35 Years Of Lying About Climate

“Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists’ dilemma this way: “On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.

And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Discover Magazine October 1989

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to 35 Years Of Lying About Climate

  1. arn says:

    ” The right balance between being effective and being hoenest ”

    from the mouth of a guy who has been promoting the ice age and then global warming.

    Someone who declared early on (not long after the creation of the club of rome)
    that Climate is the grandmother of ALL environmental problems and a publication named Climate Change.

    Someone who was born and died (Eulogized by the other big cooling-warming two faced expert :John Holdren)at the very centers of all global propaganda and real global threats and trends the rest of the world is supposed to follow without asking questions.

    Besides being a pioneer in pushing the term climate change he also invented the climatological point of no return : A cooling by 3.5 degrees will trigger an ice age.

    Then he did a 180 with a very remarkable trick.
    He simply absolved humanity from being the main contributer of aerosol – which according to Malthusian logic means.Aerosols lost all their evil almighty powers= no more apocalyptic ice age ; and projected all evil powers into man made co2: et voila : the new diabolus ex machina globalism needs – apocalyptic warming

  2. There are enough liars in the world, without scientists adding to their ranks. AGW is junk science promoted entirely by coercion and censorship, i.e. precisely the methods used to propagate political dogma which cannot withstand critical scrutiny.

    • D. Boss says:

      I would argue that if you lie, you are not a qualified scientist. Or you loose your standing as one. Make it so there are consequences to fudging data or stretching the truth – like loosing your job, tenure, and the letters behind your name, which are generally BS, MS and PhD (Bull Sh*t, More Sh*t and Piled Higher and Deeper respectively)

      • You are more likely to be ostracized in the current climate for failing to comply with the narrative. Facts and reasoned argument are irrelevant to the Holy See of the climate inquisition.

      • Conrad Ziefle says:

        Yeah, I agree with that. How can one fudge data and think that it is alright? Sadly, I think it comes down to the nature of humans. We all have religious beliefs. For some scientists, their religious belief is the method of science, the discovery and embracing the discovery. Others, even other scientists, it’s their doctrine, and their doctrine allows them to believe that the data was taken wrongly, and they must make it fit the doctrine. I don’t understand it. It makes no sense, but I have seen very smart people’s minds go blank when confronted with the errors of their doctrine. Ten minutes later, they would say it never happened. They just washed their minds of it. Maybe they can be good scientists in fields where their doctrine will never be confronted. If they are climate scientists, maybe they should be forced to work in metallurgy.

  3. dm says:

    So, those who self-identify as our betters declare: TRUE science does NOT serve the public’s well-being BUT PROPAGANDA does. That explains why Michael Mann is linked to UPenn’s Annenberg School for Communication. Annenberg made his fortune off TV Guide, Seventeen and The Daily Racing Forum–all written for those with 3rd grade reading skills.

    • Conrad Ziefle says:

      This is in everything from climate information to pandemic determination to the idea that anybody and everyone can come here and plague us with their belligerence, ignorance, and unemployability, that the government can force us to house them….

  4. PhilH says:

    Follow the money. No one ever went broke crowing about the next imaginary imminent disaster.

  5. Walter says:

    When you say the quiet part out loud.

  6. Bert says:

    For the last 35 years the predictions of global warming have failed miserably, none of their predictions happened. According to NOAA, the past decade has been the hottest on record. But data of temperature records of the decade of 1930s shows that it was much hotter than the decade of 1910s. The dishonest “Climate Change” narrative is debunked by their own facts and compile data. The Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last 35 years. When the ‘tipping point’ of so-called irreversibility is passed with no evident catastrophe, they invent a new future point.

  7. Scott Allen says:

    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can— if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong— to explain it.
    If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
    Richard Feynman

Leave a Reply

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