Free Markets, Free People

This Is “Science”? Part II

Of course not – it’s raw politics.

The rationalization begins by those with a vested interest (don’t forget the IPCC was awarded a Nobel prize for this scientific twaddle) in the “scientific consensus”. In defense of the indefensible, the powers to be try to minimize what they can’t dismiss:

There is “virtually no possibility” of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN’s top global warming body, its chair said today.

Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel’s fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.

Of course not mentioned is the fact that the information given to the IPCC by these “few scientists” were the basis for the whole “the temperatures are rising!” portion of the global warming hypothesis. And I want it made clear that it was never more than a hypothesis since their findings were never, ever reproduced (the requirement for a hypothesis to move into the realm of “scientific theory” according to the scientific method).

Pachauri continues:

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he said.

“Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

Except, of course, it is becoming clear that the “peer review” process was also corrupted by these “few scientists”. So why does Pachauri, with blinders apparently firmly in place, continue to contend that there’s nothing wrong with the IPCC’s findings?

Frankly it’s quite easy to discern:

“Today we have reached the point where consumption and people’s desire to consume has grown out of proportion,” said Pachauri. “The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable.”

You see, this isn’t about science or about AGW. AGW isn’t a reason for this action, it is an excuse. The reason. Well again, read the statement above. That’s not the reality at all. That’s as much a hypothesis as is AGW. Pachauri has decided that you need to change your lifestyle. Please understand that doesn’t mean he feels he needs to change his. Only yours. And he and the global elite intend to use this opportunity to impose it:

A new value system of “sustainable consumption” was now urgently required, he said.

Got that? This is the aim. This is a role those that are attracted to the potential of the UN have been trying to create since it’s inception. A collection of elites will decide, arbitrarily of course and without it effecting them, what “sustainable consumption” means. Think of USSR as an example – the elite decided what would be produced and available, not that they ever had to live by the same rules. This is a very crude attempt at collectivization on a global scale. It is an attempt to concentrate more power at a higher level than has ever been attempted before. It is a leftist wet-dream on the verge of coming true.

Among the proposals highlighted by Pachauri were the suggestion that hotel guests should be made responsible for their energy use. “I don’t see why you couldn’t have a meter in the room to register your energy consumption from air-conditioning or heating and you should be charged for that,” he said. “By bringing about changes of this kind, you could really ensure that people start becoming accountable for their actions.”

Pachauri also proposed that governments use taxes on aviation to provide heavy subsidies for other forms of transport. “We should make sure there is a huge difference between the cost of flying and taking the train,” he said. Despite the fact that there is often little benefit in time and convenience in short-haul flights, he said people were still making the “irrational” choice to fly. Taxation should be used to discourage them.

Oh so close – Copenhagen is just a week or so away.

And then someone dumps the scientific litter-box in the living room in front of all the guests just as the party is about to begin and the host is left trying to pretend that lumps laying on the rug aren’t cat crap.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

24 Responses to This Is “Science”? Part II

  • Rajendra Pachauri isn’t even a scientist.  He is an economist

  • Thank Goodness that more and more people are becoming wise to this Crap and Trade, and “climate change” horsecrappola. It is pure manure, and nothing more.
     
    When The Clown™ goes to Copenhagen, more and more Americans will realize that he is for more government and more leftwing insanity, and less for them or their interests or needs.
     
    We can thank The Clown™ for his own undoing. I never thought it would happen this fast, but I am grateful that he has awoken a sleeping giant.

    • James MarsdenWhen The Clown™ goes to Copenhagen, more and more Americans will realize that he is for more government and more leftwing insanity, and less for them or their interests or needs.

      Will they?  Or, stuffed to the bursting point with MiniTru agit-prop about global warming, tipping points, settled science, peer reviews, green jobs, the brilliance of Imeme, Michelle-O’s beautiful gown and her rockin’ biceps, and above all the need to DO SOMETHING, will they sort of cast helplessly about and mutter to themselves, “Gee, I wish we didn’t have to do this, but I guess that President Obama’s right and we just don’t have any choice if we’re going to save the planet”?

      And let’s assume that a large number – even a majority – of Americans do as you say and get angry over Imeme’s effort, supported by phony, discredited science, to kneecap our economy and degrade our soveignty.  As I write this, those crooks in the Senate are debating the enormously unpopular health care takeover bill.  The dems seem outright determined to pass it no matter how many Americans oppose it.  Might not we see the same with global warming?  As it stands, Imeme doesn’t even need the Congress to pass a single line of legislation or the Senate to ratify any climate change treaty.  SCOTUS has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, and the head of the EPA, Browner, has made it clear that she (ahem) believes in global warming no matter what we found out about the CRU and their crooked reports.  She has the authority to do almost anything she or Imeme want by bureaucratic fiat.  No fuss, no muss, no votes, no fillibusters, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, stroke of a pen, with MiniTru to variously trumpet the “historic” and “unprecedented” efforts to “save the planet”… or keep it utterly hush-hush, depending on how bad it is.

      We’re in a tight corner here.

  • “Today we have reached the point where consumption and people’s desire to consume has grown out of proportion,” said Pachauri. “The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable.”

    My response: Nobody f*cking asked your opinion, cowboy.

    But let’s give this clown the benefit of the doubt and ask what, exactly, about our lifestyles is “unsustainable”.  Is it that we burn fossil fuels which will (sooner or later) run out?  One can only suppose so given the fraud being perpetrated about a link between CO2 from burning fossil fuels and the alleged “warming”.  So, can we say that he merely wants us to burn rather less coal and oil?  Or is it broader?  Is it some sort of envy / guilt over the consumer lifestyle more people in the world are starting to lead, and a corresponding determination to reverse the trend?  In other words, this f*cker wants us to live a “simpler” life, and is perfectly willing to rig any excuse to force us to live as HE sees fit.

    But the luxuries of which Snowball had once taught the animals to dream, the stalls with electric light and hot and cold water, and the three-day week, were no longer talked about. Napoleon had denounced such ideas as contrary to the spirit of Animalism.  The truest happiness, he said, lay in working hard and living frugally.

    Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer-except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs. [emphasis mine – dj505]

    George Orwell
    Animal Farm

  • China and India prepare for hardball in Copenhagen …

    The draft, which was originally prepared by China, was finalized after some changes during a 7-hour long meeting of BASIC countries-Brazil, South Africa, India and China besides Sudan as the chair of G-77. This joint front forged on Saturday is a major political initiative — the first major India-China accord on international affairs–that is likely to impact not just the dimension of the talks on climate change but international diplomacy as a whole. The move comes after recent discussions on climate change held with Indian and Chinese leaders by US president Barack Obama, who appears to have made little impact on them.

    Sounds to me like they have Obama all sized up. By the time they are done, I expect Team Obama to be yelling “Climate Fraud.”

  • It’s easy to read this and see why violence is so alluring at times….

    • You can say that again.

      • Oh, not violence  in general you know, very specific violence, focused, very, specifically.

        • Oh, like ELF, or ALF, or AIM, or the Weathermen?
          When does patriotism or devotion to a cause, cross the line?
          Violence should only be used to counter violence, and tyranny.

          • Good point.

          • Well, I never issued a fatwa against the guy :)  

            I agree, it’s the court of absolute final resort and we hopefully don’t see it in our lifetimes.

            But make no mistake…..what he advocates is without a doubt a soft tyranny.

  • an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified

    I wonder if he can explain why the IPCC reviewer who reviewed the Briffa “hockey stick,” who told them to show “the decline” then explain why they should switch to temperature readings for the period from 1961 on, seems to have been ignored.

  • It is fascinating to watch the sudden burst of sky-is-falling hysteria after the CRU documents were made public.  The attitude appears to be “lets cram this climate change agreement through and then worry about the CRU stuff, if at all.”  It’s politics, but tinged with religious fanaticism, which is ironic.

    • It’s politics, but tinged with religious fanaticism, which is ironic

      and a little scary at the same time…

  • Bad data and bad interpretations of data in foundational papers results in a “cascade effect” of bad science based on those foundational papers, such that peer review is of little consequence because the underlying premises are “established” and are not re-reviewed. It’s like having a dead mouse in the wall. You can smell it, but you can’t get at it. At least not without some interior demolition.

    For someone not too lazy to go find it (I’m swamped at the moment), there’s an article that describes this phenomenon in the NY Times science section (of all places) from about two years ago, give or take.

  • I can’t help but remembering how The Huffington Post allowed Laurie David (ex-wife of comedian and Seinfeld co-creator Larry David) to attack the reputation of the accomplished MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen. This was a few years ago. His crime at the time, I believe, was that he wrote, in the Wall Street Journal, about how scientists were being intimidated into supporting the so-called “consensus” on Warming.

    Then there were the relentless attacks on Michael Crichton for his novel State of Fear. I think that you can still see some of that at amazon in the reader reviews, for example.

    The same thing happened to the BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

    The relentless use of informal fallacies, such as the straw man, against skeptics is par for the course.

    Bruce mentions that IPCC got a Nobel Prize for its work, but the people who should get that prize are scientists like Lindzen and McIntyre et al. There’s probably several dozen of them by now.

  • Real Climate was created specifically to counter Michael Chrichtons book State of Fear

  • I like this guy, a little: 

    “…new value system of “sustainable consumption” was now urgently required, he said.”

    What we need is a system of “sustainable consumption”, which means an elimination of wasteful consumption.  There are no politics in this statement.   Politics are what we make of it.

    “Got that? This is the aim. This is a role those that are attracted to the potential of the UN have been trying to create since it’s inception. A collection of elites will decide, arbitrarily of course and without it effecting them, what “sustainable consumption” means. Think of USSR as an example – the elite decided what would be produced and available, not that they ever had to live by the same rules. This is a very crude attempt at collectivization on a global scale. It is an attempt to concentrate more power at a higher level than has ever been attempted before. It is a leftist wet-dream on the verge of coming true.”

    Thinking global warming requires big government as its solution, in as logical progression as night following day, occurs only if you think government knows best. 

    If however the government itself is part of the problem (and it fairly obviously is because the biggest non-productive sector a Western society supports is always the government) the solution becomes different -we could price in the waste (in this case use a carbon footprint VAT) and allow an efficient market to decide what is sustainable.  We do not need the UN to do this, we do not need an elite.  In fact larger the state under such conditions the less efficient the market and the more harm is done to the planet by global warming.  Any state that does exist, by virtue of it being the recipient of the tax revenues derived from the carbon footprint VAT, will be lacking a need to be carbon efficient and therefore be wasteful.  We need to eliminate wastage. 

    • Heh, politicians with a plan to gain control of the world through fear, intimidation, and manipulation.  Who’d ever believe such a thing could happen eh?

      • Yeah and I reckon the Right should do that too, but obviously we’d be doing it for the good of the world so it would be alright. 

        Politics is about offering solutions to problems.   My politics are that government is overdrawn and too freaking large, with a solution of small sizing government being required. 

        Now a whole lot of liberals are doing a fine job ramping up fear and alarm around this climate change issue swearing to us all that it is real and primal, but offering a bigger government non-solution.  People can easily see the non-solution is going to cost too much.  All that we need is to offer a better solution that A) can work and B) comes with a tax cut.  Its doable – we must make sacrifices for the good of the planet and every government agency that could possibly be privatised would be a start. 

  • Mark Steyn wrote about this guy. He apparently flies a lot, first class. He flew back to India to watch a practice for a cricket game during a seminar. Not a game, but practice match. 1 day only. He also flew 3500 miles to attend a dinner at the Brookings Institute.

  • All of this reminds me of a video that went around (just after the Van Jones thing) where a union official (either SEIU or UAW) talked about the naked use of power and how the system was rigged and that they now understood the rules of the road (so to speak).

    The reason for the media’s silence is because those same rules, the rules that were used by this cabal, are so evasive that they extend in all directions.