“It would be unrealistic to believe that dogmatism in science ended … flagrant examples [are] the Nazi doctrine of Aryan racial supremacy and the Communist credo of dialectic materialism … less publicized instances … are known in every discipline in small or large degree. Every area of knowledge at the present time has its ‘big names’ whose opinions in science … prevail over the views of lesser lights just because they are recognised … Dogmatism is a frequent concomitant of a systematized creed and a well-institutionalized priestly hierarchy … unified control with a discipline that is dedicated to its unquestioning support. This condition directly parallels the requirement for authoritative secular administration. … there be only one source of truth … the source be afforded enough power to enforce its dictates. … Heretical views may not be tolerated … because they threaten the economic and the ideological commitment …”
– Professor H. G. Barnett, Innovation: the Basis of Cultural Change, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953, pages 69-70.
“… when innovations creep into their games and constant changes are made in them, the children cease to have a sure standard of what is right … There can be no worse evil … Change … is most dangerous …”
– Plato (429-347 B.C.), The Laws, Book VII, 360 B.C. (A general defense of authoritative despotism.)
“Fallible as we may be in our upbringing of children, we now cherish and defend their freedom to develop their own minds. It seems unnatural to us that these growing minds, in which the future of the human race lies, should be subjected to gross manipulation at the hands of propagandists. People who are inclined to say that we could be just as well off under the ****s should pause to reflect … For if you want children’s minds to develop, you must not poison them with important illusions. You must let their minds be free to observe and judge.”
– Dr Edward Glover, The Psychology of Fear and Courage, Penguin, 1940, pp. 125-6.
“A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind …”
– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859.
“The very magnitude of the power over men’s minds that a highly centralised and government-dominated system of education places in the hands of the authorities ought to make one hesitant before accepting it too readily.”
– Professor F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1960, p. 379.
“The student … is accustomed to being told what he should believe, and to the arbitration of authority. … Ultimately, self-confidence requires a rational foundation. … we should face our tasks with confidence based upon a dispassionate appreciation of attested merits. It is something gained if we at least escape the domination of inhibiting ideas.”
– Professor Cecil Alec Mace, The Psychology of Study, 1963, p90.
“Children lose interest … because a natural interest in the world around them has been replaced by an unnatural acceptance of the soundness of certain views, the correctness of particular opinions and the validity of specific claims.”
– David Lewis, You can teach your child intelligence, Book Club Associates, London, 1982, p. 258.
“Scepticism is … directed against the view of the opposition and against minor ramifications of one’s own basic ideas, never against the basic ideas themselves. Attacking the basic ideas evokes taboo reactions … scientists only rarely solve their problems, they make lots of mistakes … one collects ‘facts’ and prejudices, one discusses the matter, and one finally votes. But while a democracy makes some effort to explain the process so that everyone can understand it, scientists either conceal it, or bend it … No scientist will admit that voting plays a role in his subject. Facts, logic, and methodology alone decide – this is what the fairy-tale tells us. … This is how scientists have deceived themselves and everyone else … It is the vote of everyone concerned that decides fundamental issues … and not the authority of big-shots hiding behind a non-existing methodology. … Science itself uses the method of ballot, discussion, vote, though without a clear grasp of its mechanism, and in a heavily biased way.”
– Professor Paul Feyerabend, Against Method, 1975, final chapter.
“There are two distinct meanings to the word ‘science’. The first meaning is what physicists and mathematicians do. The second meaning is a magical art … What is of harm is the blind faith in an imposed system that is implied. ‘Science says’ has replaced ‘scripture tells us’ but with no more critical reflection on the one than on the other. … reason is no more understandable this year than prayer a thousand years ago. Little Billy may become a scientist as earlier he might have turned priest, and know the sacred texts … The chromed apparatus is blessed by distant authority, the water thrice-filtered for purity, and he wears the white antiseptic gown … But the masses still move by faith. … I have fear of what science says, not the science that is hard-won knowledge but that other science, the faith imposed on people by a self-elected administering priesthood. … In the hands of an unscrupulous and power-grasping priesthood, this efficient tool, just as earlier … has become an instrument of bondage. … A metaphysics that ushered in the Dark Ages is again flourishing. … Natural sciences turned from description to a ruminative scholarship concerned with authority. … On the superstition that reduction to number is the same as abstraction, it permits any arbitrary assemblage of data to be mined for relations that can then be named and reified in the same way as Fritz Mauthner once imagined that myths arise. … Our sales representatives, trained in your tribal taboos, will call on you shortly. You have no choice but to buy. For this is the new rationalism, the new messiah, the new Church, and the new Dark Ages come upon us.”
– Jerome Y. Lettvin, The Second Dark Ages, paper given at the UNESCO Symposium on “Culture and Science”, Paris, 6-10 September 1971 (in Robin Clarke, Notes for the Future, Thames and Hudson, London, 1975, pp. 141-50).
“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunder-standing the simplest arguments … and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
– George Orwell, 1984
“Denialism” can be directed both ways in science. It’s just a vacuous piece of playground name-calling. What matters is the substance of the science, not how fashionable something is. Fashionability matters for getting funding, of course, and this is where Lord Acton’s “All power corrupts…” comes in. Scientists are no more ethical than anyone else.
Educational psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (Lawrence Kohlberg, “Stage and Sequence: the Cognitive Development Approach to Socialization,” in D. A. Goslin, Ed., Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, Rand-McNally, Co., Chicago, 1969, pp. 347-380) has found that peoples go through six stages of ethical development:
(1) Conformity to rules and obediance to authority, to avoid punishment.
(2) Conformity to gain rewards.
(3) Conformity to avoid rejection.
(4) Conformity to avoid censure. (Chimps and baboons.)
(5) Arbitrariness in enforcing rules, for the common good.
(6) Conscious revision and replacement of unhelpful rules.
The same steps could be expected to apply to scientific ethical development. However, the disguised form of politics which exists in science, where decisions are taken behind closed doors and with no public discussion of evidence, stops at stage (4), the level of ethics that chimpanzees and baboons have been observed to achieve socially in the wild.
“… it is once for all clear from the very appearances that the earth is in the middle of the world and all weights move towards it. … Now some people, although they have nothing to oppose to these arguments, agree on something, as they think, more plausible. … the earth as turning on the same axis from west to east very nearly one revolution a day … never would a cloud be seen to move toward the east nor anything else that flew or was thrown into the air. For the earth would always outstrip them in its eastward motion, so that all other bodies would seem to be left behind and to move towards the west.”
– Claudius Ptolemy (100-178 AD), Almagest, Book I, part 7, That the Earth does not in any way move locally. Translated by R. C. Taliaferro, Great Books of the Western World, volume 16, 1952, pp. 11-12. (This proves that Aristarchus’s solar system was not simply ignored, but was falsely attacked by the mainstream using false, deluded “arguments” which were speculative and built on a basis of fluff or quicksand. Note also that when Bruno was burned at the stake in February 1600 for saying that the earth rotates, he had evidence for the solar system in that the planets Venus and Mars are always observed to be in the same hemisphere as the sun when seen from Earth: neither planet was ever seen in the opposite direction to the sun. This, Bruno argued, is because they orbit the Sun, not the Earth, and are orbiting closer to the sun than the earth. This is the reason Bruno was burned. If he was simply talking without evidence, he would have been ignored, which is the first line of defense of status quo against radical progress. The second line of defense is to ridicule progressives. The third is to burn them. Many politically biased “historians” and “scientists” incorrectly claim that the problem was simply a lack of evidence for the solar system proposed in 250 BC by Aristarchus of Samos. Not so. It was bias. Note in particular that Copernicus failed to get rid of epicycles; he simply applied epicycles to Aristarchus’s solar syetem. It was Kepler in 1609 who began making progress in removing epicycles by replacing them with elliptical orbits which better fitted the motion of the planet Mars as observed carefully by Brahe.)
“Ptolemy and the Peripatetics think that nature must be thrown into confusion, and the whole structure and configuration of our globe destroyed by the Earth’s so rapid rotation … what structure of iron can be imagined so strong, so tough, that it would not be wrecked and shattered to pieces by such a mad and unimaginable velocity? …all atmosphere … rotate with the globe: the space above … is a vacuum; in passing through vacuum even the lightest bodies and those of least coherence are neither hindered nor broken up. Hence the entire terrestrial globe, with all its appurtenances, revolves placidly and meets no resistance.”
– Dr William Gilbert (1540-1603), On the Loadstone and Magnetic Bodies and on the Great Magnet the Earth, 1600, book 6, chapter 3. (Translation: P. Fleury Mottelay, John Wiley and Sons.) (This shows how the vacuous arguments attacking a new theory were dismissed. However, the bigoted would simply ignore or dismiss Gilbert’s refutation as being – ironically – “speculative”. This is still the political method used in “science” to censor out alternative ideas from being carefully studied, checked, and discussed. The key problem for status quo is maintaining hegemony, even hubris. It is not the number one priority of status quo to permit radical discussions of the foundations of mainstream theories.)
“It is indeed a most absurd fiction to explain natural phenomena by false causes.”
– Kepler, quoted by G. Abetti, History of Astronomy, London, 1974, p. 74.
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance, 1992.
– James Delingpole, Why do I call them Eco Nazis? Because they ARE Eco Nazis, Telegraph.
– Mark Musser, “The Nazi Origins of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory”, American Thinker, February 15, 2011.
Carrel also uses his alleged “authority” to be conveyor of consensus as a “scientific expert” to “pass off” as fact the lie that all feminists are ignorant of basic biology on page 91 (this is analogous to an ignorant claim in the BBC Horizon: Science Under Attack propaganda that the only possible problem with GM food critics may be that “critics” don’t know that plants contain genes), the lie that telepathy pseudoscience is science on page 121, the lie that Mussolini built up a “great nation” on page 205 (Penguin/Pelican books in 1948 quietly edited out Carrel’s praise of Hitler’s Nazis from the 1936 German and 1939 American editions), the lie that democracy is wrong on page 249 (where he claims “The feeble-minded and the man of genius should not be equal before the law”, without realizing that he himself is feeble-minded for writing eugenics gas chamber evil), the lie on page 269 that cities are “inhuman”, the lie on page 273 that “Modern nations will save themselves by developing the strong, not by protecting the weak”, and the lie on page 274 that “Eugenics is indispensable for the perpetuation of the strong. A great race must propagate its best elements.”
The environment is always changing and the problems are always changing. So how on earth can anybody know today ahead of time, even in principle, what is going to be “best” for the rest of eternity? It’s complete rubbish, composed of ignorant assertions that contradict the facts of evolution that requires the diversity in order to allow natural selection. If you choose to propagate an “element” that seems to be doing well today, you may find it lacks some vital gene necessary for protection against a new disease that appears tomorrow! In 1970, an analogous narrow-genetic-base plant eugenics failure was demonstrated in the USA: 70-90% of corn hybrids carried the T gene for male sterility, and these were highly vulnerable to the corn leaf blight fungus. So eugenics is a lie, because reducing diversity makes uniformity greater, so all individuals share the same vulnerability: this lack of diversity is a weakness, not a strength.
Eugenics is strongly connected in psychology with uniformity of thought: groupthink. If everyone follows the same leader (a dictator figure like Hitler or whoever), then if the leader is wrong, they all suffer. This is why even outside of genetics, eugenics of thought is a bad idea. Diversity = freedom. Eugenics = lack of diversity. Ironically since the time of Marx, socialism has been on the side of “thought eugenics”, trying to censor out alternatives of ideas, trying to make everyone think the same thoughts, trying to kill off any criticisms of mainstream thinking. Tring to stamp out dissent is the problem with socialism which Churchill warned of in 1945 in the first postwar election campaign. He lost the election, in no small part because he went over the top in making his point crystal clear: comparing socialist groupthink to “Gestapo” state police. While Churchill is widely deplored for this, it should be noted that this is actually the greatest threat to freedom, since force was required to stamp out dissent and “subversion” within fascist and USSR dictatorships. Churchill’s political honesty and openness was inexpedient, but he gave the electorate a real warning of what groupthink could lead to. Attlee, the socialist Prime Minister who was elected in 1945, did secretly order the building of Britain’s first nuclear weapons against the USSR threat in January 1947 (less than a year after Churchill’s “iron curtain” speech), although he had been a pacifist opposed to rearmament during the 1930s when the Hitler regime was expanding its borders. Labour only forgot the lessons of the appeasers when the bomb’s effects were exaggerated so much that dictatorship seemed a smaller threat in the 60s.
“The process of indoctrination is made even easier by the fact that a small success rate is sufficient. During World War II, Dr H. V. Dicks made an extensive study of the psychological and political characteristics of German prisoners. Only 11 percent were Nazi ‘fanatics’, all others having some or many reservations about Nazi doctrine. This percentage did not change with the fortunes of war, nor did it change much after the war ended. In 1948, 15 percent of Germans expressed an admiration for Goebbels; and even by 1955, 10 or 11 percent of Germans under twenty-five still admired Hitler. … Ten percent, coupled with powerful leaders, can bring about world war. War, it seems, is an activity fomented by the few for the detriment of the many.”
– Robin Clarke, Science of War and Peace, Jonathan Cape, London, 1971, page 220.
– bestseller by Alexis Carrel, 1912 medical Nobel Prize winning eugenicist and Nazi eugenics praiser and appeaser, Man the Unknown, 1939 edition.
So it seems that the Nazis ideas like hot air and eugenics racism survived the destruction of WWII and were simply relabelled “eco-warriorism” and “political correctness”. The idea that evil fascist ideas died because Hitler was defeated is a big lie, according to Fredrick Forsyth in Daily Express 11 February 2011, page 13:
FASCISM DIDN’T GO – IT FOUND ANOTHER NAME
MANY years ago … I spent hours with an elderly rabbi who had fought fascism all his life. One of the wisest men I had ever met, he had the rare gift of original thought.
He was adamant fascism was not a political creed but a deeply imbued standard of behaviour. In other words, if you treat your fellow man in a fascist way, that makes you one. And he insisted there were four pillars to this behaviour.
One was a total and blind commitment to the current political and moral orthodoxy. The second was the angry repudiation of any possibility of variant thought.
He concluded this blinkered bigotry was seldom the standard of the truly evil (these were right at the very top) but of the deeply stupid.
At number three he listed a relentless no-mercy persecution of those refusing or unable to conform to the imposed orthodoxy often stemming from the anonymous denunciation and presaged by the intimidating phrase: “We have received a complaint that you …”
The final criterion of fascist behaviour is the demand for total control of thought, speech, writing – even body language and gesture.
Looking round at the persecution, often at staggering public expense and on the basis of anonymous denunciation, of harmless Christians and others, I am struck by this. The rabbi’s four criteria of practising fascism are absolutely identical to the tenets of political correctness.
In the 1960s the BBC first banned the broadcast of eugenics holocaust facts from Fredrick Forsyth from the Nigerian Civil War, where British Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s supply of arms to Federal Nigeria was resulting in genocide of the Biafrans who had declared themselves an independent state. It is important that Anne Frank was murdered by neglect in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, dying not from a gas chamber but from typhus in March 1945: this murder by a lack of humanity is the threat from the new Hitler Youth Movement, which is using a new Goebbels propaganda liar to saturate the media, diverting money from humanity to anti-humanity activities that will kill not by gas chambers but by this kind of evil deliberate neglect, as was the case for Anne Frank, and tens of millions under the Stalin communist regime genocide, and many in other dictatorships after 1945:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” – Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution (1993). (That report is available here, a site that also contains a very similar but less fashionable pseudoscientific groupthink delusion on eugenics.)
It is a fact that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, and this gas chamber fact is not grounds to refuse to acknowledge the even bigger genocide by Stalin and other nutters in what has been politely named “ethnic cleansing” by the BBC Hitler Youth, to make murder sound “clean”:
Irving L. Janis, Victims of Groupthink, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1972:
“I use the term “groupthink” … when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”(p. 9)
“… the group’s discussions are limited … without a survey of the full range of alternatives.”(p. 10)
“The objective assessment of relevant information and the rethinking necessary for developing more differentiated concepts can emerge only out of the crucible of heated debate [to overcome inert prejudice/status quo], which is anathema to the members of a concurrence-seeking group.”(p.61)
“Eight main symptoms run through the case studies of historic fiascoes … an illusion of invulnerability … collective efforts to … discount warnings … an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality … stereotyped views of enemy leaders … dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members … self-censorship of … doubts and counterarguments … a shared illusion of unanimity … (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent)… the emergence of … members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”(pp.197-8)
“… other members are not exposed to information that might challenge their self-confidence.”(p.206)
Don’t be fooled: we’re not arguing that censorship is wrong or that individualism is right, but that subjective censorship is wrong (we need more objective censorship, i.e. less authority-based dismissals of hard evidence, and more technical fact-driven debate rather then debates driven by the mere opinions of famous bigots or personalities who act as “expert” authorities who assert lies), and that socialism in science can only work if heated debates are allowed to break down Hitler-type eugenics pseudoscience fantasies. The present version of socialism used in science protects bigots by (1) ignoring polite statements of facts and (2) censoring more assertive statements of facts as being “rude”, precisely the Nazis eugenics “hard words make wounds” censorship-technique. (The idea of “penetrating” the existing regime in disguise to force revolutionary change is like saying Churchill in 1935 should have volunteered to serve as a Nazi concentration camp guard in order to try to destroy eugenics pseudoscience from within. Bad, rather than good, comes from collaboration with bigots.)
The only way to make real progress is not to assert individualism or to ban censorship, but to ban bigotry within socialism and to enforce fact-based rather than dogma-based censorship. We need more censorship in science of the fact-based type, to get rid of existing dogmatic eugenics-type pseudosciences (the incremental progress side of science, which fills the journals up with politically-correct trivia, such as adding more and more epicycles to mainstream pseudosciences). We need more socialism in science of the unbigoted type, with heated debates rather than dictatorship by Stalin-like bigots (who claim they are morally and ethically “maintaining nice politeness” in debates by sending “rude” critics into exile or worse).
“… wisdom itself cannot flourish, and even the truth not be established, without the give and take of debate and criticism. The facts, the relevant facts … are fundamental to an understanding of the issue of policy.” – J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1950
“We can’t notice and know everything: the cognitive limits of our brain simply won’t let us. That means we have to filter or edit what we take in. So what we choose to let through and to leave out is crucial. We mostly admit the information that makes us feel great about ourselves, while conveniently filtering whatever unsettles our fragile egos and most vital beliefs. It’s a truism that love is blind; what’s less obvious is just how much evidence it can ignore. Ideology powerfully masks what, to the uncaptivated mind, is obvious, dangerous or absurd … Fear of conflict, fear of change keeps us that way. An unconscious (and much denied) impulse to obey and conform shields us from confrontation … It oils the wheels of social intercourse … Perhaps it is the sheer utility of wilful blindness that sucks us into the habit in the first place. It seems innocuous and feels efficient. … Ideologues, refusing to see data and events that challenge their theories, doom themselves to irrelevance. Fraudsters succeed because they rely on our desire to blind ourselves to the questions that would expose their schemes.”
– Margaret Heffernan, Wilful Blindness, Simon and Schuster, 2011, Introduction.
The best documented analogy to climate conspiracy for NASA’s life-costing groupthink is NASA’s “accidental” 1986 Challenger space shuttle explosion. It blew up because the booster rocket’s rubber seal rings are brittle and leak at icy temperatures (the shuttle boosterss were reusable, so were composed of a series of sections). (Physics professor Feynman proved this using a glass of iced water on TV, after a tip off from military expert General Donald Kutyna, not from NASA staff who knew but covered-up the problem, or from the “expert” Armstrong astronaut who was vice-chair on the Presidental Commission!)
An engineer from the Thiokol Company, a Mr. [Allan] McDonald, wanted to tell us something. He had come to our meeting on his own, uninvited. Mr. McDonald reported that the Thiokol engineers had come to the conclusion that low temperatures had something to do with the seals problem, and they were very, very worried about it. On the night before the launch, during the flight readiness review, they told NASA the shuttle shouldn’t fly if the temperature was below 53 degrees — the previous lowest temperature — and on that morning it was 29.
Mr. McDonald said NASA was “appalled” by that statement. The man in charge of the meeting, a Mr. [Lawrence] Mulloy [manager of the NASA booster rocket program], argued that the evidence was “incomplete” — some flights with erosion and blowby had occurred at higher than 53 degrees — so Thiokol should reconsider its opposition to flying.
Thiokol reversed itself, but McDonald refused to go along, saying, “If something goes wrong with this flight, I wouldn’t want to stand up in front of a board of inquiry and say that I went ahead and told them to go ahead and fly this thing outside what it was qualified to.”
That was so astonishing that Mr. Rogers had to ask, “Did I understand you correctly, that you said…,” and he repeated the story. And McDonald says, “Yes, sir.”
The whole commission was shocked, because this was the first time any of us had heard this story: not only was there a failure in the seals, but there may have been a failure in management, too.
– Professor Richard P. Feynman, “What Do You Care What Other People Think?”, Bantam Books, London, pp. 101-104
… it struck me that there were several fishinesses associated with the big cheeses at NASA.
Every time we talked to higher level managers, they kept saying they didn’t know anything about the problems below them. … this kind of situation was new to me: either the guys at the top didn’t know, in which case they should have known, or they did know, in which case they’re lying to us.
When we learned that Mr. Mulloy [Lawrence Mulloy, manager of the NASA booster rocket program] had put pressure on Thiokol to launch, we heard time after time that the next level up at NASA knew nothing about it. You’d think Mr. [Lawrence] Mulloy would have notified a higher-up during this big discussion, saying something like, “There’s a question as to whether we should fly tomorrow morning, and there’s been some objection by the Thiokol engineers, but we’ve decided to fly anyway — what do you think?” But instead, Mulloy said something like, “All the questions have been resolved.” There seemed to be some reason why guys at the lower level didn’t bring problems up to the next level.
– Richard P. Feynman, “What Do You Care What Other People Think?”, Bantam Books, London, pp. 158-159.
“NASA’s Lawrence Mulloy reacted to the resistance this way: “My God, Thiokol. When do you want me to launch? Next April?” That turned the tide of the discussion. The Thiokol managers pressed their engineers to reverse themselves. When that failed, the managers simply overruled them, and submitted their own launch recommendation.
“The next morning, two of the engineers told us, they fully expected Challenger to blow up at launch ignition. One of the engineers silently prayed during the countdown. At liftoff, with no explosion, he began to wonder whether he’d been wrong. The relief didn’t last. Seventy-three seconds into the flight, as the spacecraft began an expected roll, the forces on the solid rocket motors began to pull one of them apart. The cold and stiff o-rings at one joint didn’t flex and seal as designed. Searing hot gasses escaped. In an instant, the sky was filled with smoke and debris. The engineers were filled with grief. And as one later told Zwerdling, “…we all knew exactly what happened.””
The important thing is that the NASA manager Lawrence Mulloy felt pressurised to launch the space shuttle and not to worry people higher up with the evidence that the risk of a disaster was present, despite having been told that it was too cold to launch. Part of the problem here is the 1 in 100,000 risk factor NASA was using (which Feynman condemns), which wasn’t a function of temperature. Mulloy probably had no clear idea of precisely what the numerical risk was. It was all intuitive judgement, wishy-washy emotional thinking, not a hard estimate that the shuttle would have a 30% chance of exploding if launched in the cold conditions that morning. In addition, the whole media TV coverage showmanship by NASA was such that the “tragegy” would be a DELAY to the launch schedule for health and safety reasons, with Mulloy taking the blame for the disappointment on children’s faces if the shuttle did not launch on schedule and they had to wait months for warmer weather. There is always a set of competing “risks” in the real world, which is why errors occur, especially when there are no hard numbers on exactly what the risks of disaster are.
This tragic situation of “conflicting interests” and poor judgement is very much analogous to the peer-pressure “groupthink” backed appeasement of aggressors by pacifists in the 1930s that Herman Kahn blamed for causing WWII, angering of the publisher and book reviewer of Scientific American.
“I remember very vividly, a few months after the famous pacifist resolution at the Oxford Union visiting Germany and having a talk with a prominent leader of the young Nazis. He was asking about this pacifist motion and I tried to explain it to him. There was an ugly gleam in his eye when he said, ‘The fact is that you English are soft’. Then I realized that the world enemies of peace might be the pacifists.”
– Liberal MP Robert Bernays, House of Commons, 20 July, 1934.
Nobody wanted a criminal case against those idiots, and there are “revisionist” historians like David Irving who try to defend the neo-Nazi fellow travellers of the who ignored the risk of “peaceful” gas chambers in their endless bleating exaggerations of aerial bombing effectiveness for “peaceful” disarmament propaganda. Groupthink continues to this day because there is no accountability and responsibility. These people behave like Nazis because of the lack of any risk of ever being personally imprisoned. Even if Sir Paul Nurse or the BBC ever admit to getting it wrong, so what? If the defendant can’t pay, you lose your legal costs in suing even if you do prove criminal neglect (Sir Paul will say he “made an error” then walk away laughing with nothing lost, and lots of green eco-fascists in the Guardian writing what a great big guy he is to admit to being wrong, as if that repays defrauded taxpayers). Nobody will ever be able to claim back the immense sums of money being squandered on carbon credits by suing Sir Paul Nurse, the BBC, or anybody else behind the lies. But forget money, and concentrate on human lives. Who is going to resurrect the dead when Sir Paul Nurse or the Mein Fuhrer the BBC Director General’s pension funds have been pumped by on the bubble of green carbon credit trading capitalist liars? Why is going to do something about the lives lost due to this pseudoscientific fashionable groupthink horseshit, Hitler’s final solution?
“I’m against ignorance, I’m against sloppy, emotional thinking. I’m against fashionable thinking. I am against the whole cliché of the moment.”
– Herman Kahn (quoted in Paul Dragos Aligica and Kenneth R. Weinstein, Editors, “The Essential Herman Kahn: In Defense of Thinking,” Lexington Books, 2009, p271).
Above: 1986 Challenger space shuttle explosion cover-up exposed by Feynman (not Armstrong, the vice-chairman of the Rogers-chaired Presidential Commission!) on TV. Feynman used a cheap cup of iced water but found that there was a crazy management groupthink quango of lying culture at NASA, because the experts knew that the rubber O-rings sealing the boosters lost ductility and became brittle at low temperatures, but they dared not say so for fear of angering TV crews and VIPs assembled to watch in the freezing January conditions. So they obfuscated their knowledge and blew the shuttle up, “accidentally” killing everyone on board, rather than have the GUTS to say it was dangerous to launch it. The great Armstrong failed to spot the simple cause of the disaster, despite being supposedly an expert on rockets because he knew how to walk on the Moon! Feynman had help from an expert on rockets, General Kutyna, who was the military expert that determined the cause of the Titan II missile silo explosion at Damascus, Arkansas in 1980. (In that case, a technician had dropped a wrench socket down the hole, which set off a chain of unpleasant events resulting in the detonation of the 100 tons of propellant and the missile’s massive 9 megaton W-53 thermonuclear warhead being blown straight out of the silo.)
Above: my YouTube video exposing the always-known lies of climate change propaganda against Telegraph journalist James Delingpole (who first exposed Dr Phil Jones’ “hide the decline” Nature peer-reviewed journal “climategate”) by the unelected BBC quango, which just like the unelected British Government Civil Service, is really in control of the country, keeping the politicians in the dark or more often than not actually in receipt of lies masquerading as facts. These quangos have always made Britain a danger to the world. Either they go, or Britain is finished. The Prime Minister David Cameron is a bigot (albeit not as dangerous to the economy as the previous prime minister, Brown) who refuses to listen to criticisms of climate propaganda or anything else. He must be made to listen or removed one way or another. The problem is that decent people in Britain are not very good at the lying needed to climb the greasy poles of political expediency, so the whole of British politics is almost as corrupt as its lying “science” propaganda (and that is, believe me, a very big insult to the politicians). This is not a joke, it is hard fact.
Yesterday the BBC sent me a deceptive fact-dodging “response” to my complaint about Horizon: Science Under Attack. I’ve published their response as a PDF here: https://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/bbc-horizon-science-under-attack-complaint-response.pdf
Dear Mr Cook
Reference CAS-561749
Thanks for your correspondence regarding ‘Horizon: Science Under Attack’ , broadcast on BBC Two on 24 January.
I understand that you feel this edition of the programme was biased in favour of the theory of man-made climate change.
Your concerns were raised with the producer of the programme – Emma Jay who replies as follows:
“I’m sorry you felt the film was biased. … In the course of the programme Paul Nurse argued that scientists need to focus on the science and keep politics and ideologies out of the way; that scientists need to be more open in the way they do their science, and be more willing to communicate the uncertainties that are sometimes inherent in their work.
“A substantial part of the film did use the example of climate science to look at this dynamic between science and society, and at the question of public trust. But I don’t accept that the film was biased in its representation of the state of the scientific debate about anthropogenic global warming. The overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific institutions accept the link; in scientific terms it is not controversial and the programme’s approach reflected that.
“I fully acknowledge that, even now, not everyone accepts this view and that there is still a continuing political debate. That is why the programme included Professor Fred Singer’s views on the primacy of solar activity and James Delingpole’s views on ‘Climategate’, the perils of scientific consensus, and how peer review in science was being challenged by peer-to-peer review. These were significant parts of the film.”
… Kind Regards
Mark Roberts
BBC Complaints
Emma made no comment about the lie I specifically raised in my complaint, namely the fact that the ONE reliable indicator or the rate of climate change (aside from cloud cover affected tree ring temperature “proxies” and weather stations downwind of direct heat sources like growing cities) is sea level rise rates, 120 metres over past 18,000 years = 0.67 cm/year mean compared to much smaller rates of rise at all times over the past century. Emma doesn’t answer my scientific complaint. It’s absolutely sickening propaganda, just like Dr Goebbels claiming that the inclusion of edited film of Jews in his racist propaganda films made the Nazis unbiased. If any decent politician ever censors this lying left-wing quango (Cameron won’t), people like her will be to blame.
See Darrel Huff, “How to Lie with Statistics”, 1954. You plot graphs and find that the number of telegraph poles is rising and the infectious disease rate is rising, and hence you have “proof” that telegraph poles are causing disease. There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 causes temperature rises. Correlation does not imply causation. There are lies, damned, lies and statistics.
1. H2O due to water evaporation is a far bigger greenhouse gas than CO2, and the annual emission of CO2 from “unnatural” sources is only
2. Cloud cover presently covers 62% of the surface area of the globe and the fraction increases as a function of injected CO2, caused by evaporation of water from the oceans and lakes that cover 70% of the area of the globe. This additional “global dimming” causes a negative feedback cancelling out the temperature rise from CO2, as the oceans warm up (there is a slight time lag due to the high specific heat capacity of water and the wintertime mixing of warm thermocline waters with deeper water dueing storms).
3. Cloud cover has an average altitude of 2 km, so the lower altitude air and surface below the cloud is unable to benefit from CO2 which only absorbs infrared (the infrared energy is absorbed or reflected near the top of the clouds, where the heated air rises, and is unable to transfer warmth to lower altitudes efficiency due to the buoyancy of warm air).
4. “… there is … a very grave danger for science in so close an association with the State … it may lead to dogmatism in science and to the suppression of opinions which run counter to official theories.”
– J. B. S. Haldane (1892–1964), The Causes of Evolution, Longmans, London, 1932, p. 225.
5. Beware of NASA’s $1,000,000,000 annual budget to fight Delingpole with big lies:
To make a name for learning
When other ways are barred
Take something very easy
And make it very hard
“[Hitler’s] primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
6. Dr Ferenc Miskolczi points out that NOAA data on atmospheric H2O over 61 years from 1948-2008 show a fall in humidity. It seems that this implies an increase in cloud cover so that H2O varies in such a way as to cancel out the effect of CO2 on temperature.
Notice that Rob van Dorland and Piers M. Forster wrote a paper “Rebuttal of Miskolczi’s alternative greenhouse theory” (hosted at realclimate.org) which falsely states on page 4:
“… there is ample observational evidence that the most important greenhouse gases, water vapour and carbon dioxide have increased in the last four decades, meaning that the total infrared optical depth is indeed increasing. Finally, direct satellite observations of the outgoing infrared spectrum show that the greenhouse effect has been enhanced over this period.”
This contradicts the NOAA data Dr Miskolczi gives. I don’t have any interest in Miskolczi’s idealized calculations which are irrelevant to the real world (regardless of whether they are correct or not), just in the actual data from observations and the mechanism he proposed. All of Miskolczi’s critics ignore the data and the cloud cover mechanism and focus on showing that his model is imperfect or beyond their understanding (by which they try to imply he is wrong, rather than they haven’t made the effort to understand the details!), which is obvious since it is just an idealized model.
As Dr Miklos Zagoni shows in his paper (CO2 cannot cause any more “global warming”: Dr Ferenc Miskolczi’s saturated greenhouse effect theory, SPPI Original paper, December 18, 2009), when you ignore Dr Miskolczi’s idealized calculations, and simply look at the data he unearthed from NOAA, you see the evidence for the cloud cover feedback mechanism.
The variations of CO2 during Earth’s geological record were all caused by rapid temperature changes by means other than CO2 variations, such as cycles in the Earth’s orbit or geological processes that created large mountain ranges. These variations produce the climate change, which in turn caused an imbalance between CO2 absorbers and emitters. Rainforests (CO2 sinks) can be killed off by temperature fall rates which can be compensated for by the migration of CO2 emitting animals. A drop in global temperature caused an increase in the atmospheric CO2 level indirectly, due to the fact that rainforests cannot migrate as quickly as animals, and are therefore more likely to be killed. An increase in global temperatures had the opposite effect, allowing dense rainforests to proliferate faster than the rate of increase of CO2 emitting animals. Therefore, the fossil record correlation between CO2 and temperature has nothing to do with a direct mechanism for CO2 to affect temperature.
“Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases, if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans. … The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content [although the percentage contributions to it from different greenhouse gases can vary greatly] and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter). … During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948. … a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all.”
– Dr Miklos Zagoni, CO2 cannot cause any more “global warming”: Dr Ferenc Miskolczi’s saturated greenhouse effect theory, SPPI Original paper, December 18, 2009, page 4.
1. I’m quoting qualified climate scientists Dr Miklos Zagoni, Dr Miklos Zagoni. I’m a qualified technical author (not a PhD yet, but the PhD is just a badge of groupthink consensus outside the specialism concerned anyway), who has read the “peer”-reviewed crap.
2. Hitler’s “big lie” propaganda trick is ESSENTIAL to understanding climate groupthink.
3. Lawyer Godwin’s law in his own words: “When you get these glib comparisons you lose perspective on what made the Nazis and the Holocaust particularly terrible.”
(Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10618638 .)
I think that says it all, however it appears Godwin takes his bible too seriously and believes in the myth that the Jews alone are God-win’s “chosen people”, and the “ethnic cleansing” of many peoples since 1945 doesn’t count as a holocaust worthy of comparison to the six millions gassed by Hitler’s brainwashing “science” of genetics.
See how genetics and weapons effects were perverted for appeasement of the Nazis; it all started out with the big lie from 1912 Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel best-selling eugenics book:
“Those who have … misled the public in important matters, should be humanely and economically disposed of in small euthanasic institutions supplied with proper gasses.”
– L’Homme, cet Inconnu (Man the unknown)
Adding in the 1936 German edition preface:
“… German government has taken energetic measures against the propagation of the defective, the mentally diseased, and the criminal.”
To the 1936 German government, the “defective” included Jews. Now maybe you get the drift? If Carrel could succeed in misleading the world into not grasping the danger of Nazi eugenics in 1936, allowing Britain to appease Hitler instead of stopping him, does that not tell you the danger from “Godwin’s law” today? Sea levels have risen 120 metres over the past 18,000 years at faster rates than they’re rising today. We’re still here. Trying to stop the sea level rising was tried without success by King Canute. It cost him a fortune and he’d have been better off spending the money helping people, not putting carbon credit trading billions into politicians pockets, BBC pension funds, and politically correct windfarms.
The real problem is that the media is being manipulated by an age old conspiracy of fascist officialdom in science which gets beaten back at every scientific revolution (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein), then creeps back to shore up status quo against simple facts.
“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
– Dr Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes.
There is nothing complex to understand, Disgruntled. It’s very simple. You heat water and it evaporates, right? Steam rises? Steam condenses when it reaches cool air high up? Clouds form? This simply adds to the “global dimming” effect which works against CO2 induced temperature rises. The global dimming effect caused the failure of tree ring data to proxy temperatures after 1960, contrary to Nurse’s claim.
There is evidence therefore from several different sources, not just global humidity measurements since 1948, indicating that cloud cover has been increasing, offsetting temperature effects from CO2. It keeps low altitude air cool, and warm air layers high in the atmosphere are unable to warm the ground because their positive buoyancy.
I’ve put a PDF of medical Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel’s 1935 eugenics bestseller, Man, the Unknown online on my domain
http://quantumfieldtheory.org/ALEXIS%20CARREL%20Man%20the%20Unknown%201935.pdf
https://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/alexis-carrel-man-the-unknown-1935.pdf
Page 165 of the PDF:
“There remains the unsolved problem of the immense number of defectives … an enormous burden … Why do we preserve these useless and harmful beings? … Why should society not dispose of the criminals and the insane in a more economical manner? We cannot go on trying to separate the responsible from the irresponsible, punish the guilty … We are not capable of judging men. However, the community must be protected against troublesome and dangerous elements. How can this be done? Certainly not by building larger and more comfortable prisons, just as real health will not be promoted by larger and more scientific hospitals. Criminality and insanity can be prevented only by a better knowledge of man, by eugenics… Those who have … misled the public in important matters [Jews in Nazi propaganda], should be humanely and economically disposed of in small euthanasic institutions supplied with proper gases.” – bestseller by Alexis Carrel, 1912 medical Nobel Prize winning eugenicist and Nazi eugenics praiser and appeaser, Man the Unknown, 1935 and 1939 (died awaiting trial for collaboration).
My argument is that if such fashionable gas chamber bullshit in best selling books by pseudoscientific “leaders” had not been so adored and loved due to Nobel’s warmongering prize (financed by deliberately supplying explosives to both sides in the Crimean War, an act of abject evil that makes Hitler’s gas chamber massacres look heavenly), maybe Nazi appeasement could have been stopped by Churchill. As it was, peer-review groupthink prevailed. Godwin should study what happened to cause the holocaust, which was the racism due to eugenics pseudoscience in the 1930s. There was a form of Godwin’s law then, where anyone criticising fascist evil was simply censored out of the British evil as being unpleasant. It didn’t help Churchill to stop Hitler.
All evil springs from perverted “science”, pseudoscience, enforced by petty dictatorial officaldom, wasting money. The abuse of anonymous “peer”-review power politics to censor rival theories is manifest in particle physics, where money from our pockets to fund CERN’s LHC fascist search for imaginary particles in a fascist attempt to prove mainstream hocus pocus theories that Feynman long ago exposed as speculative claptrap. These fascists are always portrayed as great Nobel Laureates in the right wing media, when their success comes not from originality or hard work, but from the corruption of “peer”-review.
The BBC has just made a big issue about a fiddled Nature journal (remember “Mike’s Nature trick” climategate email? Dr Phil Campbell, editor at Nature, and his Physical Sciences Editor Dr Karl Zemelis in 1996 used Edward Witten’s pseudoscientific M-theory string theory obfuscation to censor my paper on quantum gravity, correctly predicting an cosmological acceleration from a quantum gravity mechanism of a ~ Hc in 1996, two years before it was measured and confirmed) CO2 computer model flood risk assessment:
“Using publicly volunteered distributed computing [11,12], we generate several thousand seasonal-forecast-resolution climate model simulations of autumn 2000 weather, both under realistic conditions, and under conditions as they might have been had these greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting large-scale warming never occurred. … The precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth-century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.”
– Pardeep Pall, et al., Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000, Nature, v470, pp382–385, issue date 17 February 2011, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html
There are two immediate obfuscation problems in this paper. First, the computer models used assume positive feedback from water vapour (not the negative feedback due to buoyant moist air forming extra cloud and thus “global dimming” that cancels out the CO2 effect over timescales of decades), so they are just assuming that CO2 is causing the massaged data on temperature rises from tree rings, weather stations in or downwind of direct heat pollution (e.g. growing cities, factories, etc.), and satellite data (62% of the surface is covered by cloud, so the satellite data is biased towards seeing ground blackbody temperatures for clear sky areas, etc.). Second, they are giving increased percentage risks as 20% and 90%, and the BBC is interpretating this (as evidently intended by the dishonest presentation of the abstract in terms of percentages) as a causal proof that the floods of 2000 were 20% or 90% likely to be due to global warming.
Nothing could be further from the facts. Those are just the percentage increases on very small percentages. If the risk is 1% then a 90% increase means 1.9% not 90%. But the spin the BBC gives is misleading because of their green pension fund managers. They have a vested interest in reporting deceitful spin, and adding to the spin even more. The biggest British floods, costing the worst casualty toll, were actually in 1953, when my father (in the Civil Defence Corps in Essex) helped out. The whole of the Essex coast was affected to some degree, 1,600 km of coast was flooded in Britain with over 300 people were killed in Britain. The BBC seem to have forgotten this event, which was FAR worse than the 2000 floods! If they want climate change flood probabilities, here’s one that they can’t go wrong with: over the past 18,000 years sea level rose 120 metres, causing massive floods. The probability that it was due to climate change was 100%.
Holocaust deniers have jumped in to defend Al Gore’s association with Holocaust denial via spending diverting money from life-supporting schemes to holocaust supporting ones, based on the principle of murder by starvation enforced by NASA eugenics HQ as proved in my video in the previous blog post (where the NASA spokesman lies on camera about CO2 emissions!). NASA, please remember, hired the Nazi Dr Werner Von Braun (previously employed by Hitler to kill british kids using supersonic V2 rockets) to design the Saturn V for God’s greatest human being Niel Armstrong (yep, the great genius who – as reported in the last post – couldn’t find the rubber O-ring failure mechanism because he didn’t look for it during the Challenger inquiry in 1986) to pollute the moon, detracting vital money and American public sympathy from the Vietnam War for freedom and liberty from communist tyranny. I explained the following graphs on Delingpole’s blog, linked here: “Climate scepticism: not just the new paedophilia, but the new racism and homophobia too!” NASA is a really great organization, not.
Fig. 1: the earth’s surface is 70% water and currently about 62% is covered with clouds at a mean altitude of 2 km. There is some evidence that pushing extra CO2 into the atmosphere slightly increases cloud cover rather than global climatic mean temperature. We’re been in global warming for 18,000 years, during which time the sea level has risen 120 metres (0.67 cm/year mean, often faster than this mean rate). Over the past century, sea level has risen at an average rate of 0.20 cm year, and even the maximum rate of nearly 0.4 cm/year recently is less than the rates humanity has adapted to and flourished with in the past. CO2 annual output limits and wind farms etc are no use in determining the ultimate amount of CO2 in the atmosphere anyway: if you supplement fossil fuels with wind farms, the same CO2 simply takes longer to be emitted, maybe 120 years instead of 100 years.
Dr Ferenc Miskolczi resigned from a NASA contractor due to their censorship of observational evidence of global humidity levels between 1948 and 2008, showing that global mean humidity has not increased and consequently the positive-feedback effect of CO2 emissions on H2O is not substantiated. Moist warm air rises, expands, and condenses into increased cloud cover. This is the “anti-greenhouse effect”. Put simply, the Earth has large oceans and a large mass, which effectively prevents water vapour escaping into outer space, unlike small planets with runaway CO2 greenhouse effects due to loss of water.
The variations of CO2 during Earth’s geological record were all caused by rapid temperature changes by means other than CO2 variations, such as cycles in the Earth’s orbit or geological processes that created large mountain ranges. These variations produce the climate change, which in turn caused an imbalance between CO2 absorbers and emitters. Rainforests (CO2 sinks) can be killed off by temperature fall rates which can be compensated for by the migration of CO2 emitting animals. A drop in global temperature caused an increase in the atmospheric CO2 level indirectly, due to the fact that rainforests cannot migrate as quickly as animals, and are therefore more likely to be killed. An increase in global temperatures had the opposite effect, allowing dense rainforests to proliferate faster than the rate of increase of CO2 emitting animals. Therefore, the fossil record correlation between CO2 and temperature has nothing to do with a direct mechanism for CO2 to affect temperature.
Venus, which is closest to the sun than earth is, allegedly has a runaway greenhouse effect due to an atmosphere which is 96.5% CO2 and a surface temperature of 462 °C, but the CO2 percentage alone is not causing it alone, it’s the fact that the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 93 earth atmospheres which is to blame. Neglecting for the moment effects due to orbital radii, Mars is similar to Venus in having a large fraction of its atmosphere composed of CO2 (96%) but has a low total surface air pressure, only about 0.64% of earth’s, and a mean surface temperature is a chilly −46 °C. The “runaway greenhouse effect” that keeps Venus roasting hot is not possible on earth, where the large oceans regulate the climate (Figure 2 below). Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because the total atmospheric pressure is so high, 93 times earth’s sea-level atmospheric pressure, and it is nearer the sun than earth!
– Dr Miklos Zagoni, CO2 cannot cause any more “global warming”: Dr Ferenc Miskolczi’s saturated greenhouse effect theory, SPPI Original paper, December 18, 2009, page 4.
Now the 1930s was not the gas chamber era in Nazi history, it was the time when the Nazis could still have been stopped by threat of force, if only eugenics pseudoscience was not supported by Nobel Laureates like surgeon Alexis Carrel, who won the 1912 medical Nobel prize then collaborated with the Nazi propagandarists of eugenics by suggesting the use of gas chambers to create a super-race (claiming this is scientifically confirmed by Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” when of course you need diversity, which eugenics eliminates). Carrel is still today celebrated by fascists and the evil for his contributions to genocide and of course his end-to-end technique for arterial anastamoses, yet died awaiting trial for collaboration, but his 1930s collaboration is a fact published in his support for the Nazis eugenics programme in the 1930s:
“A euthanasia establishment, equipped with a suitable gas, would allow the humanitarian and economic disposal of those who have killed, committed armed robbery, kidnapped children, robbed the poor or seriously betrayed public confidence,” Carrel wrote in L’Homme, cet Inconnu. “Would the same system not be appropriate for lunatics who have committed criminal acts?” he suggested.
In the 1936 preface to the German edition of his book, Alexis Carrel added a praise to the eugenics policies of the Third Reich, writing that:
(t)he German government has taken energetic measures against the propagation of the defective, the mentally diseased, and the criminal. The ideal solution would be the suppression of each of these individuals as soon as he has proven himself to be dangerous.[16]
Carrel also wrote in his book that:
(t)he conditioning of petty criminals with the whip, or some more scientific procedure, followed by a short stay in hospital, would probably suffice to insure order. Those who have murdered, robbed while armed with automatic pistol or machine gun, kidnapped children, despoiled the poor of their savings, misled the public in important matters, should be humanely and economically disposed of in small euthanasic institutions supplied with proper gasses. A similar treatment could be advantageously applied to the insane, guilty of criminal acts.[17]
The danger of Al Gore’s global warming denial movement is that the diversion of funds from impoverished nations to green carbon credit trader’s wallets and quack green person fund holders will divert funds from life-saving third world projects which in times of global economic recession will have to be sacrificed.
Like Carrel, Al Gore certainly does not want a holocaust for eugenics, but like Carrel, his policies and propaganda lies are stamping on scientific facts and are a danger to civilization by the very fascist tactics employed to censor out genuine science criticism.
The IPCC ignores the increasing future depletion of fossil fuels, and predicts that spending $100 billion will constrain temperature rises by 1.5 C. In any case, the suggested “countermeasure” of throwing billions upon billions of dollars at building alternative technology such as wind power stations (which shut down in strong winds to prevent damage, and also generate no power in hot calm periods where there is a major power demand for air conditioning), will just supplement fossil fuel use and therefore will not reduce the eventual CO2 release from the use of fossil fuels, but will merely protract the rate of its release, so the politics of global warming suffer from inherent problems:
(1) CO2 is not a pollutant but is the vital source of carbon for all plant growth on land and in the sea on this planet, and rising levels of CO2 therefore promote life rather than destroying it – it is an essential gas for the life on Earth. It doesn’t lead to rapid temperature rises on any planet with large quantities of water, since any initial slight temperature rise causes more water to evaporate forming clouds, thus increasing cloud cover and protecting the planet against further temperature rises from the increasing level of atmospheric CO2. As Dr Lubos Motl points out, CO2 only becomes unpleasant for humans at concentrations of around 10,000 ppm while the current one is 388 ppm and with the depletion of fossil fuel reserves it cannot ever exceed 1,000 ppm. CO2 has a net positive impact on life on Earth.
(2) fossil fuels are not inexhaustible and are being depleted anyway, and as oil and coal supplies dwindle the remaining reserves are more expensive to tap and so the price rises, and people are pushed naturally away from using such fuels towards safe nuclear energy (which doesn’t produce collateral CO2 emissions if nuclear power is used to generate electricity to power the trains that deliver the fuel, etc.) and renewable biofuels (plants which lock up the same amount of CO2 while growing that they release on subsequent burning, so there is no net increase in global CO2), so global warming is not a long term doomsday problem anyway unless fossil fuels can be shown to be inexhaustible,
(3) the immense expenditure on trying to reduce CO2 emissions from existing sources and building wind power stations doesn’t cause a significant reduction in global carbon dioxide. For example, if the total fossil fuel reserve (oil, coal, etc.) is X tons, then supplementing it with wind power will simply mean that the carbon in the X tons of fuel is given out over a longer period of time, say 120 years instead of 100 years. Once all of the fossil fuels have been used up, all of the CO2 will be released and the “countermeasures” which consist of reducing the rate at which the CO2 is released will not affect the ultimate level of CO2 in the atmosphere. So it is a confidence trick to waste taxpayers money under false pretenses.
(4) It’s also pretty obvious that before the coal and oil deposits were formed, the atmosphere had a higher CO2 because the carbon in fossil fuels came from the atmosphere in the first place. True, the coal and oil was formed over many millions of years, but nevertheless at the beginning the carbon which is not (now) locked in fossil fuels was essentially all present in the atmosphere. The oxygen levels over the Phanerozoic have been analyzed in detail by Berner and Canfield’s model.
Large amounts of atmospheric CO2 was what fuelled the plant growth which produced much of the fossil fuels around 300 million years ago when the terrific conversion of carbon dioxide into wood released enough oxygen by photosynthesis to make the earth’s atmosphere 35% oxygen (compared to 21% today), fuelling the early inefficient lungs of the first amphibians when they moves on to the land, and also fuelling giant now extinct flying insects which utilized the high oxygen levels. It’s interesting that such high oxygen levels are associated with high ignition probabilities under today’s conditions. E.g., for typical forest fine kindling (dry leaves, etc) today, there is a 70% increase in the probability of a fire being started by lightning for every 1% rise in the oxygen percentage. However, this fire risk would automatically be compensated for over long time periods by a structuring of the forests by evolution to reduce intense fire risks: regular fires reduce ignition probabilities by clearing away kindling like deadwood and underbrush, trees would be spaced on average further apart than they are now, and so fires would spread less easily and burn less fiercely than you would expect by simply scaling up the oxygen percentage and assuming that primeval forests were similar to those today.
Between 300 and 250 million years ago, the oxygen content of the atmosphere fell from 35% to 21% and then dropped to around 15% about 200 million years ago, before rising to 27% 30 million years ago and falling to 21% now (the current level seems to be on a downward slope).
(5) human beings are not unnatural and have always been changing the world. The world can adapt to changes, as it has done many times before in the history of this planet, which has included long periods with much higher temperatures than are forecast for global warming even under the most pessimistic conditions. There was a period when do-gooders tried to stop forest fires: they extinguished all the fires, and gradually the amount of dead wood and underbrush increased until the forest had become a massive bonfire waiting to be ignited. Eventually a fire started which couldn’t be extinguished, and the forest was destroyed completely, not just to the superficial (surface charring of bark) extent that fires usually caused. Then they realized that the policy of trying to stop fires in the forest had been an error. Interfering with global warming may seem just as “obvious” as trying to stop fires in a forest. But are we sure that such interference is the right thing to do? Could the money be better spent on defenses against sea level rises and extreme weather? Global temperature naturally varies and so it is not clear exactly what value you are even trying to change the global mean temperature to. Never mind, ignorant politicians don’t care about these “technical details”, just about being seen to address a problem by flushing trillions of taxpayers money down the drain so more people will vote for them.
“Ever since writing my TV shows in the Eighties I have been talking to students, teachers and the general public and enthusing about the amazing possibilities for science and technology in the future. But over 30 years I have seen a terrible change in science education. Role models such as Dalton, Faraday and Curie are hardly ever mentioned … Kids are introduced to science as something that is life-threatening and deprived of exploration … They are being brainwashed into believing that science and technology is crippling the Earth and our future when exactly the opposite is true. Science education has been turned upside down by worry merchants and it is already costing us dearly in a widespread lack of understanding – it is ignorance that breeds fear … If we scrapped completely the foolhardy and scientifically unsound chase to reduce carbon, while still aiming for greater efficiency in energy usage, we would have all the money needed to bring the Third World out of poverty, save millions of lives year on year, and create a fairer and far more balanced world …”
– Johnny Ball, “It’s Not the End of the World”, Daily Express, 21 December 2009, p. 13.
The lies of Al Gore’s Oscar winning film, An Inconvenient Truth
1. Gore, who lost the 2000 Presidential election to Bush, claims in An Inconvenient Truth that the injury to his child by a car converted him into an genuine environmentalist. But after winning his Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth the media revealed that Gore’s household consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours of energy in 2006, which is over 20 times the American average. So Gore was proved to be a traditional “Do as I say, not as I do” lying politician, not an honest environmentalist.
2. Gore falsely claims that the only solution to global carbon dioxide increases is to reduce emissions, which is a lie, for it neglects the fact that proper sea wall defenses in Holland today permit much of the country to operate safely while being 15 feet below sea level! Gore also ignores other countermeasures such as growing crops further north as the earth warms, and instead just lies that the only solution is to reduce emissions.
3. Gore with political expediency avoids the nuclear solution to global warming explained right back in 1958 by Edward Teller and Albert L. Latter in their book Our Nuclear Future: Facts, Dangers, and Opportunities (Criterion Books, New York, 1958), page 167:
‘If we continue to consume [fossil] fuel at an increasing rate, however, it appears probable that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere will become high enough to raise the average temperature of the earth by a few degrees. If this were to happen, the ice caps would melt and the general level of the oceans would rise. Coastal cities like New York and Seattle might be innundated. Thus the industrial revolution using ordinary chemical fuel could be forced to end … However, it might still be possible to use nuclear fuel.’
4. Gore lies that sea levels could rise by 20 feet due to global warming causing the Antarctic ice sheet to melt. The report of the International Panel on Climate Change (which probably overestimated the effect greatly) predicted a rise of just over 1 foot by 2100.
5. Gore claims of temperature rise: “in recent years, it is uninterrupted and it is intensifying.” Actually, the “effective temperature” for tree growth (which includes cloud cover effects on sunlight) as measured by tree rings has been declining and this has been deliberately covered-up by the fraudulent “scientists” assembling the International Panel on Climate Change data, who have had to resort to data manipulation tricks to “hide the decline”.
6. Gore lies by including Hurricane Katrina and its devastation of New Orleans in 2005 as a global warming debate phenomenon: the effects of the hurricane were a random result of happening to strike a highly populated coast with poor defenses and actually imply that better sea defenses are needed for such cities, because cutting CO2 emissions can’t stop hurricanes any more than Gore’s lying hot air!
7. Gore lies that the disappearing glaciers and snow on places like Mount Kilimanjaro are due to global warming, when in fact deforestation around those areas is the reason for the reduced precipitation (snowfall), just as deforestation in warmer areas reduces local rainfall! (This is well established: “deforestation of Amazonia was found to severely reduce rainfall in the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, and northern Mexico during the spring and summer seasons when water is crucial for agricultural productivity. Deforestation of Central Africa has a similar effect, causing a significant precipitation decrease in the lower U.S Midwest during the spring and summer and in the upper U.S. Midwest in winter and spring.”)
8. The film’s images of the abandoned ships on the dried-up bed of the Aral Sea are a massive irrelevancy for global warming because it is very well-known that the Soviet Union actually caused the Aral Sea to dry up by diverting the rivers which fed that sea! The Aral Sea did not dry up due to global warming!
9. Gore claims global warming threats are all real because a peer-reviewed review paper of 928 peer-reviewed articles found that none disagreed with global warming. Professor Feynman warned that such peer-reviewed pseudoscience claims about authority and consensus are actually political rubbish of no consequence to the natural world around us and are hence anti-science in their very nature:
“You must here distinguish – especially in teaching – the science from the forms or procedures that are sometimes used in developing science. … great religions are dissipated by following form without remembering the direct content of the teaching of the great leaders. In the same way, it is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudo-science. In this way, we all suffer from the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers. … We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on … They are merely an imitative form of science … The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are. …. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
– Richard P. Feynman, “What is Science?”, presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, 1966 in New York City, published in The Physics Teacher Vol. 7, issue 6, 1968, pp. 313-320.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of expert opinion, of political consensus. Science is the rejection of everything except factual evidence. The object of science is not to achieve harmony or consensus but, on the contrary, to find the facts no matter whether the facts agree with expert opinions and expert prejudices, or not!
In case anyone doesn’t grasp this point by Feynman that statistics alone don’t prove causes, remember the example from How to Lie With Statistics of the Dutch researcher who proved a definite correlation between the number of babies in families and the number of storks nests on the roofs of their homes! This didn’t prove that storks were the cause, and delivered babies like traditional mythology! There was a simple alternative reason: the bigger families tended to buy larger, older houses which naturally tended to have more storks nests on their roofs because they were both bigger and older!
Statistics don’t prove causes. Science isn’t about finding correlations and then lying that the correlation itself proves the cause of the correlation to be this or that! Science is about searching for facts, not making lying claims founded on prejudice. “Coincidence” is a word often said with a sneer, but sometimes it is the factual explanation for a correlation! A statistically proved correlation between curve A and curve B is not statistical proof that A causes B or proof that B causes A, or even that there is any connection at all: it merely proves that the curves are similar, a fact that may be down to pure coincidence, like it or not! A good example of this problem (with the scientific “elbow grease” type solution required) was given during the June 1957 U.S. Congressional Hearings on page 1001 of the Nature of Radioactive Fallout and Its Effects on Man in testimony by Dr H. L. Friedell, Director of the Atomic Energy Medical Research Project in the School of Medicine at Western Reserve University:
“It is difficult trying to make this decision from the statistics alone.
“An example of how this might occur is something that was presented by George Bernard Shaw … Statistics were presented to him to show that as immunization increased, various communicable diseases decreased in England. He hired somebody to count up the telegraph poles erected in various years … and it turned out that telegraph poles were being increased in number. He said, ‘Therefore, this is clear evidence that the way to eliminate communicable diseases is to build a lot more telegraph poles’.
“All I would like to say here is that the important point is that if you really want to understand it, you have to look at the mechanism of the occurrence. I think this is where the emphasis should lie.”
Above: Al Gore’s falsehood about geothermal energy, claiming that the centre of the Earth is at a temperature of “several million degrees” when in fact it is well established from mining data that the Earth’s temperature rises by roughly 1 oC per km of depth and is only around 5,400 oC at the core (the core is hot essentially due partly to tidal effects from the gravity of the Moon as it orbits, and partly to the radioactive decay energy from dense, high mass number elements such as uranium and thorium). But all such scientific facts are apparently irrelevant to the political propaganda lies of Al Gore. Dr Lubos Motl comments:
“It’s very clear that he can’t possibly have the slightest clue about physics, geology, and energy flows on the Earth. It’s sad that many politicians lack the basic science education. …
“Don’t get me wrong, I am no foe of geothermal energy. But it currently produces about 0.3% of the global energy demand. Only near the tectonic plate boundaries, the installation is relatively doable today. That’s why geothermal power plants may thrive in Iceland but not in the bulk of Europe or America.
“There’s surely some room for expansion of this source of energy but it doesn’t seem realistic to expect that geothermal energy will replace the fossil fuels in the bulk of their current applications.
“If you want to have a sensible idea about the amount of geothermal energy we can get by sensible tools, it’s excellent to imagine the ‘hot water bubbling up at some places’ (usually in combination with lots of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide, besides innocent carbon dioxide) – exactly the right idea that Al Gore doesn’t like because it cools the irrational hype (or downright lies) surrounding the alternative sources of energy.”
Read more about Herr Fuhrer Al Gore’s evil associations with Nazi eugenics or other pseudoscientific lies in my blog post from over a year ago here, and my other blog on weapons effects exaggerating and civil defence denying lies here. I’m writing a lengthy book exposing ALL of the evil thugs who refuse to stand up to continuing neo-Nazi eugenicists and their new pseudoscience today. If like Sir Paul Nurse and BBC Nazis, you support diverting life-saving money into the pockets of Al Gore’s shady henchmen, you may find yourself in it! Please just leave a comment below and we’ll track you down from your IP address.
Janis, Irving L. Victims of Groupthink. Boston. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
“Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. It is a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion.
“Irving Janis studied a number of ‘disasters’ in American foreign policy, such as failure to anticipate the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941); the Bay of Pigs fiasco (1961) when the US administration sought to overthrow Fidel Castro; and the prosecution of the Vietnam War (1964–67) by President Lyndon Johnson. He concluded that in each of these cases, the decisions were made largely due to the cohesive nature of the committees which made them. Moreover, that cohesiveness prevented contradictory views from being expressed and subsequently evaluated. As defined by Janis, “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”.[1].
“Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.[citation needed] During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance.”
I’ve collected a lot of information for a book on censored ideas, but I’d had difficulty finding a way to assemble the information in order to overcome censorship.
Clearly some things like lying Nazi propaganda and porn need censorship, so for Ivor catt or anyone to cling on to “censorship” as the root problem is obviously wrong.
Science is the experimentally-based censorship of drivel and lies. Ivor Catt wants lies to be censored out: his term “spring cleaning” or “Occam’s Razor” means censorship of bad ideas. Why then is he engaging in doublespeak elsewhere on his silly internet site where he claims he is against censorship? This is the problem!
Groupthink seems a more specific way to address the problem than censorship. We want censorship to flush lying pseudoscientific dogma down the drain. We want censorship to get rid of ideas that are being falsely defended by “science” without experimental backup. The problem then, is not censorship per se, but a perversion of genuine censorship by a religion of orthodox beliefs dressed up as science, which is a mystical phenomenon going back historically to the Ancient Egyptian priesthood with their star aligned pyramids, the Stonehenge Beaker People, Witchcraft, Voodoo, Scientism, Epicycles, Caloric, Phlogiston, Relativism, Supersymmetry, Alchemy, Creationism, and the Pythagorean mathematical cult that asserted without any evidence that atoms are regular geometric solids.
Has Ivor read Irving Janis’s 1972 “Victims of Groupthink” or not? Janis should have added EUGENICS and the 1986 CHALLENGER NASA disaster to his list of groupthink failures: http://www.quantumfieldtheory.org
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/xxx099.html contains an excerpt from Irving L. Janis, “Victims of Groupthink,” 1972; Houghton Mifflin Company; ISBN: 0-395-14044-7 (pp. 197-204)
The groupthink syndrome: Review of the major symptoms
In order to test generalization about the conditions that increase the chances of groupthink, we must operationalize the concept of groupthink by describing the symptoms to which it refers. Eight main symptoms run through the case studies of historic fiascoes. Each symptom can be identified by a variety of indicators, derived from historical records, observer’s accounts of conversations, and participants’ memoirs. The eight symptoms of groupthink are:
1. an illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks;
2. collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings which might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions;
3. an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions;
4. stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes;
5. direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members;
6. self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member’s inclination to minimize to himself the importance of his doubts and counterarguments;
7. a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent);
8. the emergence of self-appointed mindguards – members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.
When a policy-making group displays most or all of these symptoms, the members perform their collective tasks ineffectively and are likely to fail to attain their collective objectives. Although concurrence-seeking may contribute to maintaining morale after a defeat and to muddling through a crisis when prospects for a successful outcome look bleak, these positive effects are generally outweighed by the poor quality of the group’s decision-making. My assumption is that the more frequently a group displays the symptoms, the worse will be the quality of its decisions. Even when some symptoms are absent, the others may be so pronounced that we can predict all the unfortunate consequences of groupthink.
[…]
Psychological functions of the eight symptoms
Concurrence-seeking and the various symptoms of groupthink to which it gives rise can be best understood as a mutual effort among the members of a group to maintain self-esteem, especially when they share responsibility for making vital decisions that pose threats of social disapproval and self-disapproval. The eight symptoms of groupthink form a coherent pattern if viewed in the context of this explanatory hypothesis. The symptoms may function in somewhat different ways to produce the same result.
A shared illusion of invulnerability and shared rationalizations can counteract unnerving feelings of personal inadequacy and pessimism about finding an adequate solution during a crisis. Even during noncrisis periods, whenever the members foresee great gains from taking a socially disapproved or unethical course of action, they seek some way of disregarding the threat of being found out and welcome the optimistic views of the members who argue for the attractive but risky course of action. (4) At such times, as well as during distressing crises, if the threat of failure is salient, the members are likely to convey to each other the attitude that “we needn’t worry, everything will go our way.” By pooling their intellectual resources to develop rationalizations, the members build up each other’s confidence and feel reassured about unfamiliar risks, which, if taken seriously, would be dealt with by applying standard operating procedures to obtain additional information and to carry out careful planning.
The member’s firm belief in the inherent morality of their group and their use of undifferentiated negative stereotypes of opponents enable them to minimize decision conflicts between ethical values and expediency, especially when they are inclined to resort to violence. The shared belief that “we are a wise and good group” inclines them to use group concurrence as a major criterion to judge the morality as well as the efficacy of any policy under discussion. “Since our group’s objectives are good,” the members feel, “any means we decide to use must be good.” This shared assumption helps the members avoid feelings of shame or guilt about decisions that may violate their personal code of ethical behavior. Negative stereotypes of the enemy enhance their sense of moral righteousness as well as their pride in the lofty mission of the in-group.
(4) Campbell, D. T., “Stereotypes and the perception of group differences.” American psychologist, 1967, 22, 817-829.
· · · · · ·
Irving L. Janis (1918-1990) obtained a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from Columbia University. He was a faculty member in the Psychology Department at Yale from 1947 to 1985, and was appointed Adjunct Professor of Psychology Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley in 1986.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
– John Stuart Mill
If you debunk any exaggeration, the debunking has no news value because it fails to motivate and inspire people to the degree that the exaggeration does. You can only kick out one king by imposing another. You need a new peril, like CO2 taxation induced starvation, to outweigh the previous one, before people want to know.
I’m optimistic and pray that at some point the evidence will become so obvious to even the most gullible that there will be a proper revolution, hopefully along the civilized lines of the French Revolution (complete with guillotine to save money and prevent victims paying tax to keep their tormentors living in luxury hotels or prisons), so that bad heads will literally roll. A pleasant dream.
Quantum field theory 
I recommend Professor H. G. Barnett’s book “Innovation: the Basis of Cultural Change”, where he deals the problems in innovating against a scientific dogma that is backed up by paying professional scientists to gain their vote, the prime example being eugenics in 1930s Germany. Barnett page 65:
“When individuals are taught to revere and fear authority as the ultimate source of the good, the true, and the proper, they cannot be expected to have variant notions.”
Barnett page 66:
“… socialization as such is an authoritarian device …”
Barnett pages 69-70:
“…important new ideas of so recent a date were almost without exception ignored or rejected by the scientific fraternity itself because they did not conform to one or another of the accepted doctrines or the leaders of opinion. The observations and discoveries of Jenner, Simpson, Lyell, Pasteur, Darwin, Lister, Helmholtz, Metchnikoff, and scores of lesser contributors were greeted with disdain or increduity. Repeatedly their critics even refused to be shown. … Most illuminating of all is the fact that one dogma fell only to be replaced by another. [Echos of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.] The upstart view of one generation became the inviolable creed of the next … It would be unrealistic to believe that dogmatism in science ended … flagrant examples as the Nazi doctrine [eugenics, the exact opposite of Darwin’s evolution through natural selection made possible by diversity, not a lack of diversity as eugenics demanded] of Aryan racial supremacy and the Communist credo of dialectic materialism … less publicized instances … are known in every discipline in small or large degree. Every area of knowledge at the present time has its ‘big names’ [due to Guardian/BBC/Observer/Independent/Jimmy Saville-type media liars and propagandarists] whose opinions in science … prevail over the views of lesser lights just because they are recognised … Dogmatism is a frequent concomitant of a systematized creed and a well-institutionalized priestly hierarchy … unified control with a discipline that is dedicated to its unquestioning support. This condition directly parallels the requirement for authoritative secular administration. … there be only one source of truth … the source be afforded enough power to enforce its dictates. … exclusionist faiths … Heretical views may not be tolerated … because they threaten the economic and the ideological commitment …”
****************
Copy from comment for Bishop Hill website:
1. The failure of IPCC models to deal with land surface temperatures since 1998, a 15 year period, proves that the models are inadequate.
2. The continuing heating of the ocean since 1998 is simply due to the slow transfer of heat into the oceans: water has the highest specific heat capacity (energy storage) of any common natural substance yet only the top 100 metres of the ocean constitutes the “mixing layer” (above the thermocline), and so the transfer of heat into the ocean depths is very slow. The oceans continue to accept heat from the air temperature rise prior to 1998, by gradual mixing. The thin water layer above the thermocline is buoyant and “floats” on the colder, denser water, with only very slow downward mixing.
3. The IPCC report and its publicity statements deliberately distort the continued ocean temperature rise by conflating it with “global warming” when it is merely the transfer of air heat into the oceans from the temperature rise prior to 1998, not CO2 induced air warming since 1998.
4. The IPCC report uses the old propaganda trick of passing off percentage probabilities that represent consensus as being science. “95% certain” is meaningless for objective science. If 95% of scientists believe a theory that has been falsified by the last 15 years of data, that doesn’t prove they are 95% right, it just proves 95% corruption.
5. It ignores the role of negative feedback from H2O cloud cover as thermostat, which explains the lack of temperature rise in the surface air since 1998: http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0044v2.pdf
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100242854/unless-the-conservatives-come-clean-about-the-energy-mess-they-created-they-will-never-deserve-our-vote/
Comment copy:
I sympathize, but the problem is this. Having ignored negative-feedback in all 21 IPCC 2007 climate models to fiddle the predictions to fit data to 1998 (not after 1998), huge amounts of funding have been allocated to green fascism jobs like blotting the landscape with energy-inefficient windfarms which cost an arm and a leg to maintain by a huge pro-green industry by fascist capitalism which is diverting funds into millionaires’ pockets from the grain-needy of the 3rd world who have seen rocketing prices due to eco-warrior “green” eugenics.
Poor old Cameron! His green-scammer capitalist friends will be hit badly by any hint that AGW is a complete lie due to IPCC negative-feedback loop omissions for H2O. So we are now in the position Hitler was in when Max Planck patiently explained to him that eugenics was an inaccurate pseudoscience (eugenics gas chambers were invented in 1935 by Medical Nobel Laureate and fascist collaborator Dr Alexis Carrell). First contrived “problem”: what about all the people who will lose their jobs as a result of the exposure of this pseudo-science as being a scam? Examples: the gas chamber manufacturing industry, the gas chamber repair workers industry, and those who have jobs operating the gas chambers for eugenics? What about their families? Second problem: what about the increasing world population “bomb”? What will happen if the eugenics industry shuts down? An environmental disaster due to overpopulation, eugenics claims!
Similarly, the modern day “green” eugenics industry now faces precisely Hitler’s dilemma and seems to be choosing the same final solution of ignoring the critics who expose the pseudo-science as being a scam. Whatever Cameron does, he will be criticized. If he chooses to save millions of human lives from the environmentalists, the latter will attack him for costing a few miserable and useless jobs. If he keeps funding green eugenics policies which ramp up grain prices for the poorest in the world, he will go down in history on a par with the most heartless thugs who ever lived. Tough choice, but I know what I’d do.