What does it say about an institution when you have to distort the facts or lie in order to succeed?
This seems to be the defining characteristic of our time: our institutions have failed us by pursuing goals contrary to what their stated purpose is.
How can I trust what any “expert” or “scientist” says if there’s the possibility that what they’re saying is misrepresented in order to suite a narrative or gain clout in their chosen profession?
I don’t know whether you are a hero or a coward. If I practiced surgery the way you practice science, I doubt my patients would appreciate my self interest... The fact that you are even studying the effects of climate change on wildfires - when there is ample evidence that that is not even a significant factor, speaks volumes. Take your mea culpa somewhere else. Grow a pair...
I’ve spent my career on telling the truth about the causes of suicide. The reality of it is that there are fewer two-parent homes and church attendees. These are not the only causes, but they are the causes with the biggest effect sizes. I can’t get much of it published in high impact journals. That’s too bad, but I won’t change the facts to fit the narrative.
Sometimes, you just have to tell the truth to a smaller group. That way, looking at yourself in the mirror remains possible. I can’t do my kind of work in academia, so I don’t. It’s called morality.
If this sounds like "1984," maybe because it is. Imagine turning our entire energy infrastructure into some sick joke based on "climate science" such as that peddled by this fakir? All the windmills, solar arrays and EVs won't make a bit of difference (even if one believes the CO2 hypothesis) when China and India and others are building coal-fired electric plants and other production facilities. Want to make me believe this garbage? Push for natural gas and nuclear generation. Otherwise you're only making things worse. Much worse A modern society needs reliable electricity. So called "renewables" are not. And millions will soon be unable to afford electricity - if it's even available.
This whole thing is silly. The earth is 8,000 miles in diameter - solid and liquid, weighing about 7.7 sextillion tons. It gets its internal heat from decaying radionuclides and a nearby star. If the earth were the size of a beach ball, everything inside - except for a solid iron core - would be red-hot molten rock. The solid crust would be the thickness of its plastic envelope; the atmosphere would be a single coat of paint. And yet we are supposed to believe changes in the concentration of a single atmospheric trace gas is swamping these leviathans?
Earth's atmosphere is no more than a sliver - less than 50 miles thick, with half below 3 miles altitude. In that incredibly thin atmosphere, CO2 is a trace gas – 0.04%. 97% of CO2 comes from nature; only 3% is man-made, and of that 3%, the US accounts for 14%. You do the math: 0.000168 percent of the atmosphere is CO2 from the U.S. and theoretically available for “reduction.” Sheer lunacy.
Atmospheric CO2 is important. From a geological perspective, due to sequestration of carbon dioxide by coral and other hard-bodied animals who use it to make calcium carbonate shells, the earth is at a CO2 atmospheric low point -> 400 parts per million – extremely low, and near the 150 ppm threshold for a massive plant die-off – plants which, which, by the way, produce 100% of the oxygen that keeps all animals, including humans, alive.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is plant food; it is to plants what oxygen is to man. During the Cambrian period 500 million years ago, CO2 constituted over 5,000 parts per million of the Earth’s atmosphere. Then, 150 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period, CO2 was 1,700 parts per million, more than four times what it is now, yet life thrived. In point of fact, high CO2 levels were the major reason the Earth was blanketed with lush foliage during those periods. In the past forty years the earth has undergone an unprecedented greening, widely believed to be the result of the modest, likely manmade, increase in atmospheric CO2. Along with nitrogen fertilizers, this has resulted in an explosion of planetary food production. What's not to like?
As for the supposed ill effects of a 1° atmospheric temperature rise - the earth has no specific optimum temperature; only a range in which it must remain for life as we know it to exist. At higher temperatures, tropical life-forms proliferate more; at lower temperatures, arctic ones do, yet note: The tropics boast 10 times as many species as does the Arctic because warmth breeds life. And “cold weather is responsible, directly or indirectly, for 17 times as many deaths as hot weather,” as even The New York Times, citing a Lancet study, had to admit in 2017.
So our “leaders” – innocent of the most basic science – and more importantly, math – skills plan to turn the world’s economy upside down and LITERALLY starve millions of people in service to a cadre of lunatics who don’t know what they are talking about. Uh-huh. Or maybe the object is not saving the planet. Maybe it's something else entirely.
Someone who caves to the narrative to be published, and then comes here speaking the truth made this article infuriating from start to finish.
I think of every doctor, scientist, teacher, employee, citizen who has been speaking against all the recent narratives - with guts, with loss of work, loss of relationships and they are the ones to commend.
Should papers, editors and media accept the whole story for publication- yes! But it relies on the people submitting to have the courage to speak truth even if it it’s denied over and over. That’s how we get change.
I spent 90 minutes of my Labor Day yesterday cleaning the floor and listening to Bari ask Walter Russel Mead on “Honestly” why people have lost faith in institutions and is populism gaining momentum? (Not the sexiest choice of long weekend activities for sure.) I’m tired of hearing the media lament why we don’t trust institutions while simultaneously giving us the exact answer.
What is particularly perverse about all of this is the fact that the climate cult is systematically and intentionally driving our children into mental illness, all for the sake of following their doomsday religion.
I wrote about the addiction these frauds are foisting upon our kids here-
Confession is good for the soul but you don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know other than the fact that you too are not to be trusted. Yes, plant food has created a lusher world and fires in a lusher world will do more damage to housing built into the lusher world.
I don’t trust any climate scientist who ignores the history of the climate. I trust America’s top atmospheric physicist and the man who has gathered the temperature record. Those who don’t know their names are Climate Illiterates. So do what you have to do to make a living but stop calling yourself a Climate Scientist while you ignore the temperature record and cooler temperatures in parts of the world not affected by the UHE.
The word science has become meaningless. These days, it's more about cherry picking facts that support whatever view you want to push rather than in an inexorable search for the truth.
So many warnings. Trofim Lysenko is the first that comes to mind. The idea that "science" must first and foremost be "politically correct".
Second is Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
We have a values crisis. Not a climate crisis. Over the last few generations, we have dismissed the concepts of right and wrong and replaced them with career advancement and fame. I do not blame the author for his effort at career management. He is the product of a long line of poseurs who he has seen achieve accolades despite being startling wrong in their work.
That line include Paul Ehrlich and his Malthusian predictions through the climate cooling scare that suddenly become a warming scare and leads directly to Dr Fauci and our COVID publicity seekers. Wealth is more important than honor in our world today. Our media is full of proven liars. Yet they still get air time and invitations to speak at college graduations.
I beseech you, please share with me one institution that you feel you can trust in our society today. Today’s “heroes” are constructed out of thin air to support a Potemkin village of a society.
But then again, fall is right around the corner and that’s always a nice time of the year. So we have that going for us, right?
I like this author's approach to practically explaining the motivations that unconciously lead to bias, and actionable advice on how to prevent such biases. It takes positive approach to a bleak picture of the wider scientific community in Western Society.
I'd like to humbly submit one more admitedly half-baked reason for the mass bias we see in so much scientific research and the way media presents it. At the end of the day, humans are seen as merely another animal to most of these people. Ironically, rejecting the belief in God has created a desperate need to feel they understand and control everything around them. That leads to Trust the Science, faith in humans as the high power. Good luck with that.
A couple posters have already beat me to the punch, good. Shame on you Patrick. You think you are some sort of hero? You are worse than the syncophantic fools who are oblivious to the publishing game. To redeem yourself you need to retract your article. Make it your mission to expose how those lauded journals like Nature have become worthless rags.
I think we need to ultimately understand that climate change is nothing more than an excuse for big corporations to steal the earths resources. Once we know that, everything makes sense
What does it say about an institution when you have to distort the facts or lie in order to succeed?
This seems to be the defining characteristic of our time: our institutions have failed us by pursuing goals contrary to what their stated purpose is.
How can I trust what any “expert” or “scientist” says if there’s the possibility that what they’re saying is misrepresented in order to suite a narrative or gain clout in their chosen profession?
I don’t know whether you are a hero or a coward. If I practiced surgery the way you practice science, I doubt my patients would appreciate my self interest... The fact that you are even studying the effects of climate change on wildfires - when there is ample evidence that that is not even a significant factor, speaks volumes. Take your mea culpa somewhere else. Grow a pair...
I’ve spent my career on telling the truth about the causes of suicide. The reality of it is that there are fewer two-parent homes and church attendees. These are not the only causes, but they are the causes with the biggest effect sizes. I can’t get much of it published in high impact journals. That’s too bad, but I won’t change the facts to fit the narrative.
Sometimes, you just have to tell the truth to a smaller group. That way, looking at yourself in the mirror remains possible. I can’t do my kind of work in academia, so I don’t. It’s called morality.
If this sounds like "1984," maybe because it is. Imagine turning our entire energy infrastructure into some sick joke based on "climate science" such as that peddled by this fakir? All the windmills, solar arrays and EVs won't make a bit of difference (even if one believes the CO2 hypothesis) when China and India and others are building coal-fired electric plants and other production facilities. Want to make me believe this garbage? Push for natural gas and nuclear generation. Otherwise you're only making things worse. Much worse A modern society needs reliable electricity. So called "renewables" are not. And millions will soon be unable to afford electricity - if it's even available.
This whole thing is silly. The earth is 8,000 miles in diameter - solid and liquid, weighing about 7.7 sextillion tons. It gets its internal heat from decaying radionuclides and a nearby star. If the earth were the size of a beach ball, everything inside - except for a solid iron core - would be red-hot molten rock. The solid crust would be the thickness of its plastic envelope; the atmosphere would be a single coat of paint. And yet we are supposed to believe changes in the concentration of a single atmospheric trace gas is swamping these leviathans?
Earth's atmosphere is no more than a sliver - less than 50 miles thick, with half below 3 miles altitude. In that incredibly thin atmosphere, CO2 is a trace gas – 0.04%. 97% of CO2 comes from nature; only 3% is man-made, and of that 3%, the US accounts for 14%. You do the math: 0.000168 percent of the atmosphere is CO2 from the U.S. and theoretically available for “reduction.” Sheer lunacy.
Atmospheric CO2 is important. From a geological perspective, due to sequestration of carbon dioxide by coral and other hard-bodied animals who use it to make calcium carbonate shells, the earth is at a CO2 atmospheric low point -> 400 parts per million – extremely low, and near the 150 ppm threshold for a massive plant die-off – plants which, which, by the way, produce 100% of the oxygen that keeps all animals, including humans, alive.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is plant food; it is to plants what oxygen is to man. During the Cambrian period 500 million years ago, CO2 constituted over 5,000 parts per million of the Earth’s atmosphere. Then, 150 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period, CO2 was 1,700 parts per million, more than four times what it is now, yet life thrived. In point of fact, high CO2 levels were the major reason the Earth was blanketed with lush foliage during those periods. In the past forty years the earth has undergone an unprecedented greening, widely believed to be the result of the modest, likely manmade, increase in atmospheric CO2. Along with nitrogen fertilizers, this has resulted in an explosion of planetary food production. What's not to like?
As for the supposed ill effects of a 1° atmospheric temperature rise - the earth has no specific optimum temperature; only a range in which it must remain for life as we know it to exist. At higher temperatures, tropical life-forms proliferate more; at lower temperatures, arctic ones do, yet note: The tropics boast 10 times as many species as does the Arctic because warmth breeds life. And “cold weather is responsible, directly or indirectly, for 17 times as many deaths as hot weather,” as even The New York Times, citing a Lancet study, had to admit in 2017.
So our “leaders” – innocent of the most basic science – and more importantly, math – skills plan to turn the world’s economy upside down and LITERALLY starve millions of people in service to a cadre of lunatics who don’t know what they are talking about. Uh-huh. Or maybe the object is not saving the planet. Maybe it's something else entirely.
Someone who caves to the narrative to be published, and then comes here speaking the truth made this article infuriating from start to finish.
I think of every doctor, scientist, teacher, employee, citizen who has been speaking against all the recent narratives - with guts, with loss of work, loss of relationships and they are the ones to commend.
Should papers, editors and media accept the whole story for publication- yes! But it relies on the people submitting to have the courage to speak truth even if it it’s denied over and over. That’s how we get change.
So is this your version of virtue signaling: "hey look at me. I'm a lying a-hole, but at least I'm aware of it?"
Good grief 😡
I spent 90 minutes of my Labor Day yesterday cleaning the floor and listening to Bari ask Walter Russel Mead on “Honestly” why people have lost faith in institutions and is populism gaining momentum? (Not the sexiest choice of long weekend activities for sure.) I’m tired of hearing the media lament why we don’t trust institutions while simultaneously giving us the exact answer.
What is particularly perverse about all of this is the fact that the climate cult is systematically and intentionally driving our children into mental illness, all for the sake of following their doomsday religion.
I wrote about the addiction these frauds are foisting upon our kids here-
https://www.sub-verses.com/p/the-climate-change-drug-dealers
And here-
https://www.sub-verses.com/p/our-children-are-not-tools-of-your
Patrick Brown
Confession is good for the soul but you don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know other than the fact that you too are not to be trusted. Yes, plant food has created a lusher world and fires in a lusher world will do more damage to housing built into the lusher world.
I don’t trust any climate scientist who ignores the history of the climate. I trust America’s top atmospheric physicist and the man who has gathered the temperature record. Those who don’t know their names are Climate Illiterates. So do what you have to do to make a living but stop calling yourself a Climate Scientist while you ignore the temperature record and cooler temperatures in parts of the world not affected by the UHE.
The word science has become meaningless. These days, it's more about cherry picking facts that support whatever view you want to push rather than in an inexorable search for the truth.
So many warnings. Trofim Lysenko is the first that comes to mind. The idea that "science" must first and foremost be "politically correct".
Second is Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
Lies of omission are still lies.
We have a values crisis. Not a climate crisis. Over the last few generations, we have dismissed the concepts of right and wrong and replaced them with career advancement and fame. I do not blame the author for his effort at career management. He is the product of a long line of poseurs who he has seen achieve accolades despite being startling wrong in their work.
That line include Paul Ehrlich and his Malthusian predictions through the climate cooling scare that suddenly become a warming scare and leads directly to Dr Fauci and our COVID publicity seekers. Wealth is more important than honor in our world today. Our media is full of proven liars. Yet they still get air time and invitations to speak at college graduations.
I beseech you, please share with me one institution that you feel you can trust in our society today. Today’s “heroes” are constructed out of thin air to support a Potemkin village of a society.
But then again, fall is right around the corner and that’s always a nice time of the year. So we have that going for us, right?
I like this author's approach to practically explaining the motivations that unconciously lead to bias, and actionable advice on how to prevent such biases. It takes positive approach to a bleak picture of the wider scientific community in Western Society.
I'd like to humbly submit one more admitedly half-baked reason for the mass bias we see in so much scientific research and the way media presents it. At the end of the day, humans are seen as merely another animal to most of these people. Ironically, rejecting the belief in God has created a desperate need to feel they understand and control everything around them. That leads to Trust the Science, faith in humans as the high power. Good luck with that.
A couple posters have already beat me to the punch, good. Shame on you Patrick. You think you are some sort of hero? You are worse than the syncophantic fools who are oblivious to the publishing game. To redeem yourself you need to retract your article. Make it your mission to expose how those lauded journals like Nature have become worthless rags.
Nice to see the FP talk about climate change. I wrote this post back in January on the topic. My main argument here is WHY WE NEED CARBON TO LIVE
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-climate-change-is-wrong-dangerous
I think we need to ultimately understand that climate change is nothing more than an excuse for big corporations to steal the earths resources. Once we know that, everything makes sense
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-hidden-profits-of-climate-change