A Progressive tips his hand about how they are trying to undermine Science
beware of less than half of the available truth as shown continually by the UN's IPCC.and politicians.
See the book on using less than half of the available truth in statistics.
My contribution to keeping critical rationalism alive is a series of reading guides "Cliffs Notes" for some of Popper's books.
There is also my website dedicated to Popper and other important contributors like Jacques Barzun, the most important commentator on US education in the 20th century.
Lets revive Karl Popper's philosophy of critical rationalism. Popper is arguably the most important modern philosopher of science but he has been superseded by T S Kuhn in the universities and the popular representation of science as a quest for consensus. Here is an introduction to his evolutionary approach.
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/11079 and whose boat I have personally been on in Vancouver Harbour in the 1980s
“I am a skeptic on climate change. I know the climate is changing, and it always has been. I've studied this intensively over many years. I started what I call the Carbon Project here in British Columbia back in 1989 in order to bring everybody together to discuss this subject and figure out the facts behind it. Since then, I have watched as hysteria has grown, as if the whole world is going to come to an end and civilization is going to die because of humans causing this climate change. I don't buy that, and I certainly know we don't have any proof of it. I'm not denying that we might be playing some role, but the natural factors that have always caused climate change have not suddenly disappeared. I'm very skeptical of the alarmist nature of climate campaigning.” –
Moore later wrote in his book Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom (WattsUpWithThat summary here or Technocracy News summary here) that “A while back it dawned on me that the great majority of scare stories about the present and future state of the planet, and humanity as a whole, are based on subjects that are either invisible, extremely remote, or both. Thus, the vast majority of people have no way of observing and verifying for themselves the truth of these claims predicting these alleged catastrophes and devastating threats. Instead, they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists – all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject – to tell them the truth. This welcomes the opportunity to simply invent narratives such as the claim that “CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing a climate emergency.”
Later, Moore also said “Carbon dioxide [and] temperature [ ] are actually slightly negatively correlated in the long historical record. In other words, it is not a cause-effect relationship … There is no historical relationship between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the earth … The climate has changed long before humans could have been any factor in it. It’s been changing all through the history of the earth.” (Not sure when fasco-Marxist YouTube will remove this; was there July 5, 2023)
In his book Moore said “A while back it dawned on me that the great majority of scare stories about the present and future state of the planet, and humanity as a whole, are based on subjects that are either invisible, extremely remote, or both. Thus, the vast majority of people have no way of observing and verifying for themselves the truth of these claims predicting these alleged catastrophes and devastating threats. Instead, they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists – all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject – to tell them the truth. This welcomes the opportunity to simply invent narratives such as the claim that “CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing a climate emergency. No one can actually see, or in any way sense, what CO2 might actually be doing because it is invisible, odorless, tasteless, silent and cannot be felt by the sense of touch. Therefore, it is difficult to refute such claims because there is nothing to point to and tangibly expose the falsity of these claims.”
Here is Moore in his own words on YouTube (that is, until this too gets banned) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLkiQ0qIm-M. He discusses his youth to help found Greenpeace to becoming aware of the global warming scam taken over by big money
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
“Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data...That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science, MIT
Dr. John Clauser, the co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize and one the world’s leading authorities on quantum mechanics, blasted “climate emergency” claims as a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.” Clauser, who was also awarded the 2010 Wolf Prize in Physics, the second most prestigious physics award after the Nobel, warns that misguided climate science is a hoax that is being driven by “massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience.”
Aug., 2023, citing extensive data (pdf here ) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong. “The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule. All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.” Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. Here is the cover letter, followed by the summary pages of that document supporting their testimony to the EPA.
Claude Allegre, a “founding father of AGW theory,” has now come out against this, stating “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”
Lindzen also wrote “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”
Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.
Professor Antonino Zichichi, holder of Italy’s highest merit order, the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, which honor was awarded to Zichichi for a lifetime of distinguished scientific work including several discoveries in the field of sub-nuclear physics, in 2019 led a group of 48 Italian science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic…natural variation explains a substantial part of the global warming observed since 1850.” Similarly, four Italian scientists, including three physics professors, undertook a major review of historical climate trends concluding there is no real data to support any declaration of a “climate emergency…no clear positive trend of extreme events.” (Slay News adds that “Of course, cherry-picking single bad or “extreme” weather events will provide the main propaganda firepower for convincing populations that a globalist de-industrialization must take place within less than 30 years..”
In 2023, leading nuclear physicist Dr. Wallace Manheimer warned that so-called “Net Zero” goals will end modern civilization. The wind/solar combo will fail, cost trillions, trash the environment and “and be entirely unnecessary.” He also noted that CO2, necessary for life, is not “an environmental poison”; rather it is need for photosynthesis and produces oxygen. In fact, C02 is greening the earth. Just as the report in 2016 — in a contradiction of the current narrative — Nasa satellite data indicated that an increase in CO2 levels was fertilizing the planet. “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years, largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide,” said the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change. “An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from Nasa’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States,” read the report.
“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that carbon dioxide from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. “It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that carbon dioxide, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”— Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science, MIT. Source https://www.sec.gov/comments/climate-disclosure/cll12-8855233-238421.pdf
Critical thinking requires habit, not simply training. Unless ingrained thoroughly, it can perish as a skill. If the faculty and facilities where would-be-scientists train and work do not themselves have the habit of critical thinking, then neither will the men and women who emerge therefrom.
Consensus constitutes but a snap-shot of the moment when people agree temporarily to something about which they have already stopped thinking.
It is very, very hard to understand how these leftist idiot/Jonestown cultists actually are able to think
Albert Einstein is reputed to have said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” (Quoted in Alice Calaprice, The Quotable Einstein (1996), 224.) That insight finds more comprehensive statement in Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman’s justly famous quote:
“In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.” (Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law [London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1965], 4, emphasis added.)
I might add—and I’m positive Feynman would agree—that it doesn’t matter how many people agree with you, or whether they’re members of national academies of science. If your prediction disagrees with experiment, observation, experience, nature, it’s wrong. Period. Not bowing to consensus but systematic skepticism is the hallmark of true science.”
".....to look for one of the thousands of scientists who are funded by the fossil fuel industry — even though in 40+ years I have yet to find any...." < genuine question: are you saying you've never seen any of the endless papers, articles, or research funded by Big Oil? as in: everything coming out from AMA being sponsored by the Rockefellers & the oil industry (the manifold so-called positive effects of petroleum-based drugs should ring a bell).
Not that these leftist frauds would would have the intellectual honesty, nor even know who Feyman is, but for the rest of you:
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. — Albert Einstein
“What is necessary for the very existence of science and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself.” ― Richard P. Feynman
As Blaise Pascal once noted, once science is divorced from ethics, scientists will use their skills to pursue power, not truth. The late Dr. Michael Chricton wrote, similarly years later, “as Alston Chase put it, ‘when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.’”
Great analysis of the do-gooder leftist "scientific" approach. Another negative aspect of consensus "science" is exemplified perfectly in what happened early on in the global warming debate. In the initial send out of the first IPCC report for independent evaluation by real scientists all was well and good. In the first report as issued, however, wahlah, the little ice age had disappeared from the data set. Since the computer models being used were not churning out sufficiently dangerous implications regarding the continued use of fossil fuels and their dastardly output of CO2 driving atmospheric temperatures to sharply higher levels, the "scientists" decided to change the data. This is the exact opposite of the proper scientific method. If one's data doesn't fit the theory one changes or rejects the theory. The mavins at the IPCC instead, most likely to keep their jobs, corrupted the data. Like it or not government policies do have an impact and our society as a whole has wasted multi billions of dollars addressing a problem which essentially does not exist. Even further evidence of the failure of the climate alarmist agenda is the fact that we no longer need to fear "global warming" but now we need to "do something" about climate change. It seems none of the climate disasters promised us by Al Gore if we did not "do something" about global warming were coming to pass. The polar ice caps refused to melt and the polar bear population has doubled.
Again we see the push for consensus over inquiry. Unbelievable. My gut tells me they are going to ever-so-slowly change the definitions of critical thinking and The Scientific Method so that any last bastion of hope to challenging "consensus" is nullified. People like Dr Jonathan Osborn have no interest in Science, they are simply part of the larger war waged against our children's minds.
Will people actually QUESTION
WHY is the 4th Amendment routinely violated at every airport in this U.S.A.?
David Deutsche's guest appearance on Tim Ferris with Naval Ravikant did an awesome job explaining how to get around this. Also, we believe swarming, aka human swarm intelligence is going to revolutionize how we create knowledge in science. Here are the basics. If you want to know more we are looking for scientific minds to join the Swarm Academy and help us build it.
The Basics: https://joshketry.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/135934928?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fhome