“The plain truth is that the earth has been far warmer on average than in recent recorded history, and if you notice the warming periods that have been named, you’ll notice that those periods are typically associated with periods of growth, both in population and in technology. They are not associated with any kind of mass die-offs.”
The ancient War between reality and fantasy continues…
As James Lindsay points out, science is “by definition anti-Gnostic,” because – if practiced as intended – it seeks to describe nature as it is through empirical reason. That is, science observes evidence in the physical world, and only then bases its theoretical conclusions – its Knowledge – on those observations of reality. After which we can then use it to achieve some relative progress by “better according our lives with reality as it is and thus doing better in reality.”
In contrast, Lindsay identifies “the general madness of the world at the present” as resulting from the “parasitic bugbear” of Gnosticism, and specifically what he categorizes as “Scientific Gnosticism.” What makes Scientific Gnosticism different from science is that it inverts the above process: it puts the conclusions of Theory (its Gnosis) ahead of empirical observation of the world.…
…And if the world does not accord with Theory, then the world is wrong, and it “must seek to call truths things which are not.”
Source: The Reality War
If you just look at the thing they are trying to measure and the tools they are using to measure it (including the accuracy of thermometers 100 years ago), you can reasonably presume that this particular science is not very scientific. On my kitchen wall are three thermometers. Two use technology vastly superior to what was available 100 years ago. The third one uses fairly old technology. They are 17 inches apart. The room temperature is maintained by a state-of-the-art home heating system. As I write this, they read 68.0, 70.2, and 73. (Feel free to try this experiment at home.)
With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country”, who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter? Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields — their expertise isn’t inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science. For example, a physicist won’t teach a graduate-level course in Biology; a podiatrist won’t perform open heart surgery and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing. How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology or atmospheric science? Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link — so I looked.
In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of “experts” who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as: infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN and linguistics. Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change — let alone allow them to tell me how to live my life.
Roughly a thousand years before the Sahara became incompatible with humans, an area the size of England sank beneath the waves. Humans lived there. We have evidence of that (as we do of pre-desert Sahara). Another big chunk of fertile human habitat that was there in the past and gone in the present. It sure as hell ‘aint a sunk just few millimeters in depth.
…I think of this sometime when people are publicly emoting over changes in a glacier…
How much CO2 was humanity responsible for then?
Source: Sahara Desert, Wobbly Basketballs, And Annoying Politics
Just think about this: The same people who harangued us for decades about the sin of reinforcing “gender norms” by giving girls Barbie dolls and boys toy guns are now insisting that it’s imperative that we give Barbie dolls to a three-year-old boy who wants to dress up like his older sister (as my emphatically masculine son did) or that we give toy guns to a little girl who chases after her girl brother and his friends when they play “war.” If we treat children as individuals, rather than stereotypes, they’ll almost invariably revert to their biological norms once they hit puberty. They may end up gay or lesbian, but they’ll know what’s in their underpants.
Source: In the face of transgender attacks on societal norms, note the missing science – Bookworm Room
“Not all irreproducible research is progressive advocacy; not all progressive advocacy is irreproducible; but the intersection between the two is very large. The intersection between the two is a map of much that is wrong with modern science,” the report states.
More crap from the ‘educated’ amongst us.
Source: Many studies’ results cannot be reproduced, scholars warn | The College Fix
You may have noticed that nearly all of the doomsday theories seem to begin with the phrase, “if current trends continue.” But, as I have just reviewed, current trends don’t continue. Global temperatures go down, then up, then stay flat. Population growth tapers off, new oil reserves are discovered, agricultural yields increase at even higher rates. Doomsday forecasters always overestimate gloomy trends and underestimate human ingenuity in problem solving.
Source: Fifty Years of Apocalyptic Global Warming Predictions and Why People Believe Them
The belief in human-caused warming exceeding a level that what would be relatively benign, and maybe even beneficial, is just that — a belief. It is not based upon known, established, and quantified scientific principles. It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
Got that. Let’s repeat:
It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
