20 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  2. Ya mean the whole “scientific consensus” on AGW was a con?
    Aww say it ain’t so – I wanted so much to “believe” – saving the earth from evil CO2 breathers/emitters gave me purpose, – the only way to use my 8 years at Commie Martyrs University learning pseudo-science (all of which finds the right guilty of destroying minorities, justice, society wildlife, the environment and the earth) What am I gonna do now? Oh nooooo not work! Oh please oh please make the climate catastrophe industry survive this “truth bubble”.

  4. Well, as pointed out by commenters at WUWT the new badly designed 97% consensus study is designed to replace the other badly designed 97% consensus claim. It’s not science. It’s just more social science BS that appeals to people who like to pretend to understand science and need to be on the politically correct side of any controversial issue.The real issue IMO is the complete scientific failure of the IPCC’s predictions and the complete economic failure of carbon dioxide mitigation policies (for regular folks – CAGW profiteers made out like bandits).
    If the science was settled years ago then why the mad scramble to now insist that it is the deep oceans absorbing the heat ( likely true btw but mildly warming oceans are no more catastrophic than mildly warming surface temps). That and other new discoveries does not sound like long settled science to me. It sounds like too soon to be making sweeping pronouncements.
    If more taxes and more political solutions were the answer to CAGW then why have government-backed wind, solar, ethanol, biomass, e-cars and carbon pricing been such an expensive disaster while doing next to nothing to improve the environment. The goal is to preserve the CAGW hypothesis to preserve the economic, social and political policies that have been so lucrative for so many. The 97% gives them a new fig leaf to hide behind.

  5. This scam of CAGW and these pseudo consensus groupies, keep reminding me of the original joke about consensus; 9 out of 10 of the voices in my head, told me to stay home and polish my guns today.
    The UN , with our complicit bureaucrats & politicians wrapped their odious political goals, in the cloak of science.
    Science being the modern faith, nothing they claimed has turned out to be true but critics of their power and money grubbing scam, were diverted into examining the science or lack there of.
    On the bright side, God help Greenpeace, WWF, UN and all others complicit in this wreck.
    I predict interesting days ahead.

  6. So…if you add a new search term, the number of hits drops?
    Wow. Well, that sure blows the AGW hypothesis out of the water. Nothing like superb, hard science to the rescue.

  7. I’m surprised this weather Religion is still around, or taken seriously.
    Than again it has the wondrousness of magical tax powers by faux moral self righteousness. To abuse the populace.
    Politicians always looking for a way to make their lives even more comfortable on the backs of people who work.

  8. Via http://www.populartechnology.net/
    Richard S.J. Tol, M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992); Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: “A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect”), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1997); Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992-2008); Visiting Researcher, Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, Canada (1994); Visiting researcher, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, United Kingdom (1995); Acting Programme Manager Quantitative Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1998-1999); Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (1998-2000); Board Member, Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University (2000-2006); Lead Author, IPCC (2001); Contributing Author and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007); Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal (2001-2006); Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2000-2008); Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University, Germany (2000-2006); Editor, Energy Economics Journal (2003-Present); Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute and Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University (2005-2006); Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland (2006-2011); Research Fellow, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (2007-2010); Associate Editor, Economics E-Journal (2007-Present); Adjunct Professor, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Ireland (2010-2011); Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (2008-Present); Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom (2012-Present)

  9. Consensus . . . 100% of IPCC global warming predictions are wrong.
    Can’t beat 100%.

  10. dizzy…(good nick,BTW)…linking to a site run by cAGW eco-cultists and grant leechs hardly counts. Like Dr.Tol said,Dana Nutzzo and Cook have no more statistical knowledge then your average grade 10. As was said by I don’t remember who,but…it’s hard to get a person to change their wrong beliefs,when their money depends on not believing.

  13. L C Bennett and john robertson have it right. The control of people and economies is exactly what this has been all about all along, and just another manifestation of blended Luddite Marxism dressed up as “for the environment” to appeal to those not realizing what actually was going on.

  14. Consensus is for selecting prom royalty or political leaders.
    It has no value in science, but can have tremendous value when seeking funding. Most academic research scientists are funding whores who don’t have a problem cherry picking their research to meet an agenda.

  15. “…to appeal to those not realizing what actually was going on.”
    Which bait-and-switch appeal was essential from the perspective of the “Luddite Marxists”, given the discrediting and collapse of Soviet communism, as well as central economic planning and control regimes in virtually all other nominally communist states. Desperate times required desperate measures for the true believers, apparently.

  16. The author was Upton Sinclair —
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
    Double-edged sword, that quote, Justhinkin.

  17. “dizzy…(good nick,BTW)…linking to a site run by cAGW eco-cultists and grant leechs hardly counts.”
    Flattery will get you nowhere, Justthinkin. Nice ad hom, but wrong.

  19. Thanks dizzy…never can remember that guy’s name. And guess I should have added a /sarc for Sou.Or is that you??

  20. No.
    If you click on the nick “Sou” you find yourself at the site I linked to in my first post.
    When a link is used, I guess a notification is sent to the source.
    So the “Flattery” response referred to your “cAGW eco-cultists”.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation