Best evidence that "climate science" is a scam

These days, the phrase "climate science" in-effect means the dominant science-establishment position that an industrial-era CO2-driven global warming is having or will have large negative consequences.

The best evidence that "climate science" is a scam is the full recent congressional deposition of leading catastrophic-warming guru Michael E. Mann, giving his best arguments as to why everyone should take the "97% consensus" seriously.

These are the man's best arguments... There is no substitute for the full video:



Pathetic really. Mann is his own worst enemy.

His errors in logic, not to mention his utter lack of tact and self-restraint, were flagrant.

His argument that science is not just an in-group of careerists since the leading journal Nature looks for new things to report, and since scientists have vigorous debates about commas, is straight out of a land where history does not repeat itself, and where the best world is the one that works best for Mann.

In fact, if Nature was about science, then it would (1) accept papers that refute what it publishes, and even actively seek out such papers, (2) force all authors to publicly disclose all their raw data and treatment algorithms for others to examine, (3) abandon its "popularity among leaders in the field" review practice, and (4) publish rather than block critical reviews of its content. Nature, like many journals, is a for-profit publication that is a parasite on institutional funding.

Scientist like Mann who rely on the fallacy of appeal to authority and who cannot bring themselves to present their strongest evidence in a cogent and respectful manner, do not deserve to be funded, as they provide no useful service to humanity.

Hopefully, there are too many independent thinking scientists (3% or so) in the USA for the government and its agencies to continue this insane and useless careerist exercise of exploiting the collective-fear-mobbing reaction of our human nature.

Repeated false-fear mobbing is costly to a society and has to have rational constraints. An adjustment was in order.

Someday soon, the petro-dollar will crash and there will be no room for the luxury of scam science. There is a dangerous degradation of middle-class USA and that needs to be addressed to avoid a collapse of the empire. The crazy fluff of the urban professional classes cannot be sustained much longer because it causes dangerous brain rot. Just look at the chaos of USA foreign policy and the USA's apparent structural inability to recognize its real long and middle-term vulnerabilities. Students and thinkers are drowning in a sea of stupidity.

Judith Curry

Thank you Judith A. Curry!

Judith A. Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is doing us all a great favor by stepping into the public arena with her blog (Climate Etc.) and blasting all the bad politico-science gibberish of the IPCC.

Her style and sting are priceless.

Here is just one example of her remarks on the small matter of the on-going 15-year global temperature "hiatus", as avoided in characteristic style by the IPCC in its latest bible of wisdom. After a detailed summary of what the IPCC said (did not say) on the "hiatus", this (from the September 30, 2013 "IPCC’s pause ‘logic’" blogpost at Climate Etc.):

My original intention for this thread was to go through and try to map the IPCC’s logical argument.  I quickly got dizzy owing to seemingly unwarranted assumptions and incomplete information (such as: did the climate models use the correct external forcing for the first decade of the 21st century, or not?).  I was then going to illustrate how any reasonable propagation of uncertainty of individual assertions/arguments through their main argument would produce much lower confidence in their overall conclusions.  For example, they seem to have eliminated high CO2 sensitivity as a problem.   Not to mention high confidence in increasing trend following 2012 (this high confidence comes right after blowing the prediction of the previous decade).  And of course not to mention the relevant journal articles that didn’t get mentioned.

Apart from these obvious flaws, reading that text and trying to follow it is positively painful.  Can someone remind me again how and why all this is supposed to be useful?

Refreshing. Finally, we have a public scientist willing to take on her colleagues head on, on their own turf, from the position of an active researcher with impeccable credentials.

Why are there so few such individuals in science?! Why has it taken decades for establishment science to start spawning more of these much needed internal critics. And why did we have to wait for the IPCC and its gravy wagon followers to embarrass themselves to this degree before more than a few scientists start being concerned about the reputation of climate science?

There is not enough negative feedback against politically organized science. That seems clear. All those who said nothing and/or went along should be penalized with funding reductions.