Professor Curtis Stager's current stance on "climate change" and AGW is not unique. Unfortunately arguing "Climate Change" fanaticism with Professor Stager may be an exorcise in futility. For a full discussion of the rot on this subject and blatant disregard for the "Scientific Method" I would encourage you to read "American Marxism" by Mark Levin. This quote from Ian Plimer, emeritus professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, and professor of mining geology at the University Adelaide. "The theory of human induced global warming is not science because research is based on a pre-ordained condition, huge bodies of evidence are ignored, and analytical procedures are treated as evidence." Further; "Climate change catastrophism is the biggest scientific fraud that has ever occurred. Much climate "science" is political ideology dressed up as science."
This is just a fraction of a well documented commentary with citations on this subject by Mr. Levin.
Maybe Newsmax! On another Topic have you heard or, can you comment on Georgia’s Attorney General’s comments that the State will not be able in install the Dominion voting machines safety “patches” before the the 2024 election? If this is true it is certainly troublesome!
We must decentralize science and all other corrupted systems including government, medicine, media, academia, food, and more.
When all systems have become corrupted how can we restore trust? We make new systems that are trustless (the highest form of trustworthiness) - through radical transparency, decentralization, and group problem solving technologies.
How? Three simple steps:
Step 1: Make new high-trust transparent systems (Network States) that we build and control 100% as citizens, then migrate to them as a place to solve problems together and block out the propaganda and noise around us.
Step 2: Use Human Swarm Intelligence and/or think tanks (idea labs) to problem solve and control the direction of the new high-trust systems in a decentralized, highly aligned, careful, and educated way.
Step 3: Plug our new high-trust systems into our current corrupted systems in order to fix them.
That’s it.
All problems are solvable, and the corruption of our systems is the biggest problem humanity faces. Are you a problem solver? Help us figure this out.
How refreshing to see a real scientist take down and debunk those who have, intentionally or otherwise, lost their scientific way. It is not surprising at all that such "scientists" would attack someone speaking knowledgeably and intelligently. Keep up the noble work, John.
Real science is only about the data one generates trying to prove or disprove any given hypothesis in any field of science. In the initial draft of the report the data set used contained showed the little ice age occurring in the13-1400's. However in the final published draft the data set used how the little ice age data had disappeared. So if one does not like the conclusions being generated by your computer model, why change the data. Someone below mentioned the economics of creating scientific research. My contention all along in this "scientific" fiasco is that if the data in the report had not been changed there would have been no reason to even have an IPCC. What happened was that those highly paid European bureaucrats changed the data to keep their jobs. Now many the highly paid bureaucrats in our own government continue to put out garbage, also to keep their jobs. Get along , go along.
In the beginning..., the earth was created with an atmosphere with an abundance of CO2. God's wisdom created life on Earth using the Sun, CO2, and a spark of photosynthesis. Through the eaons of life and death the Sun's energy was captured and stored as hydrocarbon. The excess consumed CO2 was replaced with the by-product of photosynthisis, oxygen, where advanced life could evolve and thrive on the bountiful plant growth in the sea, then on land.
Earlier civilizations used oil from plants and animals, armies and navies used solar energy for war (food, building material and weapons.)
The magic of hydrocarbon fuel was unleashed. The ability to harnes the abundant stored solar energy rapidly created the Industrial Revolution, great properity and longer lifespans. But, the air pollution shown in photographs of the early-mid 19th Century is horrific in comparison to today.
The major CO2 sink is life itself; fertilizer for plants and trees, and food for the fisheries. Abundant energy is life with advancement and prosperity.
So you need a PhD to be a physicist? I decided not to get one 50 years ago and that decision served me well for the next five decades having to deal with PhDs who didn’t understand the basics.
We do the best we can. Dan's concerns are all valid, and perfect objectivity is an elusive butterfly, as is all perfection. Good science tries harder than almost any other field of knowledge, its very essence is to strive for objectivity. Still, it is often corrupted in the shorter terms by those who would bend it to their other goals. Climate Change is an excellent example of manipulation on a grand scale for not only monetary gains but this time for much larger power gains, providing a mantra for the New World Order and certain political parties to influence funding and human behavior in ways that further their power and control. John's reply counters by noting the biggest corrupting influences for individual scientists - personal self-gain and notoriety - are largely missing from his remarks. - JD, PE
With all due respect for the approach presented in this article in good faith (in my perception), the problem is somewhere else.
The whole scientific universe is based on bad competition: for donations, for sponsors, for publications, for invitations to events, for letters after or before the name, for jobs at research facilities, and more. Why is this competition bad? Because it is directed against other competitors. People fight people. In a “civilized” way, still, it is a subtle but merciless fight.
Since science is allegedly based on observable and repeatable phenomena (basically converted to data), it should be “objective” (which doesn’t exclude bias, but that’s a different story). “Objective” is officially presented as neutral, independent of the party that presents it.
Now, when two scientists come up with two hypotheses or with different results of their studies, the “objective” attribute would have both of them put all their data on one table, and work together on the thing to find out what happens and why.
In the world of science, it simply does not happen. And most probably it will never happen - unless patents (along with a few other factors) are abolished and finally forbidden.
Instead, the two scientists try to win over the other with their arguments, publications or more research efforts. They go to war in which their jobs are at stake, and not the science - or the progress of humanity. As a result, instead of resolving one issue within a week and moving to the next stage, we (the whole humanity, including the whole scientific community) walk in circles.
A wrong approach, and waste of time, effort and true commitment of genuine people who should be recognized as the most important group advancing the entire society. With that background of immature competition, they won’t be.
Dan: TY for your comments. Undoubtedly, funding source do influence some results. However: 1) real Scientists are careful to keep their research objective (e.g. this is one of the reasons for double-blind studies), and 2) many scientists are independent, and their livliehood does not depend on results. I'm an example of an independent scientist.
I don’t question the system within which we all live and work. We have what we have. There are some limitations, I’d say of paramount importance, but what choice do you have? Forget your call or adapt? The answer is obvious, I guess.
With the acceptance of the game, I don’t mind seeing things as they are. There is no independence anywhere. We are all in one way or another interlocked with other people, organizations, communities or groups of interest. Even if you choose to drop out from the funding chain, you still need access to the input resources and you need a venue to share what you do. Both may be restricted for those who want to work out of the system, and are. Try to publish your ground-breaking (or even one within the fold) article in a mainstream journal with only your name as the author, with no affiliation, and it will be communicated to you very accurately.
My point: the system favors the system, not the science. In other words, we are driven by the needs of the system, and not by the most efficient approach (i.e. “folks, drop your titles, affiliation, and all other differences, we have a problem to solve”). We just need to be aware of this limitation.
Dan: I understand your pessimistic perspective, and there is a lot of evidence to justify it. However, it is not fully accurate. I have published hundreds of articles like the above (for example, the above piece is posted on LInkedin), and have yet to be restricted anywhere.
My first point is that we only lose when we voluntarily give in to the bullies.
My second point is that it is our own obligation to ourselves to do what is Right. There is an underlying societal problem in the US — that we are moving away from the country's original Judeo-Christian standards. That opens the door to such absurdities as Relavatism, the end justifies the means (e.g. lying), etc. IMO we need to get back to religion.
This doesn’t change my summary of what the science business looks like these days. No pessimism, though. Things are as they are, so, maybe there is some deeper reason to it. (Like “money can buy everything - at least for us” :-)).
And I like finding different perspectives on things. Some are important holidays from seriousness, some give a better insight.
By the way (warning: a provocation ;-)), all wind energy solutions are detrimental to the environment. No compromises, no good sides. It’s a huge tragedy in the making.
Thanks for your honest and forthright reply!
I probably should not have asked!
Stay Safe and Well!!!
Professor Curtis Stager's current stance on "climate change" and AGW is not unique. Unfortunately arguing "Climate Change" fanaticism with Professor Stager may be an exorcise in futility. For a full discussion of the rot on this subject and blatant disregard for the "Scientific Method" I would encourage you to read "American Marxism" by Mark Levin. This quote from Ian Plimer, emeritus professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, and professor of mining geology at the University Adelaide. "The theory of human induced global warming is not science because research is based on a pre-ordained condition, huge bodies of evidence are ignored, and analytical procedures are treated as evidence." Further; "Climate change catastrophism is the biggest scientific fraud that has ever occurred. Much climate "science" is political ideology dressed up as science."
This is just a fraction of a well documented commentary with citations on this subject by Mr. Levin.
Roy: TY. I know Ian, and he is spot on.
BTW, I was not arguing with Stager. Rather I wrote what I did for the benefit of the public reading that media source — and now here!
Maybe Newsmax! On another Topic have you heard or, can you comment on Georgia’s Attorney General’s comments that the State will not be able in install the Dominion voting machines safety “patches” before the the 2024 election? If this is true it is certainly troublesome!
I can not comment on the validity of GA AG's statement, but it sure sounds suspect.
We must decentralize science and all other corrupted systems including government, medicine, media, academia, food, and more.
When all systems have become corrupted how can we restore trust? We make new systems that are trustless (the highest form of trustworthiness) - through radical transparency, decentralization, and group problem solving technologies.
How? Three simple steps:
Step 1: Make new high-trust transparent systems (Network States) that we build and control 100% as citizens, then migrate to them as a place to solve problems together and block out the propaganda and noise around us.
Step 2: Use Human Swarm Intelligence and/or think tanks (idea labs) to problem solve and control the direction of the new high-trust systems in a decentralized, highly aligned, careful, and educated way.
Step 3: Plug our new high-trust systems into our current corrupted systems in order to fix them.
That’s it.
All problems are solvable, and the corruption of our systems is the biggest problem humanity faces. Are you a problem solver? Help us figure this out.
Learn more: https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/how-to-fix-corrupt-government-in?r=7oa9d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Well said!
Terry Oldberg
Another Real Scientist
Thank you Terry. I see that you are not receiving my free Newsletter. Send me an email!
Dear John
My email address is terry_oldberg@yahoo.com.
Terry Oldberg
Done.
How refreshing to see a real scientist take down and debunk those who have, intentionally or otherwise, lost their scientific way. It is not surprising at all that such "scientists" would attack someone speaking knowledgeably and intelligently. Keep up the noble work, John.
Kurt: TY for your support. My fundamental focus is to defend my profession from corruptors, both inside and out.
John,
Real science is only about the data one generates trying to prove or disprove any given hypothesis in any field of science. In the initial draft of the report the data set used contained showed the little ice age occurring in the13-1400's. However in the final published draft the data set used how the little ice age data had disappeared. So if one does not like the conclusions being generated by your computer model, why change the data. Someone below mentioned the economics of creating scientific research. My contention all along in this "scientific" fiasco is that if the data in the report had not been changed there would have been no reason to even have an IPCC. What happened was that those highly paid European bureaucrats changed the data to keep their jobs. Now many the highly paid bureaucrats in our own government continue to put out garbage, also to keep their jobs. Get along , go along.
K.J.
JD,
Great shread of this AGW Political scientist statements and misguided logic.
I would love to see you debate him on MSN but,
not holding my breath!!!!
Mark: TY. Maybe NewsMax?
In the beginning..., the earth was created with an atmosphere with an abundance of CO2. God's wisdom created life on Earth using the Sun, CO2, and a spark of photosynthesis. Through the eaons of life and death the Sun's energy was captured and stored as hydrocarbon. The excess consumed CO2 was replaced with the by-product of photosynthisis, oxygen, where advanced life could evolve and thrive on the bountiful plant growth in the sea, then on land.
Earlier civilizations used oil from plants and animals, armies and navies used solar energy for war (food, building material and weapons.)
The magic of hydrocarbon fuel was unleashed. The ability to harnes the abundant stored solar energy rapidly created the Industrial Revolution, great properity and longer lifespans. But, the air pollution shown in photographs of the early-mid 19th Century is horrific in comparison to today.
The major CO2 sink is life itself; fertilizer for plants and trees, and food for the fisheries. Abundant energy is life with advancement and prosperity.
So you need a PhD to be a physicist? I decided not to get one 50 years ago and that decision served me well for the next five decades having to deal with PhDs who didn’t understand the basics.
The short answer is no.
If I had done a PhD in cosmology, which was what I was considering, how would that have endowed me with any usefulness in the climate debate,
My fellow Brit, Stephen Hawking was Lucasian Professor at Cambridge and he appeared to know bigger-all about climate
Sounds like this guy went down the exact same path the brilliant Nazi scientist did.
Come to think of it, since Nazi = National SOCIALIST, if fits pretty well
We do the best we can. Dan's concerns are all valid, and perfect objectivity is an elusive butterfly, as is all perfection. Good science tries harder than almost any other field of knowledge, its very essence is to strive for objectivity. Still, it is often corrupted in the shorter terms by those who would bend it to their other goals. Climate Change is an excellent example of manipulation on a grand scale for not only monetary gains but this time for much larger power gains, providing a mantra for the New World Order and certain political parties to influence funding and human behavior in ways that further their power and control. John's reply counters by noting the biggest corrupting influences for individual scientists - personal self-gain and notoriety - are largely missing from his remarks. - JD, PE
With all due respect for the approach presented in this article in good faith (in my perception), the problem is somewhere else.
The whole scientific universe is based on bad competition: for donations, for sponsors, for publications, for invitations to events, for letters after or before the name, for jobs at research facilities, and more. Why is this competition bad? Because it is directed against other competitors. People fight people. In a “civilized” way, still, it is a subtle but merciless fight.
Since science is allegedly based on observable and repeatable phenomena (basically converted to data), it should be “objective” (which doesn’t exclude bias, but that’s a different story). “Objective” is officially presented as neutral, independent of the party that presents it.
Now, when two scientists come up with two hypotheses or with different results of their studies, the “objective” attribute would have both of them put all their data on one table, and work together on the thing to find out what happens and why.
In the world of science, it simply does not happen. And most probably it will never happen - unless patents (along with a few other factors) are abolished and finally forbidden.
Instead, the two scientists try to win over the other with their arguments, publications or more research efforts. They go to war in which their jobs are at stake, and not the science - or the progress of humanity. As a result, instead of resolving one issue within a week and moving to the next stage, we (the whole humanity, including the whole scientific community) walk in circles.
A wrong approach, and waste of time, effort and true commitment of genuine people who should be recognized as the most important group advancing the entire society. With that background of immature competition, they won’t be.
Dan: TY for your comments. Undoubtedly, funding source do influence some results. However: 1) real Scientists are careful to keep their research objective (e.g. this is one of the reasons for double-blind studies), and 2) many scientists are independent, and their livliehood does not depend on results. I'm an example of an independent scientist.
I don’t question the system within which we all live and work. We have what we have. There are some limitations, I’d say of paramount importance, but what choice do you have? Forget your call or adapt? The answer is obvious, I guess.
With the acceptance of the game, I don’t mind seeing things as they are. There is no independence anywhere. We are all in one way or another interlocked with other people, organizations, communities or groups of interest. Even if you choose to drop out from the funding chain, you still need access to the input resources and you need a venue to share what you do. Both may be restricted for those who want to work out of the system, and are. Try to publish your ground-breaking (or even one within the fold) article in a mainstream journal with only your name as the author, with no affiliation, and it will be communicated to you very accurately.
My point: the system favors the system, not the science. In other words, we are driven by the needs of the system, and not by the most efficient approach (i.e. “folks, drop your titles, affiliation, and all other differences, we have a problem to solve”). We just need to be aware of this limitation.
Dan: I understand your pessimistic perspective, and there is a lot of evidence to justify it. However, it is not fully accurate. I have published hundreds of articles like the above (for example, the above piece is posted on LInkedin), and have yet to be restricted anywhere.
My first point is that we only lose when we voluntarily give in to the bullies.
My second point is that it is our own obligation to ourselves to do what is Right. There is an underlying societal problem in the US — that we are moving away from the country's original Judeo-Christian standards. That opens the door to such absurdities as Relavatism, the end justifies the means (e.g. lying), etc. IMO we need to get back to religion.
John, you’ve got me interested in what you do :-)
This doesn’t change my summary of what the science business looks like these days. No pessimism, though. Things are as they are, so, maybe there is some deeper reason to it. (Like “money can buy everything - at least for us” :-)).
And I like finding different perspectives on things. Some are important holidays from seriousness, some give a better insight.
By the way (warning: a provocation ;-)), all wind energy solutions are detrimental to the environment. No compromises, no good sides. It’s a huge tragedy in the making.