a climate of climate censorship

silence is not science

in recent decades, the idea of “science” seems to have been subsumed to into politics. this is not some wild new idea. the soviets did it. mao did it. hitler did it, stalin, popes, pashas, and kings. it’s old as time. this is the straight down the fairway shot for dogmatically driven regimes passing off ideology as fact. “it’s not me pushing this on you, it’s the facts of the universe. it’s not manipulation by maxim, it’s natural law.” potent stuff, but it has about as much in common with actual baconian “scientific method” as haruspicy has with doppler weather.

but there is always a song and dance, always a doctrine, always a dogma, and it uses money and power to bend science around it and it has about as much tolerance for diversity of opinion as any other oppressive regime. so it silences dissent. and that can never be science.

perhaps the real DEI when it comes to post-modern science is “disinformation, exaggeration, and intolerance.”

the “climate consensus” has been a fabrication all along, a set of determined data adulteration of not just the base facts, models, and science, but of the representation of the views among scientists.

but a simple fact is true: debate is science and this “mere patent clerks must not be allowed to opine on physics, this is the province of experts!” appeal to authority cum omerta has never been a sound endeavor in any rigorous scientific sense.

but it’s a helluva way to build a guild system and push for technocratic totalitarianism.

they have bought media and science journals alike to demand this. they have taken control of grant allocation and thereby the near entirety of academic and governmental practice and position. agree or starve. the appearance of consensus is all and dissent must not be brooked.

useful information:

when one hears “the science is settled” it’s essentially a 100% shibboleth for “we’re lying to you now.”

what they are really saying is “your silence is settled” now sit down, shut up, and do as you are told.

but don’t feel bad. it’s not just you. they are doing it to nobel laureates too. this is an email to john clauser, 2022 prizewinner for physics.

would that any of this were new, but it’s not. the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) crisis cultivators have been at this since the beginning dating back to and even before the notorious naomi oreskes fraud about implausible percentages of climate scientists agreeing about AGW. there have been dozens of these trash studies using terrible and slanted mythologies to make claims about “consensus” as though that would somehow bear on “factual” even if it were true. but it wasn’t. and it never was.

this has been picked apart 100 times and i’m not going to belabor it in this piece. those wishing more detail can read links HERE or HERE. ( i recommend against using google to search for anything resembling climate data. their search results contain severe curation and one sided slant on the matter.)

the general gist was this:

“inexplicably…”

and they are still at it. you manufacture consensus by ignoring, de-platforming, or censoring anything or anyone that disagrees with you. take over some key journals and gatekeep publication and you decide what “top journals” show. this is trivially easy to do if you are the team with all the grant money and the connections to allocate it. sorry john, you cannot come to speak because you will not say what we want you to say.

an astonishing amount of the rise of the IPCC and other climate crowd currently inhabiting east anglia, NASA, GISS, and innumerable trans-national institutions and think tanks has been not a rise of science but its outright suppression. those who rose have been elevated from the ignominy of dubious back benches and placed above the top people in the field by the simple expedient of flooding them with money, publicity, and positions in and atop bureaucracies. donna laframboise’s book “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert,” while neither scholarly nor scientific, takes a fascinating investigative journalist’s look at this topic.

those elevated to power were not the best and brightest, mostly they were dangerously unqualified dullards chosen for political purpose, ideological purity, and a proven willingness to lie about anything and everything in service of “the cause.” (very soviet, no?)

former IPCC head pachurri who did so much to elevate the organization from “backwater hacks” to the lead of the climate brigades and to so avidly foreground the idea that others must not be allowed to speak because “we are the experts” made great hay with his own status as “an engineer” which was, in fact, true. however, the fact that his qualification was in “railway engineering” might perhaps lead one to question his constant insistence that “non-climate scientists should not be allowed to opine on climate science. cuz, experts.” (jokes about “who better to steer the world’s biggest gravy train” do seem somewhat inevitable...)

señor “choo-choo” would seem to be just another wizard of woo-woo proclaiming his own (false) eminence and seeking to avoid criticism from any not anointed by the clerisy over which he presided.

and what a priesthood it was. the AGW gang has been riddled with wild, unsubstantiated claims, data adulteration, bad methods, passing models off as facts, and outright, deliberate fraud from the very beginning. climate science has become a literal thieves’ forest of pay for play political pontification. the IPCC is not a research body, it’s a justification arm for technocratic takeover, but once you are the ones handing out credentials, it’s easy to control who gets into the club, especially if the media is inclined to play along.

from michael mann’s entirely false “hockey schtick” that used a few non-representative proxies and math so bad that it turned random number strings into hockey stick shapes to the lies of consensus to the east anglia “climategate” scandal to “get rid of the medieval warm period” (among other charming cheats) to the outright data adulteration going on in the temperature datasets and the obvious unsuitability for purpose of the terrestrial monitoring systems whose one sided “run hot” slant from poor siting and urban heat island issues renders the data unusable garbage, this whole field has been farce.

most of it is just false claims and dialing up the hysteria of messaging.

global cooling never looked so hot

leaving aside the hilarity of allegedly “settled science” needing such vast budgets for “further study” (an issue that’s quite a warning sign all by itself if you think about it) this outward projection of competence and consensus has always been false. it was false in the early 2000’s when they started bellowing it and, astonishingly, even after 25 years of savage suppression and grant starvation, it’s still false now. consensus that climate is some clear and present danger has stubbornly failed to emerge in the public or in the scientific community.

Nobel Prize laureate John Clauser has recently been in the spotlight for challenging prevailing climate models, which he said have ignored a key variable.

Mr. Clauser, who was a recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions to quantum mechanics, holds degrees from Caltech and Columbia University. He has served in roles at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the University of California–Berkeley. In 2010, he was honored with a portion of the Wolf Prize in Physics.

Recently, Mr. Clauser joined another Nobel laureate and more than 1,600 professionals in signing the World Climate Declaration (WCD) organized by Climate Intelligence. This declaration asserts that there's no "climate emergency," that climate change science isn't conclusive, and that the Earth's history over thousands of years shows a consistently changing climate.

this WCD document is worth reading. contrary to the manner in which it is publicly portrayed, it’s not actually that controversial nor radical.

this position, in particular will be familiar to those of discerning cattitudes as it applies to all manner of modeling.

this is all they are saying. the very fact that this is somehow being characterized as extremist or “science denial” stands in and of itself as towering indictment of the modern AGW movement and its endless enablers in media, technology, and its fellow travelers on the gravy train.

the simple fact is this: we know quite little about climate, the “models” we use to try to explain it are not skillful in forward prediction, and the measurement systems we have in place to assess it are grossly unfit for purpose. you cannot measure 0.1 degree per decade trends globally with a system that has easily 2 degrees of one sided error bias in it (and rising). there exists not the slightest ability to have any idea what you are modeling.

we do not even understand the role of clouds and precipitation convection in this system and these are huge drivers. some clouds reflect heat back into space. some trap it in. big storm systems (esp in the south pacific) act as an adaptive heat iris to vent heat to space. temperature and humidity affects clouds and water vapor is by far the more impactful greenhouse gas than CO2. minor changes in solar wind seem to affect upper atmospheric ionization and thus cloud structures amplifying changes in total solar irradiance.

it’s hopelessly complex and this is a key issue that folks like clauser have been raising of late picking up on decades of work by folks like svensmark and MIT’s grandfather of climate science richard lindzen whose “adaptive heat iris” work from the 90’s is now being called a “thermostat.”

even a few years ago, you’d get monolithic clams here and severe search engine curation of the very idea that anything other than “more warning = more clouds = more warming” as though a climate system as stable as earth’s could be dominated by some sort of positive feedback.

but this has become so glaring and obvious that the debate could not be suppressed and even some unlikely allies of science have emerged:

though i’m really starting to wonder how much “we really don’t understand them” is being used to paper over an increasing understanding of the basic manner in which they do work because clouds show strong negative feedbacks and makes the models read in manners not consistent with the recent pivot from “global warming” to “global boiling” and solar wind blocking galactic rays amplifies the effects of changes in solar output past just watts per square meter at top of atmosphere (by affecting cloud formation) and means that too much weight was given to what was presumed to be CO2 when hindcasting.

not everyone wants “understanding.”

many just want the story that justifies their cause and will promote it whatever new permutations are required.

it’s the same unrelenting narratives of fear and guilt.

it’s the same wild, absurdist “solutions” to non-problems.

from the same menacing malthusians who have been wrong for 50 years

they are not even trying to hide it anymore.

they just hire activists to play at being reporters at the news wires (the AP newswire business model is increasingly funded activism through grants from special interests) and seek the “unrelenting conviction of young people” about climate crisis.

i do love when they just plain old say the quiet part out loud…

indoctrination is and always was the plan and part and parcel to such practice is the gonzo gaslighting of keeping up the pretense of false consensus. this claimed ubiquity of unanimity is used to generate an abeline paradox where a whole group that thinks “not X” is induced to agree to “X” because they all think their belief, which is the actual consensus, is fringe and that the rest of the group disagrees with them.

a few shouty zealots shrieking “denier!” at people sure helps that one along.

and even if they were correct about CO2 (and they are not) their policies to rein in the west are the equivalent of kicking crickets out of a rolling stones concert for being too noisy.

asia is more than half of all CO2 emissions. their output has basically tripled since the early 90’s and accounts for more than 100% of the global rise. any plan that does not involve them is a clear joke. and yet none seem to.

any plan around lockdowns and cutbacks and “15 minute cities” is similar farce. none of that works. best case is you are just exporting it somewhere else or defining it out of existence with sleights of hand like the UK describing “burring wood for power” as “net zero” much as the “developed” world has been doing with asia by shifting manufacturing. none of this makes any sense in any holistic fashion.

by and large, the mitigations they champion would not even affect CO2 if they were imposed. this is grift, not green.

and we know this because it was just tried in the period over covid which, despite massive drops in everything created zero visible change in CO2 trend.

in the end, facts are stubborn things.

and the facts are that the climate change claims have been around for 50 years and never been correct yet.

they want to take the world on an economic joyride that makes covid look quaint based on science so unsettling that to call it anything apart from dogmatism appears inapt.

it’s worth keeping in mind the lessons of the last few years:

the interests of those inviting (or forcing) you along on evidence free forays into society altering “science” are not always your interests.

i would go so far as to say they almost never are.

they will seek to convince us of absurdities that we might not only ignore but applaud their atrocities in some sort of hair shirt self-immolation.

but look with fresh eyes and the absurdities snap once more into focus.

and so too do the motives…