While on our recent trip back east, I had plenty of time (plane flights, evenings in motels) to do some very intense reading. I chose a book by A.W. Montford, a British writer and proprietor of the Bishop Hill blog. Prior to leaving on our trip, I deliberately avoided reading the book in question, The Hockey Stick Illusion, subtitled Climategate and the corruption of science. My objective in reading this book (which has so many post-it flags on it that it might fly away on me) was to come to grips with the science behind not just the Hockey Stick, but climate change as a whole. I have the distinct impression that climatologists are given carte blanche to say or publish anything that crosses their minds, without fear of fact-checking or follow-up.
Examples: A blog site called Canary Media (get it – the canary in the mine?) wants to know if the 12.4 billion gallons of jet fuel used in the U.S. in 2023 can be replaced with more carbon-neutral substitutes. The answer is … only at great and unnecessary cost! However, some far-fetched schemes are underway that include catching grease from French fries to make fuel, and synthetic kerosene to be made from hydrogen and captured “carbon” (sic – CO2). I smell subsidy, failure, boondoggles, and a few people walking away with a large chuck of subsidy-cash.*
CBS News reports that “summer heat hits Asia early, killing dozens as one expert calls it the ‘most extreme event’ in climate history.” Notice use of the term “expert”, unnamed, of course. That is shop talk for a guy or gal, as mentioned above, who has carte blanche to say anything that crosses his/her mind, and without feedback. Are we dealing with the “most extreme event” in climate history? Of course not. Climate history is all time that has passed before now, and we have plenty of indications that times have been hotter (the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods, just in our Holocene interglacial period). However, even as ice cores are somewhat reliable in reporting prior warm periods mentioned here, we have no way of knowing much of anything about the billions of years of climate history talked about here. This is garbage, CBS. Shame shame shame. Have you none?*
National Geographic reports on Raja Ampat, supposedly the last stronghold of healthy coral reefs. Really? Last stronghold? Of course not. The Great Barrier Reef is healthy and unaffected by pollution and alleged climate change. So too with Belize.*
But there is something going on here I have noticed before, as when a naturalist who visited our property to do an inventory of plants, birds and animals told me, that Siberia is a lost cause, a victim of climate change. Is that true? Of course not. Siberia is, I would venture, subject to climate variability, some years cold, some years really fucking cold. But take note, Siberia and the Great Barrier Reef have one thing in common: Climate alarmists know you are not going there, so they can report on far-away distant places being in serious trouble, and never be accountable.
Al Gore in “his” movie An Inconvenient Truth predicted a sea level rise of twenty feet by 2100. He might as well as said forty, sixty, a thousand feet as long as it won’t happen. No harm, no foul. Al still walks the climate change walk, an actor reading his lines. I must say, however, that he is a better than average actor. He’s been at the forefront of a couple of really damaging movements, this, and the end of vote counting. He’s quite the tool.
Skeptical Science reports that Climate – The Movie is loaded (loaded!) with misinformation and lies, and lists them, offering a short rebuttal off the cuff for each supposedly misinforming statement. For instance, first on their list, the Medieval Warm Period, says the movie, was warmer than today. Not so says Skeptical Science! “Globally averaged temperature is now higher than global temperature in medieval times. They don’t know this, and offer no hard data to that effect. After all, in the climate alarmist movement, there are no barriers to making up any crazy fact or prediction, and when it does not come true, merely move along to a new one. About those Vikings farming Greenland, well, says Skeptical Scientist, that was a warmer period, but only in the North Atlantic. How do they know this? They don’t. They just make shit up.*
(Take a look at this – the Hockey Stick makes its reappearance in the form of a Moberg paper from 2005. That paper, thoroughly discredited by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, will not go away!)
If you doubt me on that matter (of it being discredited), take a look at a scientific paper by these two skeptics called Hockey Sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. It is a scientific paper, and so you can do what most “scientists” do – skim the abstract. For myself, I found it readable, and most interesting in that McIntyre and McKittrick found that any data set fed into Mann’s (very sloppy, according to Montford) paper will produce a hockey stick. Any data – randomly generated red noise, stock market closings, you name it.
I am breaking here, as McIntyre, according to Montford, did not think the hockey stick was an important scientific paper. What it was was advertising writ large, a shocking (and false) chart showing no warm periods, no Little Ice Age, and a shocking uptick in temperatures in the 20th-21st centuries. However, remove one principal component from it, say, for instance, bristlecone pines or the Gaspe series, and the blade of the stick disappears while the Medieval Warming Period reappears. Bristlecones and Gaspe, like the stick itself, will not go away! Mann keeps trotting them out, as do other climatologists, even as McIntyre and McKittrick established that the pines are not sending out a warming signal, just a confused one.
_______________________
I set out to write here not some trashing of modern climatology, but rather something far more chilling. I recall how the world was plunged into fear and darkness for over two years regarding some alleged virus never proven to exist. But the masters of disinformation, who apparently own all the news media, have that kind of power. Even now I see masked people in stores, people living in fear, the whole purpose of the hoax. Frightened people are so easy to govern!
What we are witnessing among supposed experts and scientists, along with dimwitted journalists, is the agreed-upon lie. As one travels up the ladders of power, there is more understanding that it is all a lie, but a lie with a fantastic purpose as offered up by Michael Mann recently: The “carrying capacity” of the planet is one billion people.
Mann, of course, who appears to me to be a mere hired gun, presumes that he’ll still be around after the purge. Not so fast, Mike …
The question is how to deal with these people. Part of the answer is NOT to do what I did above, to deal with their nonsense. The late Lance Reddick, who played Chief Irwin Irving on the detective series Bosch, had a way of saying “What the fuck” in a way delivered better by no other actor. “What the fuck are you doing?” EmPHAsis on that word. When stumbling on some dimwit who spouts climate nonsense facts and other garbage, the best approach in my mind is to say something like “Well, I guess I would take you seriously if I thought for a second that you knew what the fuck you are talking about.” Emphasize that word. It has a nice effect.
Here, for entertainment purposes, are two really good actors, the aforementioned Lance Reddick, and Titus Welliver. Emphasis on “You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.”
____________________________
*I am grateful for Climate Nexus, a Canadian organization of genuine skeptics possessed of sound minds and reasoning ability, for the content of this blog post which I have asterisked. I pay them $8 (Canadian) monthly for the privilege of receiving their excellent weekly newsletter.
Piece of Mindful 
Re Gore – I always wonder if he’s an “anti” of sorts, cast for the part specifically to _repel_ people. If you agree with him, you have to applaud because he’s got such a big platform for your cause – but on some subconscious level at least, you have to be cringing. I do, anyway, when No Agenda plays clips occasionally. Not only the absurd things he says, the ridiculous huge-yet-specific numbers that keep escalating with each speech – even if you “agree” with the case, the way he makes it would give pause to anyone with half a brain on “that side” – but his obnoxious attitude and manner of speaking.
He’s like Bill Gates in his anti-charisma, or any number of them, from both teams. Part of the endless parade of clowns piling out of the clown car. I wonder how the casting calls for these roles go.. “Young man, we’ve noticed you’re dripping with a singularity obnoxious quality, yet passably intelligent enough to memorize talking points and BS your way through a series of public appearances..”
Being cast type as a character actor of that sort doesn’t sound so awful – you clock in, clock out, play up your awful qualities, sure, okay. But cast type as such in a life time role? Who could do it. Maybe he doesn’t know, maybe they told him they want him for his looks and brains. Or, maybe he created the whole schtick himself, and they just glommed onto it. Don’t anybody tell him. He’ll be crushed.
Same thing when he ran against Bush… He had to have been cast as the unlikeable fall guy. His drippy condescending “I’ve put it in a lockbox” quote, “I invented the internet,” etc. Bush could be foolish sounding, but more in a “regular guy” way you could forgive or get used to. He wasn’t an “elitist” snob, with nothing to back up such an attitude.
They’ve also blackwashed Gore from time to time. Everyone knows he actually doesn’t “walk the walk” – he flies in dem jet planes, and got him a big ol’ mansion with plenty of kilowatts. Probably a few more posh cribs here and there as well.
Or that time he dominated late night for a week when he molested some hotel cleaning lady? I forget the details.
I guess if you want to tank any illusion of representative democracy being functional, and bring in technocracy, you start by casting a lot of antis on both teams. Coronavirus.com is still one of the best breakdowns of how this might work that I’ve ever come across.
LikeLike
No edit function or I’d smooth out some typos, oh well..
LikeLike
I will note it’s coronacircus.com. Dern autocorrect.
LikeLike
I thought briefly about heading this article with notable green goons that are trotted out routinely to offend our sensibilities. You are right, TimR, that certain people are used because of their offensive nature. Two that come to mind are Greta Thurnberg and, as you note, Al Gore. I would also include Bill Nye the Science Guy just to round it to three. I will probably do that in the near future.
In matters of population I have thought about leading with photos of Stalin and Pol Pot alongside Bill Gates, who gets far too much credit for being a genius and an innovator. This is something I have noted before, given to us by Noam Chomsky, that in 1995 when meetings were being held to discuss and plan the future of the Internet, Gates, head of Microsoft, refused to attend, as he saw no future there. In addition, his MSDOS was a gift from IBM, after his mother begged on his behalf. Miles Mathis has noted that Microsoft and Apple landed on the same technology and even screen appearance for their desktop computers that came out of that era, probably (no way of knowing, really) due to the technology being given them for free by DARPA.
Chomsky also noted (I used to read him religiously) that the idea that capitalism is a risk-based ideology is false. In fact, new technologies are developed by government agencies, DARPA one of them, and if successful are then turned over the the private sector to move forward. No capitalist of any repute would invest millions, if not billions, in a new technology that might fail.
LikeLike
Yeah, I guess I’m not telling anyone anything they don’t already know about Gore and the rest of these jamokes ^_^
To your last point, I recently read “Owning the Sun” about the history of patent medicine. It’s sort of in a “people’s history” vein, mainstream but very slightly left leaning. Interesting bits, such as how at one time “respectable” medicine was all “generic” openly available and cheap formulations, while “patent medicine” was looked down on and peddled by a reputed fringe of either quacks, cranks or outright hucksters and fraudsters. It was a long difficult PR road to change the minds of the profession and introduce patents to the “respectable” side.
Anyway, the author also covers funding for new drugs. Indeed, as you say about the government/ industry relation, even from early on the government hugely outspent private industry, I think maybe 3 to 1 or so (when overall investment was relatively modest.)
Then it kicked into overdrive maybe midcentury or so, when Vannevar Bush established the vast research workings of the NIH etc. An annual budget of billions that rises every year. Industry has a standard PR template for maintaining the fig leaf that they themselves risk money on development.
LikeLike
“After all, in the climate alarmist movement, there are no barriers to making up any crazy fact or prediction, and when it does not come true, merely move along to a new one.”
Remember “Global Cooling”, AKA the Next Ice Age? That used to be big, too, until it was disproved and they since shelved it for the fraudulent “Global Warming” campaign instead. This was promoted in fake news outlets such as Time Magazine back in the 70s.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts
And it should be mentioned that so long as “climate scientists” go along with the sanctioned narrative on this topic, they’re allowed free reign to do as they please. They only will face backlash if they deviate from the official story in any significant fashion, regardless if what they’re saying is true or false.
LikeLike
Here is Skeptical Science’s response to the global cooling scare of the 1970s:
LikeLiked by 1 person
All this fake activism and science does ruin popular activism and science. As people have noted, the activists are always repellent as possible – Jane Fonda, Greta. Yet obviously the Vietnam War was wrong, and burning excess petroleum, with giant overpowered cars and trucks is not a wise practice for humanity. I think the powers that be understand some of these things; for example, my new Honda hybrid gets 50 mpg city – 50 years ago my mom’s Oldmobile convertible got about 10mpg city, and probably 50% of the hydrocarbons weren’t even oxidized completely – the smell of those old gas guzzlers in really nauseating. Yet I don’t see any advocates for middle ground solutions, where we require much more stringent emission standards and mileage, but get rid of the terrible climate change science argument. Inevitably, I believe the powers have their own plan and could basically care less about public opinion, so they create these divisive subjects (e.g. Israel-Gaza) to burn peoples passion uselessly and harmlessly (to the elites’ perspective).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for sharing. If Skeptical Science is to be believed, it appears such fearporn about the world cooling was not as widespread as assumed, even though it was heavily pushed in some mainstream publications like the ones I linked above.
LikeLike
Whatever the media tells us 97% of scientists, or 4/5 or dermatologists believe, is good enough evidence for me that they tell us the truth, and nothing but the truth.
I resent that only “old” people over 60 are allowed to remember the next ice age craze. I at 54 remember it well, especially since I was a 9 year old “In search of” addict:
Leonard Nimoy Predicts An Ice Age Back In 1979. Fascinating! (youtube.com)
LikeLike
I love how they end the segment with the fake shots of earth from the moon. And how the global warming proselytizers never bring up the opposite possibility – of global cooling. It’s interesting how all these objective scientists can’t see how global cooling and dropping CO2 are infinitely more frightening than the opposite possibility.
LikeLike
I could bust this climate scam all day, but some physical chemical facts go a long way. I believe atmospheric (air) temperatures, vs. ground temperatures, were chosen as the benchmark of “climate” because the “temperature of Earth” that is being reported is far more variable depending on where you set the thermometer above the surface, than if it is buried in the ground. Now think of the mass of the earth, and the heat capacity of solids and liquids (the energy required to heat a given mass to a certain temperature). Lets agree it takes far more energy to heat up liquids and solids than gas. And that the mass of the earth (not to mention the Sun, which is the major source of heat for the earth) exceeds the mass of the atmosphere by trillions of times (I’m way underestimating this). Therefore, the earth’s temperature is clearly regulated by the mass of the earth radiating energy, and incoming solar flux, rather than the small fluctuations in the composition of the atmosphere (CO2). Moreover, what is most important to humans: that crops don’t freeze!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a comment on AI, which I know is not the topic here, but does relate to scientists being able to publish things with zero accountability. MM has a short recent article on AI which hits the mark pretty well, that AI is a just ultimately a prettier and more convincing way to lie to people than a crude search engines results. And all AI is, IMO, is a search engine that speaks in full sentences. Hence a better con-artist. I do understand, based on the all the wonderful things I hear from friends, that AI can do so many “cool” things and save time via automation and efficiency, and relieve us of boring tasks, ala the Jetsons. However, I have always boycotted the voice enabled chat entities like Siri, or Alexis, because I refuse to speak to a computer. Yes, I am enough of a snob that I absolutely refuse to call a computer by a proper name. That is reserved for actual people, and I will only speak to them. I will not lower myself to speak to a computer as if it were a person, that IMO is really pathetic. If i need to interact with a computer, i will type, and never speak to it, or listen to any artificial voice – i will read the output, that’s it. Voice based interaction is a line I will not cross, for many reasons that are obvious to readers of this forum.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a lengthy, somewhat complicated and convoluted breakdown of how statistics are manipulated to show vaccine effectiveness –
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/czech-study-points-to-zero-vaccine
Much relies on the miscategorization of calling people “unvaccinated” in the first two weeks post-vax. The insanity of that. The author humorously calls out the current idea of “waning immunity” as really being “waning miscategorization bias.”
They also use the “healthy vaccinee effect” trick. Lots of nice graphs, but there must be a way to boil this all down into a more pithy and layperson friendly article. It can be funny too – these kinds of tricks and fraud can lead to conclusions like the vax protecting against all cause mortality, eg car accidents, gunshot wounds, etc.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised for the vaccine to have effect on depressing other types of mortality. Yes I was vaccinated, Moderna, twice, and got terrible headaches after each vaccination, which went away after a day (and yes I wouldn’t take any vaccine ever again, and recommend no one take any vaccines ever thank you). Meaning people were probably a lot less likely to go out in the weeks after getting the holy sacrament, I mean vaccine.
One of the irritating side effects of the corona circus was the gaslighting of vaccinated, to make them all think they were going to drop dead in less than 3 years. My health is fine. Unfortunately, many people were vaccine injured for real, but the mass die-off obviously did not happen. And, the people calling themselves purebloods are being ridiculous. Anyone born in the 20th or 21st century, with the exception of a few religious fanatics living out in the bush, has been injected with a gauntlet of vaccines. Luckily they inject a fairly small volume (0.5-1 milliliter) at a time or we’d all be dead!
LikeLike
All sides were controlled, for the vax against that vax like a script. Miles says people are still passing from the vaccine, but I’m not seeing it. He says in his latest article that “I am telling you this now because it is all about to happen again. There will be a round two and it maybe coming up soon”
But I don’t think they can get away with another bio event. I do think it could be a nuke hoax as everything is lined up for that and the results will be better to bring in a CBDC infranstructure. Russian/Ukraine wargame STILL going on to this day, almost as long as WW2 at this point. I think we have around 2027-2030 for the next event. I guess that’s soon, at least not too far away.
LikeLike
NakedCapitalism has a piece up “Gresham’s law comes for science” by their anonymous scientist contributor KLG –
“…
In my view the quantitative analysis of the scientific literature has been most effective at providing a mechanism by which the practice of science can be gamed by those willing to confuse “scientific research activities” with scientific research (see below). This has been covered in the literature read by scientists, but the rot at the core is beginning to show up in more visible places, such as an article in The Wall Street Journal last week: Flood of Fake Science Forces Multiple Journal Closures. The backstory is long and a consequence of spurious quantification of scientific “output.” This has led to corruption of the scientific literature. What is new is that legacy publishers such as Wiley are now being affected.
In the case of John Wiley & Sons (established in New York in 1807), the publisher has closed 19 journals under its banner that “were infected by large-scale research fraud” and in the past two years “has retracted more than 11,300 papers that appeared compromised.”
Hm. What to make of it all. A couple interesting comments from other scientists and critics below the piece add to the picture.
LikeLike
Thanks Tim. I want to look into that as it dovetails nicely with what I am just starting work on, the work of the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit. The three principles who did most of the damage are Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and the late Keith Briffa. I have to read up on what you posted here first.
By the way, would you be interested in a free copy of The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford? I came about it honestly.
LikeLike
Oh well – Wall Street Journal is paywalled. Can’t go there.
LikeLike
Maybe someone can find it with clever web jiujitsu? The NC piece is still on the front page and should come up searching on its title.
Thank you for the kind offer of the book. I read the Amazon description and reviews from buyers – definitely sounds worth checking out. I guess you don’t keep books for reference, or only a select few? Anyway, I will send you an email with my address since mine here is just a non used account. Trying to think if I have any you might be interested in, that I don’t need/ want but nothing comes to mind right off.
LikeLike
I’ll need your email address though, I don’t see it in the About section. Thanks again.
LikeLike
mpthct@proton.me
LikeLike
Climate Nexus ? I first thought that you were seriously putting them forward as interesting people. I looked up their site, seemed quite the usual humbug to me. Just mainstream climatechange shit. At the end of the page I read: “Climate Nexus is a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors,
a 501(c)3 organization.”
And immediately understood that you read their newsletters just to be neatly informed about mainstream b*llsh$t.
LikeLike
I like John Robson, and further, like their writing and videos in that my own brain tells me they are doing good work. First and foremost, we must be true to self.
LikeLike