s IPCC. The infamous Hockey Stick Graph is Al Gore’s film has now been unequivocally proven to be not just wrong but criminally faked!

The video in the article is an excellent summary of the key players and their specific crimes identified so far.

Mann’s work doesn’t meet that definition [of science], and those who use Mann’s curve in their arguments are not making a scientific argument. One of Pournelle’s Laws states “You can prove anything if you can make up your data.” I will now add another Pournelle’s Law: “You can prove anything if you can keep your algorithms secret.”
–Jerry Pournelle, 18 February 2005
East Anglia Emails, 1109021312.txt

“It’s getting pretty clear what happened. These academics, who were influential in framing the UN climate report on which most of the political decisions on what to do about man-made global warming depend, became alarmed when the data over the past few years didn’t support the predictions of their models. At this point they had a choice: to accept the new data and see what that did to the theory, or simply to cover it up because they were convinced the basic theory was correct and the issue was too important to allow the theory to come under serious doubt.” – Jerry Pournell, 24 November 2009

Guess what they chose? Did they choose honoring the scientific method and follow the data where it lead? NOPE! They actually choose the Dark Side of the Forcings and the results are now revealed to all to see. As a direct result they choose to not be scientists anymore as the evidence illuminates so clearly. They choose to be political activists with a cause ignoring the actual data rather than scientists respecting the actual data. They choose alarmism rather than to properly consider the facts as they are.

“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker [editor note: an alleged hacker although it could may well have been an internal whistle-blower with integrity and a conscience to clear – pwl] from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging (1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally [editor note: that has yet to be determined in a court of law -pwl]. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released (2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request (4).

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics (5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.” – George Monbiot, Humann Caused Global Warming Alarmist Science Writer and Activist, published in the Guardian, 23rd November 2009

Unfortunately I concur with Jerry Pournelle’s assessment and with the above portion of George Monboit’s comments. This is a very sad episode in the annals of science.

UPDATE 20091128: Now even members of the IPCC itself are calling to BAN these alleged Climategate science criminals from the IPCC! WOW!

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. [Editor’s Note: Fear of reprisals from the Climategate criminals voiced in public! A paradigm shift has occurred!] My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ‘soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files.The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.

… I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the ‘hockey stick graph’ or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. … They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.

How long will it be before the resignations begin?

Phil Jones and Micheal E. Mann indite themselves in these emails. Here is one egregious sample. See the references below for the raw email files and read them for yourself.

“From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann
Subject: IPCC & FOI:04:11 2008
Date: Thu May 29 11
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise.
He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

1212073451.txt

“AR4” referrers to the fourth UN IPCC Climate Assessment Report.

“According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. “It’s quite naughty to do that,” said Ms. Moffatt.” – As Serious As Crime.

The Climate Research Unit released a couple of press releases here and here to cover their asses in the Pernicious Climategate Scandal that is rocking their tidy deceptive world. Nice try but you fail. The very serious allegations against your group are shocking and invalidate and bring into disrepute all of your works and all works based upon your works.

As a result of the Climategate allegations in the CRU Files FOI 2009 Philip D. Jones, Michael E. Mann, et. al. (Gavin Schmidt, Keith Briffa, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Ammann, Stephen H Schneider, Myles Allen, Peter Stott, Benjamin Santer, Tom Wigley, Thomas R Karl, James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, Eystein Jansen, Tim Osborn, …) how about your resignation today
(1) for Scientific Fraud, and
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bad Science Attitude, Believe it or your a denier!, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Caustic Scientists, Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown, The End is Nigh, The Sky Is Falling, Total Control Over Our Lives, Watching the Watchers | Leave a Comment »

Mannian Global Warming Climate Scientists Exposed as Scientific Fraud Artists? | Climategate

Posted by pwl on November 22, 2009

Homerian Wisdom tells the tale of the shifting perception.

That’s a subtle way of putting it Homer. The inside tip of course are the Climate Research Unit (CRU)’s released emails. They were either released by (1) a hacker, (2) incompetence leaving the internally collected Freedom of Information (FOI) Requested information on a public server, or (3) a whistler blower intentionally leaving it on a public server.

Of course Al’s still at his game setting up his corporate pieces to position himself so that he can make billions in various ventures such as Carbon Credit Trading and other investments opened due to his propaganda now shown to have been based upon falsified and “mannipulated” techniques.

The entire basis for Al Gore’s claims using the infamous hockey stick graph has suspected of being based upon fraudulent science for some time. NOW there is evidence to back up these suspicions. As close to a smoking gun as you can get!

This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” – Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels on the CRU Files.

To quote the immortal word of Homer Simpson, “Doh!”.

This is a potentially a very serious issue should these charges be proven. Should criminal charges be laid against Dr. Mann and members his close inbred network of 40 or more climate scientists who very possibly manipulated the data to achieve political and career ends and in the process distorted science with fraudulent activities? Certainly it’s unethical science that has been conducted. Time will tell who goes to jail or has their career in science ended for their role in doing the alleged fraudulent climate science of Dr. Mann and his cohorts.

“This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.

Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics’ research was unwelcome: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.”
Wall Street Journal

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bad Science Attitude, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Conspiracy Theory, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Double Yikes!!, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Total Control Over Our Lives, Video, WOW!!! | 3 Comments »

“The interior of the earth is extremely hot, several millions of degrees.” – Al Gore!!!

Posted by pwl on November 16, 2009

2012 SPOILER ALERT for the movie 2012!!!!

The interior of the earth is extremely hot, several millions of degrees.” – Al Gore!!! on The Tonight Show, 12th November 2009!

After all these years claiming to know the facts Al Gore get’s it SO EMBARRASSINGLY WRONG! This “mistake” of Gore’s is likely the result of Al Gore’s stated strategic tactic to exaggerate the facts regardless of how much he distorts them! The amazing thing is that he gets away with it even when it’s pointed out that he is blatantly exaggerating beyond any reasonable scale and thus lying.

“In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore in an interview.

This is mind blowing ignorance on the part of Al Gore. … Watching Gore make a complete scientific idiot of himself on national TV: priceless.” – Anthony Watts

Al Gore proves that he can’t be trusted on Scientific Information! We knew that but now it’s abundantly clear, he can’t even get the facts straight!

“There is no way to measure the temperature at the Earth’s core directly. We know from mines and drill holes that, near the surface of the Earth, the temperature increases by about 1 degree Fahrenheit for every 60 feet in depth. If this temperature increase continued to the center of the Earth, the Earth’s core would be 100,000 degrees Celsius!

But nobody believes the Earth is that hot [except evidently Al Gore]; the temperature increase must slow down with depth and the core is probably about 3000 to 5000 degrees Celsius.

This estimate of the temperature is derived from theoretical modeling and laboratory experiments. This work is very difficult (and speculative) since nobody can reproduce in a laboratory the high temperatures and pressures that exist in the core. Also it is not known exactly what the core is made of.”
Ask A Scientist

Either Al Gore is a priceless idiot or he’s warning us about 2012!!!! This is what would happen if the Earth’s Core was “several million degrees! Get to your airplanes fast folks!”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Adult Supervision Required, Awesome beyond awesome, Bad Science, Bad Science Attitude, Believe it or your a denier!, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Double Yikes!!, Eeek!, Energy, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Majestic Universe, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Really Funny, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, TerrorForming Earth, The End is Nigh, Video, WOW!!!, Yikes! | 3 Comments »

Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

Posted by pwl on November 14, 2009

Conversation with Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg.

Part 1 of 8.

“The whole history of the last thousands of years has been a history of religious persecutions and wars, pogroms, jihads, crusades. I find it all very regrettable, to say the least.”

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

“I can hope that this long sad story, this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas, will come to an end. I hope this is something to which science can contribute … it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

“This is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition.”

Steven Weinberg, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Texas at Austin, 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics

Part 2 of 8.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Adult Supervision Required, Awesome beyond awesome, Biology, Climate Science, Complex Systems, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Gravity, Hard Science, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Intelligent Designer - Yeah Right, Invisible Friend Crowd, It's a good thing that your god(s) die with you, Majestic Universe, Philosophy, Proof God Can NOT Exist, Rational Thinking, Religion, Science Education, Science Info Educational Videos, Science over Propaganada, Video | 7 Comments »

When scientists fail to present all the known facts including the ones that contradict their hypothesis they become propagandists and bad scientists

Posted by pwl on November 8, 2009

The belief that the ends justifies the means may be the true root of all evil. – Troy Brumley

A prime example of how science is distorted by – likely well meaning – scientists or science educators. Deliberately or not this video is a masterful piece of propaganda pretending to be science. Credits are due to Greg Craven, the master propagandist who appears in the video.

Greg Craven: falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus?
Greg Craven: false in one thing, false in everything?

Neither risk presented in the video is acceptable because they are a false choice and Greg Craven knows it [or he should know it as a science teacher]! His logic is flawed since he presents a “binary choice” and that is his mistake, black and white thinking. His second mistake is presenting a false dilemma when he knows the facts much better [or should know them better as a science teacher]! There are so many other choices one can choose that it’s not funny. It’s typical of many people trained in the sciences and technology, as well as the general public, to think in black and white binary terms. The universe is fuzzy people. It’s about time we realized that.

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix “di” in “dilemma” means “two”. When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (“If you are not with us, you are against us.”) But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception (“I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren’t there.”)

When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.

Furthermore the dark vision of doom and gloom presented by the human caused global warming alarmists is exaggerated! Even Al Gore admits that he exaggerates – lies outright – just to get people to act! It’s clear that the alarmist views are not on the same footing as a rational scientific view that can be audited and examined fully in the public eyes.

Al Gore admits that he deliberately lies to and scares people for political gain on the topic of human caused global warming climate change. His lying is so blatant that he arrogantly brags about it! Wow, mastery of propaganda is certainly a strong suit for Al Gore.

“In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore in an interview.

Steven Schneider [now deceased], [was] an alleged climate scientist who also advocates [advocated] lying to people and scaring them with outright lies for political gain. Wow what a one man propaganda machine.

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Steven Schneider, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989; for the original, together with Schneider’s commentary on it misrepresentation see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.

Schneider has been publicly criticized by fellow atmospheric scientist, Craig Bohren, for his history of self-promotion using contradictory climate scares:

“…some of the prominent global warmers of today were global coolers of not so long ago. In particular, Steven Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age. The culprit then was particles belched into the atmosphere by human activities. No matter how the climate changes he can correctly say that he predicted it. No one in the atmospheric science community has been more successful at getting publicity. NCAR used to send my department clippings from newspaper and magazine articles in which NCAR researchers were named. We’d get thick wads of clippings, almost all of which were devoted to Schneider. Perhaps global warming is bad for the rest of us, but for Schneider and others [such as Al Gore] it has been a godsend.

More scare mongers with a deliberate lying bent where the end justifies the means, scientists, politicians and eco-warriors alike admitting they are willing to lie through their teeth to get the job done even if it’s global warming is false! Wow.

“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
— Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.” (Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland’s glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing”
(Tim Wirth 1990, former US Senator) as quoted in NCPA Brief 213; September 6, 1996

A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)

We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion — guilt-free at last!
— Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)

Taking action can cause much worse problems for humans by rushing and taking the wrong actions. It’s very possible that the huge economic upheaval that is being caused by the rush to judgment by the alarmists will actually cause more harm than any real amount of actual warming.

Will Greg Craven, the guy in the video, take personal responsibility for all those that die in the economic turmoil of the implementation of useless “carbon solutions” for his role in presenting false dilemmas? Will he be responsible for those that die as the planet it terrorformed by his advocacy? I doubt it.

Besides the facts now show that the last ten years have been getting colder. Cold is the new warming. What? Yup. It’s getting colder which means the planet is warming. Weird, but that is what the alarmists claim.

Having an accurate assessment of the risks is crucial for any decision making process. This guy presents the situation in binary thinking and aims you towards his forgone conclusion revealing his bias. More propaganda based upon false reasoning steps and a very crude method of risk management. Since we already know that the alarmists claims are false (even they admit it) this guy is presenting a false choice on the alarmist side of the ledger.

Overall Greg Craven fails as a scientist to present the full set of known facts but passes as an effective and craven propagandist. As such Greg Craven gets a failing grade.

One Richard Feynman has this to say about falsification and full disclosure and it should be a lesson to Greg Craven and the others quoted above as Greg and the others are being schooled by Feynman indeed:

“But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves–of having utter scientific integrity–is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren’t any.” He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.” I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing–and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.

I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.

But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science.

And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?

So I have just one wish for you–the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom. ” – Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science, A Lesson From Richard Feynman For Scientists of Today to Learn

Sounds like Greg Craven needs to go back to grade ten science class and relearn the basics as long as his science teacher is someone like Richard Feynman and very unlike Greg Craven.


 

A detailed analysis of Greg Craven’s video “How the World Ends” (which have the same false dilemma argument) is illuminating of Greg Craven’s craven attitude towards factual science presentations.

Now a more rational video presentation on climate science.

What is Normal Climate?

 


 

All we can do is adapt, it is the sun that does it, not man.


Article updated 20101230.

Posted in Bad Science, Bad Science Attitude, Believe it or your a denier!, Caustic Scientists, Climate Science, Complex Systems, Eeek!, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Philosophy, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Something to think about, TerrorForming Earth, Terrorfying, The End is Nigh, The Sky Is Falling, Video | 2 Comments »

Climate is a mathematical abstraction, Weather is what is real and happening now and now and now, now being the only time that exists in reality

Posted by pwl on November 7, 2009

Now is the only moment of time that actually exists in reality. The past is but a memory. The future an illusion. Tomorrow never comes for when it does it is today and there is always another tomorrow. Now is the Time! This moment, now! Now. Now. Now. The Time is Now and never any other!

That time is NOW! Save us from Mann Caused Global Warming Climate Change Alarmists and their Soothsaying Hysteria! Save US NOW and bring Justice to Science so that Science can Prevail over Soothsaying Alarmist Propaganda!

So it’s fine for the endangered human caused global warming climate change alarmists to yell “look it’s Ida, extreme weather” caused by human caused global warming climate change yet when it’s pointed out that October 2009 is the 3rd coldest in 115 years on record it’s just weather and not climate? Double standards on the “it’s weather no it’s climate vs. it’s climate no it’s just weather”?

Climate extremes cause weather extremes! Is that a fair statement? Or is it that weather extremes cause climate extremes?

Climate is weather averaged over decade long times scales… extreme climate depends on your time window and your statistical prowess poker face.

Climate is weather. Without weather there would be no climate. Two sides of the same coin flipping about with randomness generated internally within the system. (See Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science, chapter 2 for how this newly discovered form of randomness operates for even very simple systems to show highly complex and extremely unpredictable behaviors).

Climate is weather. Extremes in weather are just the planet going about it’s business. As such extremes in weather mathematically show up in the decade long time scales to varying amounts.

How do we really know where each change in climate really comes from? Assigning this fraction of a degree to that cause and that fraction of a degree to this other cause ad infinitum makes no sense as that isn’t how Nature plans it out not that Nature plans it out.

Now it seems that it’s a heat budget thing with heat into a system (the planet) and heat out (of the planet) by various means. We have various forms of light and electromagnetic radiation touching and being absorbed by the planet with some reflecting off or changing and reflecting off. We have movement of the planet in it’s ever changing always unique orbit of Sol, not to mention other gravitational influences such as the moon and even other planetary bodies. We have cosmic rays and other high energy particle streams impacting the planet or going right on through. Cosmic rays from near and distant stars as we orbit the galaxy so close. We have chemical reactions and volcanoes and oceans mixing and moving and we have the hot and molten inner layers plus the rotating core providing our magnetic fields fluctuating always churning and interacting. Not to mention the bizarre lumpy gravity fields that distort the seemingly squashed spheroid of the planet into what can best be described as a total gravity mess beaten up all bent out of it’s idealized shape we can see from space. We’ve got so many processes and forces at work that we think we can apportion a fraction of a degree to this or that.

It would be really funny if it wasn’t so serious a conversation about doom and gloom. The climate change soothsayers have taking a bite out of sanity and are running a con game that has at it’s core irrational correlations that are weak at best and fraudulent at worse and outright lies in the extreme.

I would love to see an article by one of the major scientists on ALL the elements impacting the climate summarized, glossarized and indexed by the various “fractions of degrees” that they allegedly contribute and how to the climate and to the all important weather.

Climate is a mathematical abstraction. Weather is real and is happening now, the only moment in time that actually exists. The past gone. The future is an illusion and never exists. Tomorrow never comes as there is always another tomorrow when today shows up now. It’s an important aspect of comprehending time that now is all that is real. All there ever is is now and that means weather rules the climate not the other way around.

This is what we really need to be protecting against: The Real Threat to Humanity – other than ourselves – are Asteroid Impacts! We missed being hit two days ago and a month ago our atmosphere protected us from an asteroid with enough punch to product an 50 Kiloton detonation high up in the atmosphere. Ouch!

Actually it would be more like this but the above video has a better sound track!

This one is the bomb, literally an Extinction Level Event (ELE)!

Posted in Climate Science, Complex Systems, Definition of Terms, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Humbled by Nature, Philosophy, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada, Something to think about | Leave a Comment »

Learning to think for yourself means getting outside of your box of known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knows and unknown unknowns and explore the possibilities beyond the options

Posted by pwl on November 6, 2009

The Ontology of Being

“It’s to give people an opportunity to think for themselves… what happens is that most of us think that our very strongly held beliefs, you know those things we hold, our opinions, that are very strong, we think that that is thinking for ourselves but it isn’t really. The ability to think for yourself really means the ability to think something that you haven’t thought before. To think outside the allowable range of thoughts rather than just inside the allowable range of thoughts.” – Werner Erhard, TV Interview

Learn to think for yourself out side of your allowable range of thoughts and especially outside the cage of your beliefs and opinions.

The Known Knowns.
The Known Unknowns.
The Unknown Knowns.
The Unknown Unknowns.

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.” – quote popularized globally by Donald Rumsfeld in justification of mass murder; quote popularized by Werner Erhard in the 1970’s and 80’s to make the world a better place one person at a time.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s Werner Ehard’s est Training Program used this quote (or a variant thereof that covers all four possibilities, known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, unknown unknowns) as a part of the course material. Landmark Education’s The Landmark Forum course also uses it. One point of using it is to help people see the limits of their knowledge and the edges of the metaphorical box they live in. Where are our blind spots when it comes to our knowledge or lack there of? What are the risks of ignorance? The exploration of these four domains would be extensive and take many hours of these courses.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Adult Supervision Required, Awesome, Awesome beyond awesome, Ethics in Science, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science Required, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ideas Crazy Enough to Have a Chance, Ignorance to Knowledge, It's a good thing that your god(s) die with you, Live Brains!, Ontology of Being, Philosophy, Rational Thinking, Science over Propaganada, Something to think about, Video, Werner Erhard, WOW!!! | 8 Comments »

All belief is religion as belief isn’t based upon verifiable knowledge

Posted by pwl on November 5, 2009

All belief is religion as belief isn’t based upon verifiable knowledge.

“A United Kingdom court has ruled that a man can take his employer to court on the grounds that he was discriminated against because of his views on climate change. …

Mr Nicholson successfully argued that his moral values about the environment should be recognised under the same laws that protect religious beliefs.

In the landmark ruling, Justice Michael Burton said that a belief in man-made climate change is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the religion and belief regulations.” Beliefs on climate like Religion, court rules

The word “belief” is a problematic word with so many definitions that you have to pretty much define what you mean either by the context or by direction definition.

Generally when I’m down on the word belief I specifically mean “religious belief” or “supernatural belief” and not a belief that my car is still parked where it is.

I don’t think it’s responsible to say that “I believe in Newton’s Gravity Theory” as to use the word belief to talk about facts mis-communicates to the masses of people out there without scientific training. It’s better to use other words. Your “belief” that letting go of a stone has nothing to do with whether or not the stone falls.

Common uses of belief basically mean that you don’t know or don’t have evidence and that you assume it is true anyway. Since you do have evidence that dropping a stone on earth will have it fall (unless it’s otherwise supported or blocked) using the word belief is a mistake. One instead should say “I know that when I let go of a stone at chest level, it will fall (assuming that it’s not supported or blocked in some other manner).” This has clarity.

It is a big mistake for Richard Dawkins to be using the word belief the way he does with regards to scientific knowledge. He should be more careful and define his terms more precisely when talking about scientific knowledge and what is know and what isn’t since the religious masses use the word belief differently.

Sure people have a “belief” that X person will be a good political leader, but that is an entirely different category and meaning of belief than “belief that god exists” which is a statement that has no evidence and will never have any evidence in all probability not even mentioning all the evidence against the possibility of any gods existing.

As for climate change caused by man the science isn’t settled and if you think it is that is your “belief” and not a valid scientific statement. The more I learn the more I learn that we don’t yet have conclusive answers and that politics of extreme environmentalism started it and now that mainstream politicians have gotten into the act it’s now even more highly suspect. So I’d say show the evidence in a context where it can be audited by anyone which means showing all the data, raw and manipulated, detailed and comprehensive explanations for the manipulations, the statistics methods involved and why they were chosen, the software and the data used to create the graphs, all the scientists notes, photographs, and other materials used in the preparation of all the science papers. It’s clear that climate scientists (and others) have not been up to the standards of other fields and that all publically funded science needs to have it’s standards of openness and auditability raised.

I’m a very strong show me the hard evidence guy. Belief has no place in science nor in the communication of science nor in the science education process unless it specifically means “we think it could be true or false but we don’t just know yet”.

Believing that murder is wrong is a statement of one’s moral values and the word belief is often used although I’d question it’s use there. I’d not say it that way. I’d rather be more specific and say that “Murder is wrong because human life is valuable.”

Is saying “gravity sucks” a statement of “belief” or is it a succinct statement of the known laws of Gravity? I pick the latter.

“The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true. … Later epistemologists have questioned the “justified true belief” definition, and some philosophers have questioned whether “belief” is a useful notion at all.” – wikipedia

So “belief” is shaky ground at best, and as such it’s best to avoid using it when speaking generally about science or anything that is a statement of objective reality or it’s nature. I also use it carefully. My main use is in talking about the belief and faith stricken members of society.

Is that my belief? No, it’s a precautionary guidance principle based on knowledge gained from far too many conversations with the belief stricken who set well placed linguistic and philosophical traps.

Posted in Bad Ideas, Bad Science, Bad Science Attitude, Belief Stricken, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Get some perspective people, Gravity, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Invisible Friend Crowd, It's a good thing that your god(s) die with you, Philosophy, Politics, Proof God Can NOT Exist, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science over Propaganada | 1 Comment »

Rational Climate Sanity with Dr Richard Lindzen

Posted by pwl on November 4, 2009

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Awesome, Climate Science, Complex Systems, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, It's weather not climate, Rational Thinking, Science Education, Science Info Educational Videos, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown, TerrorForming Earth, Terrorfying, The Ground is Falling Up!, Video | Leave a Comment »

Belief in Man-Made (aka Mann-Made) Climate Change is Now Officially Recognized as a Nutter Religion

Posted by pwl on November 3, 2009

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion
In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations“.

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

Facts do not matter anymore as belief in global warming is now officially recognized as a nutter religion!

(All religions are anti-scientific since they require faith above facts of Nature and Nature always wins thus the supernatural religions are false).

The Religion of Climate Change

He’s close “belief in human caused climate change is a religion” but it’s not that they’ll believe in anything its’ that they put “belief” above reason and facts and they’ve been convinced by the likes of Al Gore. It is not the lack of a belief in god that is the problem it is belief itself that is the problem, belief in god, belief in climate change caused by man (aka Mann) that is the real problem. When you are willing to “believe” rather that use reason to examine the facts of Nature that is when you take the irresponsible “leap of faith” into the land of being belief stricken with something that is more likely simply wrong than even having a hint of being right. Critical thinking and reason and the scientific method and open science with peer review by anyone are the tools we need to move forward as a society. Not belief in something. Belief and faith are the great mind killers and possibly the death of civilization as well.

The Religion of Climate Change, UN Ki Moon Cult

Yes indeed, sober scientific based discussion still has it’s place. No science is ever settled. If you think climate science is settled then you don’t know about the facts of climate science as much as you think you do. Not only that, but you also don’t understand the scientific method nor science eduction. Questions are essential of all science at all stages. To suppress discussion is anti-scientific.

To make scientific questions such as “mann made climate change” into a religion based upon belief is the height of insanity and irresponsible governance by the court and anyone else.

Posted in Bad Science, Bad Science Attitude, Belief Stricken, Believe it Denier, Believe it or your a denier!, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Climate Science, Complex Systems, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Double Yikes!!, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, It's a good thing that your god(s) die with you, My Invisible Friend Needs Me For His-Her-Its Existence, Police State Insanity, Proofs, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Scams, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, TerrorForming Earth, Terrorfying, Video | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: