There ought to be a benefit to professional organizations; improved communication, wider, more learned discourse, a general elevation of professional standards, and more public awareness of the impact (and the limitations) of the particular discipline. In fact, these organizations tend to act like a sea anchor to prevent undesired, disturbing influences from upsetting the orthodoxy. Peer review often becomes, through self-interest, a tacit gentleman's agreement of "nonagression" and mutual admiration, loyalty as a measure of job security. You have seen this mechanism of circling the wagons in other fields than research science; professions such as lawyers, doctors, police, and, until recent decades, politics. But science, both hard and soft, has now become politicized. Increasingly it is shifting from the politeness of the loyal opposition to an existential, cut throat conflict. The NIH and CDC represent the higher politicization that is now coming to the ivory towers of scientific inquiry. Seperate ideologies are struggling for control of the future of "the science" we are all told to trust. Who will win? Who knows at this point? Between the incestuous accomodation of prestigious professional associations with various special interests and the rising censorship promoted in governments, now assisted by AI virtual reality, the outcome is questionable. What will not help to preserve the ideal of untrammeled, unadulterated inquiry is the existence of self-congratulatory professional associations. They operate by laws of survival that are inimical to the integrity and idealism of hunting for truth.
Excellent synopsis of deceitfully delivered incompetence on the grandest of scales. As for the statement:
"How dozens of these supposedly top “scientists” from the NAS could write this Report without mentioning or discussing any of this evidence is beyond me. It’s completely humiliating for them."
I suggest that these reprobates can't be humiliated any more than a repeat offending criminal can be humiliated for being exposed 35 times how despicable he is proven to be. It just doesn't register on such scum.
Last I checked, the claimed “Level of Scientific Understanding” (LOSU) of “clouds” was rated as low. Do clouds correlate in any way with weather? Climate? Just ask the NAS.
Revealingly, John Holdren, Obama's "science czar" for eight years, declared that a 1% variation in cloud cover can explain all of the warming and cooling episodes of the past 150 years. And Gavin Schmidt of NASA, wrote that cloud cover plays a role 20 times more impportant than than of carbon dioxide. Yet, state and federal politicians have been pushing efforts to ban the internal combustion engine. A scientific illiterate named Christine Palm (D-Chester) tried to do this CT, but failed. The GCMs have never been able to grapple with the effect of clouds on climate. They do not address the effect increased solar activity has on the cosmic rays that are an essential engredient in cloud production. Or, conversely, that when the sun is less active, more cosmic rays produce greater cloud cover. But, if it's all, or predominately, natural, where are these scientific charlatans going to get their government grants. Although the IPCC finally admited that its extreme projections of an "existential threat" were misguided, leftist "scholars" continue to publish books on the threat of climate change.
Excellent post. Since water vapor is by far the most potent greenhouse gas, this makes me wonder about how AI centers, which require lots of water for cooling and emit only steam back into the ecosystem, are going to pass muster with the global warming crowd. As for human activities altering the climate, what altered the climate prior to human influence? Fear of global warming/end of earth has garnered billions of dollars for certain entities. Fear is a real money maker.
FEAR…it’s the foundational emotion driving much of psychological and social experiments and experiences. It’s like a contagion without boundaries, once it’s unleashed , difficult and problematic to get back into control. Once a problem is presented/faced, if primary reaction is fear based, the solution presented by grifters and true believers reduces or removes fear, so people buy into it. Cycle repeats.
The truth...profit, politics and litigation are tied to other Sciences today, too. Science is open minded to discovery...and not dogmatic thinking everything they promote is valid.
Bonnie: TY for the heads up. The good piece on Robert's substack is actually written by Dr. Stan Young - who I know well, and who is quite competent. See it here <https://www.malone.news/p/the-air-quality-scam>. I may cross-post it.
John, I would appreciate your review and critical thinking on my recent big stories exposed in Oregon. Just subscribed
Pete: Feel free to email me at <aaprjohn@northnet.org>.
There ought to be a benefit to professional organizations; improved communication, wider, more learned discourse, a general elevation of professional standards, and more public awareness of the impact (and the limitations) of the particular discipline. In fact, these organizations tend to act like a sea anchor to prevent undesired, disturbing influences from upsetting the orthodoxy. Peer review often becomes, through self-interest, a tacit gentleman's agreement of "nonagression" and mutual admiration, loyalty as a measure of job security. You have seen this mechanism of circling the wagons in other fields than research science; professions such as lawyers, doctors, police, and, until recent decades, politics. But science, both hard and soft, has now become politicized. Increasingly it is shifting from the politeness of the loyal opposition to an existential, cut throat conflict. The NIH and CDC represent the higher politicization that is now coming to the ivory towers of scientific inquiry. Seperate ideologies are struggling for control of the future of "the science" we are all told to trust. Who will win? Who knows at this point? Between the incestuous accomodation of prestigious professional associations with various special interests and the rising censorship promoted in governments, now assisted by AI virtual reality, the outcome is questionable. What will not help to preserve the ideal of untrammeled, unadulterated inquiry is the existence of self-congratulatory professional associations. They operate by laws of survival that are inimical to the integrity and idealism of hunting for truth.
Excellent synopsis of deceitfully delivered incompetence on the grandest of scales. As for the statement:
"How dozens of these supposedly top “scientists” from the NAS could write this Report without mentioning or discussing any of this evidence is beyond me. It’s completely humiliating for them."
I suggest that these reprobates can't be humiliated any more than a repeat offending criminal can be humiliated for being exposed 35 times how despicable he is proven to be. It just doesn't register on such scum.
Russ: Good comparison!
Last I checked, the claimed “Level of Scientific Understanding” (LOSU) of “clouds” was rated as low. Do clouds correlate in any way with weather? Climate? Just ask the NAS.
Revealingly, John Holdren, Obama's "science czar" for eight years, declared that a 1% variation in cloud cover can explain all of the warming and cooling episodes of the past 150 years. And Gavin Schmidt of NASA, wrote that cloud cover plays a role 20 times more impportant than than of carbon dioxide. Yet, state and federal politicians have been pushing efforts to ban the internal combustion engine. A scientific illiterate named Christine Palm (D-Chester) tried to do this CT, but failed. The GCMs have never been able to grapple with the effect of clouds on climate. They do not address the effect increased solar activity has on the cosmic rays that are an essential engredient in cloud production. Or, conversely, that when the sun is less active, more cosmic rays produce greater cloud cover. But, if it's all, or predominately, natural, where are these scientific charlatans going to get their government grants. Although the IPCC finally admited that its extreme projections of an "existential threat" were misguided, leftist "scholars" continue to publish books on the threat of climate change.
Kimball: Yes, that is one of the major unknowns.
Excellent post. Since water vapor is by far the most potent greenhouse gas, this makes me wonder about how AI centers, which require lots of water for cooling and emit only steam back into the ecosystem, are going to pass muster with the global warming crowd. As for human activities altering the climate, what altered the climate prior to human influence? Fear of global warming/end of earth has garnered billions of dollars for certain entities. Fear is a real money maker.
FEAR…it’s the foundational emotion driving much of psychological and social experiments and experiences. It’s like a contagion without boundaries, once it’s unleashed , difficult and problematic to get back into control. Once a problem is presented/faced, if primary reaction is fear based, the solution presented by grifters and true believers reduces or removes fear, so people buy into it. Cycle repeats.
Nadia: Well stated!
Wow, profits, politics, and litigation tied to the science. Who could have known?! Did NAS?
There’s a piece today by Robert Malone addressing air quality and the same sort of scamming scaring the public.
The truth...profit, politics and litigation are tied to other Sciences today, too. Science is open minded to discovery...and not dogmatic thinking everything they promote is valid.
Bonnie: TY for the heads up. The good piece on Robert's substack is actually written by Dr. Stan Young - who I know well, and who is quite competent. See it here <https://www.malone.news/p/the-air-quality-scam>. I may cross-post it.