After 50 Years Of Failed Predictions, Science Is In Crisis

[rangerrebew]

After 50 Years Of Failed Predictions, Science Is In Crisis

    Date: 10/11/18
    Maurice Newman, The Australian

Whom or what to believe? After 50 years of failed predictions, people are reasoning that something other than science is behind this alarmism.

Last September the usual media suspects got wind of yet another Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. To those familiar, it was obvious from the “fire and brimstone” headlines. No matter how inconsequential, no heatwave, drought, hurricane or flood was missed. This is the customary softening-up period, intended to ensure that when a scary IPCC report lands, politicians will be pushed into taking even more drastic action on “climate change”.

And so it came to pass. Last month, the world’s “leading climate scientists” confirmed we had only 12 years left to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

https://www.thegwpf.com/after-50-years-of-failed-predictions-science-is-in-crisis/

[Cyber Liberty]

"Science" isn't in crisis, but "Climate Science" is.  It's not Science, it's data-(mal)driven Propaganda.

[Smokin Joe]

This mentality is frightening. Now that the charlatans of the climate catastrophe have been exposed, will the push to be to ignore the real science being done for the last decades? Now that genuine scientific results can be summarily ignored with the bogus crap that has led to bad legislation, poor policy, and needless panic and expense, virtually anyone can assert virtually anything and ignore real, verifiable, facts.

The purveyors of panic have done a great disservice to humanity, quite arguably for personal gain. Had the carbon credit exchanges been made necessary by law, a few folks stood to possibly make trillions of dollars, among them Maurice Strong, George Soros, and Al Gore.

[roamer_1]

This mentality is frightening. Now that the charlatans of the climate catastrophe have been exposed, will the push to be to ignore the real science being done for the last decades? Now that genuine scientific results can be summarily ignored with the bogus crap that has led to bad legislation, poor policy, and needless panic and expense, virtually anyone can assert virtually anything and ignore real, verifiable, facts.

The purveyors of panic have done a great disservice to humanity, quite arguably for personal gain. Had the carbon credit exchanges been made necessary by law, a few folks stood to possibly make trillions of dollars, among them Maurice Strong, George Soros, and Al Gore.

I would submit, @Smokin Joe , that just this sort of thing has been happening all the way along, with proof surfacing only in the most egregious cases (Piltdown Man comes to mind).

Even in the case of real science, true science is not often attained, as even real science is steered by its rudder - The grants that fund it. That science is in large part a political animal cannot be denied... providing the proofs the political class requires, for a fee.

[240B]

The Global Warming cult is relentless.
First they said the polar caps were going to melt and NYC and all coastal cities on Earth would be flooded. That turned out to be nonsense. There are more polar bears today than ever before. The ice caps are growing.
Then, they turned to natural disasters. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. were going to destroy America. There were actually less of all of these lately than in a normal year.
Now apparently, they are shifting to Global Cooling. Keep in mind that according to their pretzel science, global warming is causing global cooling. So they were not wrong...see? It's easy to understand once you get the right indoctrination.

But yes. In the end, all of this dog and pony circus is about making money off of gullible easily frightened people. "The world is going to end, but I can save it!" is a scam older than the Bible. It's amazing that people still fall for it today.

[Hoodat]

Science isn't in crisis.  People falsifying data and pushing it off as 'science' is what is in crisis here.

THIS is science:



Over 400,000 years of scientific data taken from the Vostok site in Antarctica.  It shows a cyclical warming and cooling that repeats every 90-120,000 years.  It also shows a close relationship between temperatures (measured by O¹⁸ isotope) and CO₂ levels.  Except that the data indicates that rises in temperature precede rises in CO₂ levels, and declines in temperature precede declines in CO₂ level.

That's science.  This is the data itself, published by the UN.  It isn't some failed former Vice President with zero science background narrating a movie.  It isn't some ivory tower academic tampering with the data in order to reach his political ends.  It's science.  Science telling us that all this 'the-earth-is-going-to-drown' hysteria is all a bunch of hogwash.

So don't denigrate science here.  Denigrate these 21st century alchemists who have abandoned science for the sake of their political agenda.

[Dexter]

Science isn't in crisis.  People falsifying data and pushing it off as 'science' is what is in crisis here.

THIS is science:



Over 400,000 years of scientific data taken from the Vostok site in Antarctica.  It shows a cyclical warming and cooling that repeats every 90-120,000 years.  It also shows a close relationship between temperatures (measured by O¹⁸ isotope) and CO₂ levels.  Except that the data indicates that rises in temperature precede rises in CO₂ levels, and declines in temperature precede declines in CO₂ level.

That's science.  This is the data itself, published by the UN.  It isn't some failed former Vice President with zero science background narrating a movie.  It isn't some ivory tower academic tampering with the data in order to reach his political ends.  It's science.  Science telling us that all this 'the-earth-is-going-to-drown' hysteria is all a bunch of hogwash.

So don't denigrate science here.  Denigrate these 21st century alchemists who have abandoned science for the sake of their political agenda.

Who can we trust to do science if we can't trust NASA and all of the most prominent scientific institutions on Earth?

[Cyber Liberty]

Who can we trust to do science if we can't trust NASA and all of the most prominent scientific institutions on Earth?

Is that a trick question?   

[Dexter]

Is that a trick question?   

NASA and all of the most prominent scientific institutions all over the world accept that man made climate change is real or likely to be real. If they're all in on a conspiracy to deceive the public then who can we trust?

[Cyber Liberty]

NASA and all of the most prominent scientific institutions all over the world accept that man made climate change is real or likely to be real. If they're all in on a conspiracy to deceive the public then who can we trust?

I can't say for sure, but I do know that governments and NGOs would be the last places I'd look for the truth.  I spent >25 years in private sector R&D, and I'd believe that wayyy before I believed a Government Study.  Corporations don't fudge data because that would lead to inferior product and subsequent loss of market share.  Making up data (or misinterpreting good data) is the bread and butter of government studies.

[Dexter]

Corporations don't fudge data because that would lead to inferior product

Corporations sometimes have a monetary incentive to fudge data. I'm not saying the government doesn't do it too, but corporations certainly aren't innocent I think.

[Cyber Liberty]

Corporations sometimes have a monetary incentive to fudge data. I'm not saying the government doesn't do it too, but corporations certainly aren't innocent I think.

Depends on what is under study.  If I want to know how many Angstroms of Gate thickness is ideal in a Field Effect Transistor, and how many Nanometers long it should be, I can be pretty confident of private sector data because fudging will lead to poor device performance and loss of market share to competitors who modeled those factors correctly.

When it's public policy/science being examined, then the researchers have every incentive to fudge, create and lie through their teeth about the data.  None of the Scientists I worked with would ever dirty their hands with such. 

Who does public policy research?  Governments, NGOs and Lobbyists, a wretched hive of villainy and scum if I ever saw one.

[Fishrrman]

"Whom or what to believe? After 50 years of failed predictions, people are reasoning that something other than science is behind this alarmism."

Yes, it was "something other than".
It was a leftist political agenda trying to hitch science to the wagon, as well.

[The_Reader_David]

"Science" isn't in crisis, but "Climate Science" is.  It's not Science, it's data-(mal)driven Propaganda.

And then there's string theory.  No testable predictions, everything that matters as to why physics is as observed fobbed off on "the vacuum state of the early universe". 

[Cyber Liberty]

And then there's string theory.  No testable predictions, everything that matters as to why physics is as observed fobbed off on "the vacuum state of the early universe".

Personally I think String Theory is BS.  An attempt to explain things using limited present data.  Like Keplar's model of the Solar System.  You can only go so far if your best instrument is an Astrolabe.

We need a new model.

[roamer_1]

Personally I think String Theory is BS.  An attempt to explain things using limited present data.  Like Keplar's model of the Solar System.  You can only go so far if your best instrument is an Astrolabe.

We need a new model.

The problem with that is that science has long been beyond technical science - Far beyond what is observable and testable... It ventures with blind eyes, into the metaphysical.

[Cyber Liberty]

The problem with that is that science has long been beyond technical science - Far beyond what is observable and testable... It ventures with blind eyes, into the metaphysical.

Which is why I brought up the Keplar model.  It was the best model we had until Galileo.  This...this is how science works.  It's not pretty.

[Oceander]

Corporations sometimes have a monetary incentive to fudge data. I'm not saying the government doesn't do it too, but corporations certainly aren't innocent I think.

Yes, and when a private corporation does it and gets caught, it loses reputation and money, and those who engaged in the fraud often lose their positions. 

Not so with government fraud.  The more blatant the government fraud, the more it becomes an article of faith for those who treat government as a religion unto itself. Witness the fraud of anthropogenic climate change. 

[Dexter]

Yes, and when a private corporation does it and gets caught, it loses reputation and money, and those who engaged in the fraud often lose their positions. 

Not so with government fraud.  The more blatant the government fraud, the more it becomes an article of faith for those who treat government as a religion unto itself. Witness the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.

Hypothetically speaking, if AGW was real do you think there'd be any corporations out there with a monetary incentive to keep the public from flipping out about it?

[jpsb]

Who can we trust to do science if we can't trust NASA and all of the most prominent scientific institutions on Earth?

NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They are experts on airplanes, rockets and satellites. They
are not expert at predicting the weather 50 years from today.

[Bigun]

"Science" isn't in crisis, but "Climate Science" is.  It's not Science, it's data-(mal)driven Propaganda.

B I N G O ! ! !

[GrouchoTex]

Hypothetically speaking, if AGW was real do you think there'd be any corporations out there with a monetary incentive to keep the public from flipping out about it?

Conversely, if it is not real, what would keep the Government from saying it is not?
It is all about the control over its populace.
It was never about the climate, but about controlling the citizens by saying so, modifying their behaviors.
What they grow, what they eat, what they drive, where they live, etc.
Subsidizes what they want and penalize what they don't.

[Bigun]

Conversely, if it is not real, what would keep the Government from saying it is not?
It is all about the control over its populace.
It was never about the climate, but about controlling the citizens by saying so, modifying their behaviors.
What they grow, what they eat, what they drive, where they live, etc.
Subsidizes what they want and penalize what they don't.

That and continuing big government funding for so called scientist to continue to play with their toys along with protecting certain Global conglomerates patents.

[GrouchoTex]

That and continuing big government funding for so called scientist to continue to play with their toys along with protecting certain Global conglomerates patents.

Absolutely.
How many government programs, grants, taxes, etc, have ever been stopped, once they've been introduce.
There is a fine living to be made off of climate change.
Just ask Algore.

[Oceander]

Hypothetically speaking, if AGW was real do you think there'd be any corporations out there with a monetary incentive to keep the public from flipping out about it?

Duh.  Of course there would be some private businesses out there that, for whatever reason, would want to wish it all away.  And they would ultimately all go under.  In other words, they would eventually be “disciplined” by the market for taking an unproductive position.  Unless government were to prop them up, although even then, they would eventually go under; the explosion when they did would simply be bigger and more productive. 

What was your point?  I take it as being as obvious as gravity that some businesses take false positions because their owners/managers have concluded that their short-term interests outweigh the long-term consequences of being wrong.
Happens all the time.  To see that, one need look no further than the American auto industry in the late 60s and early 70s, still pumping out 10 mpg behemoths and scoffing at the Japanese tin that was about to eat their collective lunch.