Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here we are in 2010, where nations were on the verge of agreeing on a world-wide plan to destroy the western economies over the man-made global warming scam. The we were made aware of ClimatGate, where many distinguished scientists around the world, who thought it was acceptable to manipulate evidence, hide or destroy core climate data so as not to comply with FOI requests, conspire to silence dissenting scientists, lie and cheat in official hearings, and generally engage in the kind of activities that we layman naively assumed that real scientists would never do?
How could this have happened? I give you - Post Normal Science (PNS).
"In 1991 a Marxist philosopher called Jerome R. Ravetz had helped to invent a seductive and dangerous new concept called ‘post-normal science’ (PNS). No longer was it considered essential that scientists strive after objectivity. Their new duty, Ravetz held, was not to ‘truth’ but to what he called ‘quality’. And by ‘quality’ he meant something more akin to rhetoric — the ability to manipulate evidence and present it in such a way as to achieve particular political ends.
Post-normal science and the AGW movement were made for one another. No need for any of that tedious objectivity; no need for careful observation or the risk of frustration through falsification. All that mattered now was the quality of the ‘narrative’, the scariness of the future scenarios cooked up by computer models which — as the hockey stick curve demonstrated — could predict for you whatever you wanted them to predict."
The Spectator (http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/5780868/part_3/postnormal-science-is-perfect-for-climate-demagogues-it-isnt-science-at-all.thtml - broken link)
And all the world's scientists are motivated by what - an evil marxist mind-control ray? I'm out of tin-foil, so I can't comment further, but I sure am glad I bought shares in Alcoa.
And all the world's scientists are motivated by what - an evil marxist mind-control ray? I'm out of tin-foil, so I can't comment further, but I sure am glad I bought shares in Alcoa.
Using science for political gain? We came close to countries agreeing to a massive world-wide wealth redistribution thru Climate Debt. Does that sound like something a Marxist or a socialist could get behind.
And all the world's scientists are motivated by what - an evil marxist mind-control ray? I'm out of tin-foil, so I can't comment further, but I sure am glad I bought shares in Alcoa.
I wouldn't say "all" of them (though the case could certainly be made for a few). I think each contributed in various ways, some honestly did so while others dishonestly did so. As for why? It changes from person to person. Some do it for fame, some money. Some because they are emotionally tied to the "belief" of their study. There are numerous motives and varying levels of influence.
I never really believed this was a "world wide conspiracy", simply some bias here, personal motive there, lack of due diligence here, a bit of emotional motive there, appealing to authority there, influence of politics here and so on. Add it all up and you get a domino effect of support for a position that isn't what it claims to be.
And all the world's scientists are motivated by what - an evil marxist mind-control ray? I'm out of tin-foil, so I can't comment further, but I sure am glad I bought shares in Alcoa.
As we have argued quite often, there is no consenus on AGW, therefore all the worlds scientists are not motivated by evil marxist mind control ray's.
Just CRU, Michael Mann and that idiot over at NASA, James Hansen.
Al Gore is no scientist. he has not been attacked by the mind contrl ray, he is just a traitor motivated by the billions he can make from taxation if we fall for AGW.
I wouldn't say "all" of them (though the case could certainly be made for a few). I think each contributed in various ways, some honestly did so while others dishonestly did so. As for why? It changes from person to person. Some do it for fame, some money. Some because they are emotionally tied to the "belief" of their study. There are numerous motives and varying levels of influence.
I never really believed this was a "world wide conspiracy", simply some bias here, personal motive there, lack of due diligence here, a bit of emotional motive there, appealing to authority there, influence of politics here and so on. Add it all up and you get a domino effect of support for a position that isn't what it claims to be.
Agree completely, and there is bias on both sides of the political aisle. However, to claim the world's scientists have been uncontrollably seduced by an unknown marxist is indeed tin-foil hat territory. Does anyone really believe that scientific study is motivated by "a world-wide plan to destroy the western economies?"
Does anyone really believe that scientific study is motivated by "a world-wide plan to destroy the western economies?"
The science isn't, but the policies are, more or less.
Don't forget, the IPCC is a political body. Politics shouldn't play a part in science, but that's exactly what's going on here - the IPCC was in control of the data used to create the main body of evidence that most scientists used as the basis for their own work. If that information is tainted, then the resulting work will also be tainted. It really doesn't have much to do with whether or not that lower level scientist wanted to achieve a certain result; s/he will achieve the result that the political organization IPCC wanted him/her to achieve, because they're in control of the data.
That said, even the most innocent and truly objective of the scientists are not immune from the influence of the massive political correctness machine that is the AGW movement. It's human nature to want to "fit in" and not be an outcast.
The science isn't, but the policies are, more or less.
Don't forget, the IPCC is a political body. Politics shouldn't play a part in science, but that's exactly what's going on here - the IPCC was in control of the data used to create the main body of evidence that most scientists used as the basis for their own work. If that information is tainted, then the resulting work will also be tainted. It really doesn't have much to do with whether or not that lower level scientist wanted to achieve a certain result; s/he will achieve the result that the political organization IPCC wanted him/her to achieve, because they're in control of the data.
That said, even the most innocent and truly objective of the scientists are not immune from the influence of the massive political correctness machine that is the AGW movement. It's human nature to want to "fit in" and not be an outcast.
Again, I'm not arguing the influence politics, money, fame, etc. can have on scientific study. I'm saying that the OP's claim of orchestrated marxist armageddon is out there in la-la land.
Agree completely, and there is bias on both sides of the political aisle. However, to claim the world's scientists have been uncontrollably seduced by an unknown marxist is indeed tin-foil hat territory. Does anyone really believe that scientific study is motivated by "a world-wide plan to destroy the western economies?"
I honestly am not concerned with that area of the topic. My concern has been the science itself, the conclusions drawn, and the implementations to which politics are using it.
As for a conspiracy, well... personally I don't think it is that connected, but conspiracies are often borne from "enough" facts lining up that they can link them to form a conclusion that seems "plausible" however improbable.
It is like the 911 bomb conspiracy. It has a pretty strong case on the surface, but when you start looking critically at the details, it begins to unravel.
Heck, it is the exact approach the author of The Da Vinci Code took to make his story seem plausible. He said he took conspiracy theories on the topic, and then fictionally linked all the details to make his story.
Anyway, I don't follow this stuff because even if it were true, there wouldn't be enough sustainable evidence to prove it. Besides, if it were, the only focus that is relevant is the science. When that falls apart, so would all the support for those who were believed to conspire.
Point is, stick to the science and everything else really becomes irrelevant.
And all the world's scientists are motivated by what - an evil marxist mind-control ray? I'm out of tin-foil, so I can't comment further, but I sure am glad I bought shares in Alcoa.
This is the type of blather that demonstrates an extremely fixed view of the world, and reinforces the idea that the American people in general are hopelessly ignorant, with no hope of significant change.
I don't personally prescribe to the idea that the AGW movement is specifically targeting western economies as it's primary goal, even though the results of proposed policies would certainly contribute to that result. No, his is a population control agenda, which I'm sure to you, represents an even more unbelievable "conspiracy".
The evidence to support the "population reduction" agenda is so widespread and deep, those who deny such an agenda exists are simply demonstrating their lack of knowledge.
Much of the evidence of this agenda is overt, yet hidden in double speak that literally bypasses critical analysis. People hear what is being said, but they don't grasp the clear message of such discussions.
Let me give you a clear example: The TED conference (Bill Gates presenting)
gives the scientific agenda for bringing man made C02 levels to ZERO. Gates, one of the wealthiest men in the world should be intelligent enough (and I think he is) to understand the implications of his support for such a ridiculous goal, even if others, including you, are not. Of course, many just can't grasp the simple implications of this because it seems that a large segment of the population has become too dumb to be allowed to continue breathing ... which is the foundational premise for which such an agenda was born.
For all of the junior scientists out their that support this nonsense, let me remind you all of a very fundamental element of biology 101 ... human beings exhale C02 ... we breath in oxygen, and exhale C02. Therefore the goal of reaching ZERO man made C02 output would require human beings to stop breathing.
Now, Gates throws in the qualifier "Near Zero Output", because, of course, he and his elitist cohorts do not intend to stop breathing themselves ... that's for the 80% of the population they deem expendable, and not worthy of the resources they are consuming.
Regardless of your command of the english language, the goal of reducing man made C02 to zero, or near zero is exactly the same as if the goal were the elimination of oxygen. The results would be the same.
Now, Gates goes on to couch his Zero C02 Goal as necessary to address the plight of the poor around the globe for which he has such sympathy, because, according to him, the poor will suffer the most by the effects of man made C02 induced climate change. Apparently, no one in attendance could muster the intelligence to question how the poor will benefit from not breathing?
For those that understand what I just said ... we need to become more vocal, and call out these SOBs before they position themselves to achieve their goals ...
For all of the others, who's brains have stopped thinking, you may on the count of three, allow your lungs to join your brains, and stop exhaling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
