The People Eisenhower Warned You About

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

  • President Eisenhower   January 17, 1961

Pierre Gosselin wrote a piece about climate scientists who want to control policy, while not being accountable to policy makers. Gavin Schmidt wants to use his junk science to control policy, and says questions from policy makers are “tiresome.”

Shocking Twitter Display Of Contempt And Hubris By Stefan Rahmstorf, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt

His predecessor, James Hansen, devoted his entire career to controlling policy through junk science and data tampering.

Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate – The New York Times

When data didn’t match his theory, Hansen simply changed the data.

NASA 1999   NASA 2016

Gavin tries make it sound like Katharine Hayhoe is a bystander, when in fact – like Hansen – she has devoted her career to controlling policy with her wildly fraudulent junk science.

Microsoft Word – KH_MW_climate_change_report.docx

The Midwest is having fewer hot days.

The Midwest is having more cold nights.

Ice melt was latest on record this year.

kare11.com | Still waiting for Lake Minnetonka ice out

And then there is Gavin himself, who is a climate modeler and also generates the fake data he checks the models against.

Of course he doesn’t want people policing his fake data. Because it is fake.

Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

People like Gavin Schmidt and Katharine Hayhoe are exactly what President Eisenhower warned us about.  Funding for their scams needs to be purged and policy needs to be controlled by policy makers who represent citizens – not snake oil saleswomen pretending to be scientists.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to The People Eisenhower Warned You About

  1. Mac says:

    If I had a job, and I fudged data to make it appear that the business I worked in was doing more poorly than it actually was, and I pocketed money from the company bank account, I’d go straight to jail for embezzlement and fraud.

    Is this not analogous to what these government climate “scientists” are doing? Why aren’t they in jail?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      You don’t understand. Gavin Schmidt turns out to be a time traveler from the year 6491.

      Speaking with a thick Birmingham accent, he says global warming is going to get worse and our planet is going to get hotter. Advises us to put a cap on carbon emissions. Warns that driving through an ash storm after a Yellowstone super volcano eruption will ruin your engine.

      Passes a lie detector test.

      https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-who-claims-hes-time-12640629

  2. Anon says:

    Tony:

    I think it is a bit more nuanced and complicated than scientists trying to control policy (which is happening now) and might best been seen in phases as cooperation between politicians and unethical scientists to achieve a unified end:

    1] Stage #1: The world is an unequal place and there is a need for a more equitable distribution of income. So there is a political need to correct the imbalance. There is also a political need for a stronger body for world governance than the United Nations. All of these points are debatable and we SHOULD have these important discussions. but they political and not scientific.

    2] Stage #2: If one can discover a pretext, in this case a pressing need to implement the policies of wealth redistribution and to strengthen world governance, you remove the debate from the political arena and put in in the scientific arena. Climate Change / CAGW fits the bill (Global Cooling does not). So you are now able to advance the argument that these actions are not political, but scientifically necessary.

    3] Stage #3: Once there is a significant amount of scientific evidence created, instead of having politicians out front on these policies, you can put scientists out front who “appear” neutral and unbiased to drive these policies.

    Evidence of these Stages I think can be found here:

    1] Stage #1: Need for wealth redistribution and stronger world governance:

    In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their ‘Science’
    h**ps://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#65be8a868a37

    2] Stage #2: Unethical scientists willing to generate the “pretext” for CAGW:

    How Government Twists Climate Statistics
    Former Energy (Obama) Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin on how bureaucrats spin scientific data.

    h**ps://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-how-government-twists-climate-statistics/80027CBC-2C36-4930-AB0B-9C3344B6E199.html

    The Big Bad Forces of Censorship and Intimidation in Climate Science. Willie Soon, PhD

    https://youtu.be/aYAy871w9t8

    Stage #3a: Scientists instead of politicians put out front to drive public policy. (Gavin Schmidt today.)

    Climate change study predicts refugees fleeing into Antarctica.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3353247/Climate-change-study-predicts-refugees-fleeing-into-Antarctica.html

    Stage #3b: Any scientists that disagree with the established “consensus” are politically destroyed.

    WikiLeaks Exposes Podesta-Steyer Climate McCarthyism

    h**ps://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/wikileaks-john-podesta-silenced-climate-change-dissent/

    Richard S. Lindzen really outlines the whole thing in his paper here:

    Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
    Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate MIT, Cambridge MA 02139, USA

    The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When
    an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.

    http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Lindzen12-March-ClimateScienceNOTansweringQ.pdf

    Now with Trump in office, the political winds have changed, so if Lindzen is correct, the so called “scientific consensus” will become a lot less of a consensus as scientists who disagree will be more likely to speak up, thus the house of cards may come tumbling down.

      • Louis Hooffstetter says:

        I truly don’t understand the intellectual dichotomy displayed by most climate “scientists”. One one hand, they appear intelligent and well educated, while on the other, they shun reality in favor of discredited computer models. I just don’t get it.

        But they do share common characteristics: big egos, condescending attitudes, and an overabundance of chutzpah.

      • JonA says:

        Of course. The ‘Dunning-Kruger’ effect is often used by “experts”
        to side-step or avoid debating someone that they disagree with. I
        notice its usage is also becoming increasingly common in identify
        politics. What the follow up study shows is that, guess what,
        experts are humans too and are prone to overreach in areas that
        they are not expert in and make overconfident claims in areas
        they are. I often see the ‘Dunning-Kruger’ effect accompanied
        by Bertrand Russel’s words:

        “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.”

        This normally overloads my Irony Meter :-).

  3. Yves says:

    “Immigration law is failing to cut flow from Mexico” – I have a “Groundhog Day” feeling…LOL.
    Anyway, the present manipulative scientific elite is a product of generations of incompetent professioanl politicians, who’d rather hide behind so-called experts than have an own opinion and live by it: they HAVE to stay in power, whatever the cost. The self-financed “overwhelming scientific consensus” is just the fuse, the scapegoat for just-in-case.

  4. gregole says:

    Here’s another swivel-eyed crackpot:
    https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2018/06/01/the-fanatical-paul-ehrlich/

    And he’s still receiving recognition and respect. 100% wrong – it didn’t matter. 100% insane fanatical ideas to destroy the poor and their children – it didn’t matter.

    So called “overpopulation” was the first phony scare I figured out; initially I believed it. I was pretty young when I read Erlich’s book. But I figured out he was hollow.

    The current crop of klimate klowns are just more of the same; peas in a pod.

    Why do people listen to these fakes?

    • RAH says:

      It is one thing to be wrong. It is another to never admit it and keep claiming your correct on the subject of the prediction but just missed the timing.

  5. CO2isLife says:

    Tony, their “adjustments” expose the fraud. CO2 shows a Log Decay of absorption vs concentration. Temperatures and CO2 concentration are not linearly related. Each additional CO2 molecule adds less and less to the energy balance. It is like painting a window black. The first coat cuts out 99% of the light, and each additional coat simply blocks a fraction of the remaining 1%. The fact that they are making the adjustments to make temperature more linear to line up with the linear CO2 graph proves the fraud. Their model simply isn’t consistent with the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule. There is absolutely nothing about the CO2 molecule that would support a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, CO2 and W/M^2, and explain why temperatures seem to follow ocean cycles and the clarity of the atmosphere or warming of the oceans. CO2’s only defined mechanism to affect climate change is through thermalizing 13 to 18 micron LWIR at a log decay rate. Nothing in their models reflects the underlying physics of the GHG effect. It isn’t the concentration of CO2 that matters, it is the amount of energy that is thermalized, and you can only thermalize 100%, so adding more and more CO2 can’t thermalize more than 100%.

    You might enjoy the following post:

    Climate Data Doesn’t Support CO2 Driving Climate Change and Global Temperatures
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/climate-data-doesnt-support-co2-driving-climate-change-and-global-temperatures/

    • Anon says:

      CO2: Very good article above, thanks. William Happer talks about the same thing in the video below:

      Princeton Prof. William Happer: World In Midst of Carbon Drought

      https://youtu.be/U-9UlF8hkhs

    • Yves says:

      Hello, just a little word of caution as to your analogy: as long as you’re not done with painting the first layer of black paint on the window, the relationship is exactly linear.
      What that means for CO2 molecules in the atmosphere I have no clue – we talk about 400 ppm, that seems very little. I dont think (but I don’t know for sure) the window is already painted black.

      • arn says:

        No-the climate gas window is not painted black 99%.
        But let’s say 90%
        and increasing an irrellevant and very weak climate gas that already adds very little to climate in our atmosphere by 0.01% may increase the 90% to 90.1%.
        Considering the huge amount of the very strong climate gas
        h2o that the ocean release each and every year(and there never was a runaway greenhouse effect because of h2o nor was there one when co2 was 10* higher than it is today) and comparing them to the tiny amount of co2 one wonders why and how
        co2 has become so almighty.

  6. Douglas Hoyt says:

    If you look at the climate papers before 1992, the word “policy” or the phrase “policy relevant” appear frequently. When I pointed this out to some of the climate scientists, this practice seem to have dropped. The goal of controlling policy by the climate scientists has never ceased. They view politicians as their puppets.

  7. just a thought says:

    Synonym, definition: Two words that mean the same thing. Example: “Climatologist” and “Scientologist” – a religious zealot pretending that science justifies their warped need to control the behavior of others.

  8. misanthropicMarc says:

    WSJ is claiming the “science is settled” and the climate scam has run it’s course! Yay truth! https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-has-run-its-course-1528152876?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2

  9. MIner49er says:

    Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Political or business leaders who advocate unwarranted taxes and regulations on fossil fuels will be seen as fools or knaves. Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is NOT caused by human fossil fuels use.

    There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely and well-documented causes include sunspot cycles, earth/sun orbital changes, cosmic ray effects on clouds and tectonic plate activity. The further point here is that earth naturally recycles all carbon dioxide.

    Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation and other sources. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3.

    99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in earth’s crust. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted.

    The Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost up to to $100 trillion — $13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity’s cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.

    A modern coal power plant emits few air effluents except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy, along with natural gas.

    Coal & gas dominate electric energy generation because they are cheap. Without the CO2-driven global-warming boogeyman, wind and solar power will be relegated to the niches they deserve. Using renewable energy is like paying first-class airfare to fly standby.

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.