Maintaining Consensus

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

  • Michael Crichton

Fake news organizations like the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN viciously attack any scientist who refuses to go along with their global warming scam, and they say the person isn’t a scientist.

Then they claim that all scientists agree with them. Their definition of a scientist being “anyone who agrees with them.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Maintaining Consensus

  1. Pin root says:

    Their definition of a scientist being “anyone who agrees with them.”

    And their definition of a Nazi is “anyone who disagrees with them”. That makes it easier to justify sucker punching people.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “That makes it easier to justify sucker punching people.’

      And then trying to blame the ‘violence’ on Trump supporters.
      With the exception of one situation where the guy was harassed first, ALL the ‘Trump supporters are violent’ stories have turned out to be either Progressives doing the dirty deed or set-ups or out right lies.

      Now CNN’s Fake News is going to get someone killed.

      CNN is promoting a highly charged false claim about new, heavily edited CCTV footage from the Ferguson Liquor Market on the night before Mike Brown was shot and killed…

      The footage is edited to give the appearance of store employees accepting weed as barter for product. This is false.

      Secondarily, the producer of the video, Jason Pollock, is claiming the police never released the earlier in the day CCTV footage and instead tried to hide it. Again, this is false. All of the CCTV video was documented by the police, reviewed, included in all records that were part of the Grand Jury inquiry and given to the FBI. Including footage from the 1:13am visit. However, CNN is promoting the falsehoods by the documentary producers in an effort to stir trouble.

      Well, their collective antagonism worked:

      FERGUSON – Shortly before midnight, 7 or 8 shots were heard from an area across the street from the market. There appeared to be no injuries. Someone stuffed a rag in the gas tank of a police car, but the damage was minor.

      [more about the violence in photos and tweets]

      CNN and the rest of the Yellow Stream Media is trying very very hard to stir up hatred and violent riots so it becomes necessary for Trump to put a heavy foot down on the trouble to prevent deaths, injuries and major property damage. (Obama spent 8 years PROMOTING violence and giving the rioters a pass so that is now what they expect.)

      This will allow the Progressive Media plenty of fodder for labelling Trump a ‘h1tler, a fasc1st and a Naz1 which is just what they want and they do not give a crap how many people are hurt or killed or have their lives destroyed. — B@STARDS!

      An example of the difference stirred up racial tensions and a poor economy makes is the 1965 and the 1977 NYC blackouts.
      Impact Assesssment of the 1977 New York Blackout Report

      A total of 1,037 fires were started
      . 1809 incidents of property damage as a result of looting and vandalism, two civilian deaths, and injuries sustained by 436 policemen, 204 civilians and 80 firemen.
      There w-close to-3000 arrests made which swamped the City’s already over-crowded and overburdened judicial system….

      (page 22)
      Table 2-l shows a comparison of relevant statistics comparing the 1965 and 1977 blackouts…

      The 1965 blackout had much less violence and cost. Sources say this is because of better economic prosperity and less racial tensions than in 1977.

  2. gator69 says:

    Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
    -Michael Crichton

  3. Griff says:

    A scientist is judged by their science…

    People who take money from political advocacy groups before deciding what science to publish aren’t scientists.

    A scientist who studies one area is not necessarily reliable in all areas.

    Calling news services fake because the publish news which contradicts your political beliefs is as bad as labelling scientists not scientists

    • tonyheller says:

      The New York Times wrote a completely fraudulent article mentioning me last week. Almost everything they said about me was fake.

    • Gail Combs says:

      New York Times lost every shred of credibility over their CONTINUING decades long Holodor LIES!

      Go look it up.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Their guy even got the Pulitzer or something for his excellent Holodomor reporting in the NYT …

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yes, and the New York Times and Pulitzer fought tooth and nail to NOT have it revoked!!!

          Sleazy is too good a term for NYT and the rest of the Urinalists.

          WIKI:

          Joseph Pulitzer ( i/ˈpʊlɪtsər/; Hungarian: [ˈpulit͡sɛr]; born József Pulitzer; April 10, 1847 – October 29, 1911) was a Hungarian-American newspaper publisher of the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the New York World. Pulitzer introduced the techniques of yellow journalism to the newspapers he acquired in the 1880s.

          How very very appropriate.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      When it becomes impossible to repeat the talking points and not contradict yourself, Ms Griff, it’s time to stop typing and start thinking.

      It’s also good to be on a lookout for the embarrassing little things …

      (post hoc ergo propter hoc)

    • Andy DC says:

      In the so-called science community, you can’t speak a word that is not in line with the politically predetermined conclusion (party line) without being ostracized, having your funding cut off, or even getting fired.

    • Gator says:

      People who take money from political advocacy groups before deciding what science to publish aren’t scientists.

      So anyone taking government grants is not a scientist, because the IPCC predetermined the “science” of climate change, and only funds CAGW believers.

      • Gail Combs says:

        To go with Gator’s statement:
        The USA signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ratified on 12/06/92. (Clinton) His VP Al Gore FIRED Dr Happer for not endorsing CAGW.

        Here’s the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change definition:

        “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
        link

        The term ‘Climate Change’ specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

        The IPCC mandate is similar:

        The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
        http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

        So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.

        The IPCC’s ROLE

        The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

        So there it is again. ONLY “human-induced climate change” is of interest and that is why you see very little work done on natural climate change.

        Worse it is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. The facts are as follows.

        The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

        “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”

        That was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.

        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        Do you see now how the hoax is perpetrated?
        “Climate expert” means someone who has received money from the government, in exchange for an implicit or explicit promise to generate politically useful propaganda.

        There is NO real science involved except the science of Psychological Operations, (psych-ops or psy-ops) the planned use of psychological knowledge to influence the behavior of groups, organizations or populations.

    • neal s says:

      Griff … you can still visit
      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

      And at the bottom read “A version of this article appears in print on January 20, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.”

      Yet the current version of the article has the headline changed to
      “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates”

      Why would that be so? Why was the headline changed?
      So when the New York Times disagrees with the New York Times …
      Either they were lying then, or they are lying now. Which is it?
      (It doesn’t really matter … they lied)

      And this is NOT the only instance where they disagree with themselves.

    • Latitude says:

      “Calling news services fake because the publish news which contradicts your political beliefs is as bad as labelling scientists not scientists”

      My hope is that Griff is going for the Yogi Berra award…
      ..and thank God face palms are not lethal

      • Gail Combs says:

        Griffy is conflating the words “political beliefs” with actual reality.

        When all the major news networks show film footage of a riot supposedly happening on my university campus; And I see ZERO gatherings of students much less riots WHILE I am on the campus from 7AM to 5 PM of that day; AND 4 decades later the university has ZERO information of that ‘riot’ while covering others… Yeah I think the major news networks are guilty of LYING and other such incidences where I or a friend was an eye witness have confirmed this.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      Griff:
      Waiting for your reply from yesterday…..

      Now to your absurd comments, here is my question: Will you, Griff, provide us with ONE paper which MEASURES the amount of temperature change caused by CO2. While you are at it, please name the scientist(s) who have done it. Please, please……. Waiting, waiting….

      • AndyG55 says:

        A very good question.

        The AGW trolls have been TOTALL UNABLE to provide such a paper.

        But the resident troll here are total COWARDS, as well as being totally CLUELESS about basically everything, especially Arctic sea ice…

        .. so you will not get an answer..

        They will just RUN and HIDE and AVOID and DENY.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      Griff says:
      **A scientist is judged by their science…**

      So find us a scientist…..

      Waiting for your reply from yesterday…..

      Now to your absurd comments, here is my question: Will you, Griff, provide us with ONE paper which MEASURES the amount of temperature change caused by CO2. While you are at it, please name the scientist(s) who have done it. Please, please……. Waiting, waiting….

    • AndyG55 says:

      “People who take money from political advocacy groups before deciding what science to publish aren’t scientists.”

      Griff, you dopey moron.

      You have just outed basically every “climate scientist™” in the world as NOT BEING SCIENTISTS. :-)

      Well done. !!

  4. Robertv says:

    Global Warming and Our Electric Sun

    https://youtu.be/3E6An2u8dcA

    In Part One of this presentation, physicist Wal Thornhill explored the many obstacles that institutional science and academia face in attempting to understand climate change on Earth. As Thornhill explained, no climate models can succeed that rely on outdated and unproven assumptions, such as the belief that Earth and Venus are twins and Venus’ superheat temperatures were created by a runaway greenhouse effect.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    In the ‘Watch the pennies and the Millions take care of themselves category’

    OR

    How to REALLY p1$$-off the Yellow Stream Media.

    Seething U.S. Journalists Angered About Taking Commercial Flights To Cover Secretary Tillerson in Asia

    A Reuters filing en route to Asia showcases the bitterness, anger and seething rage of U.S. journalists who have been forced to fly First-Class Commercial to cover Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s Asia trip.

    State Department correspondents are used to the exclusive wide-body private charters of the U.S. federal government’s airline fleet. Previous heads of the Department of State have flown aboard Air Force 3. Normally a Boeing 757.

    …T-Rex is taking a smaller jet to Asia and only one journalist accompanies him. To make matters exponentially worse, T-Rex did not select a journalist from the corporate stable of the refined and pedigreed media elites…

    he traveling correspondents will have to pass through customs and passport checks as if they are ordinary travelers. There is a very real possibility no-one will recognize them or care diligently for their very individual and specific needs….

    Oh yeah, the pontificating journalist elites are pi**ed off. After traveling with every possible indulgence aboard exclusive State Department accommodations with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry, you cannot even fathom how angry they are right now without private dining, DoS chefs, shaved chocolates and Cristal mimosas.

    None of this is me joking….

    OH MY to be a fly on the wall….

    Must have been nice to have had Sec of State pouring you champagne because you were an Elite Urinalist.

    SUCK IT UP SNOW FLAKES!

  6. Peculiar that the fundamental principles of science are nowhere to be found.

    So I gave it my best shot in an attempt to identify and defining them:

    §1 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, inferences and conclusions.

    §2 A scientific premise is verifiable. Premises and their sources are identified and readily available for independent verification.

    §3 A scientific inference is logically valid.

    §4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by application of axioms, definitions and theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

    §5 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions, axioms, definitions or theorems.

    §6 A scientific concept is well-defined and has a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.

    §7 A scientific concept can only be validated by comparison of predictions deduced from that concept with measurement results. Whenever predictions differ from measurement results, by more than the combined uncertainty of the measurement results and the claimed capability of the concept, there must be something wrong with the concept – or the test of it.

    §8 A scientific concept can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.

    §9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.

    §10 A scientific measurement report contains traceable values, units and stated uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

    §11 A scientific prediction report contains values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

    https://principlesofscience.wordpress.com

    • neal s says:

      Since CAGW violates many of these principles, CAGW is neither science, nor supported by science. Since the tripe that GISS produces fails horribly with §9 and §10, that production is not scientific but at best propaganda. Since the assertion that anything that happens, must be due to some tiny increase in CO2 from human activity, we see that §7 is not supported. Indeed many dire predictions have failed to materialize. On the whole, I would say that CAGW is at best a religion.

  7. CO2isLife says:

    The “consensus” is more con than science. No real scientist appeals to authority and consensus, they let the numbers speak for themselves.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-the-consensus-is-more-con-and-nonsense-than-science/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.