Is he a genius?

You’ll forgive me, I hope, for coming back so soon to the subject of Adam Curtis, the first part of whose All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace was so ably dissected by Simon Hoggart last week. Only, no less a personage than Bryan Appleyard of the Sunday Times has estimated Curtis as ‘TV’s greatest documentary maker’ and the BBC obviously agrees. So, really, two Speccie TV reviews in a fortnight is surely the barest minimum this genius deserves.

(to read more, click here)

34 thoughts on “Is he a genius?”

  1. Yes, Curtis’s debunking of the “balance of equilibrium in natural ecosystems” in episode 2 of his latest series is very nicely done. The instability of natural systems goes also for the climate. This is the real problem with the faked climate data.

    The tree ring proxy data for temperatures over the past thousand years in Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph falsely smooths out real fluctuations in temperature, because as temperature rises, so does evaporation and cloud cover. Since tree growth is adversely affected by an increase in cloud cover, tree growth doesn’t increase in step with temperature, so tree ring data obfuscates the true temperature variability of climate.

    The problem is of course that when so many people all use tree ring data, they must be right by definition. You must accept their peer-reviewed papers because they all agree with one another. A consensus of experts can’t be wrong, because as Nurse says, science is defined as the consensus of experts. To distrust experts is like questioning the basis for a medical diagnosis: it insults the experts, who don’t have to justify themselves.

  2. Of course he’s a genius.

    If you saw his work, who else would you mistake it for? Being the only one of his ‘type’, then he is a genius by default.

    That being said, he is still fallible; which doesn’t detract in any way, from his edutainment style.

  3. Nige
    Michael Manns tree ring data has invalidated itself, that’s what ‘Mikes nature trick’ was all about. Tree ring data is about as valid for measuring historical temperature as Earths CO2 levels are for predicting Earths temperature

    Jimmy
    Nobody is a genius “by default” …that’s an oxymoron

    James
    so the BBC are at it again? ..what a surprise!
    a few weeks ago they rolled out an ‘expert’ who said/claimed the Japanese Govt had been dealing with the Fukinshambles nuclear scandal “effectively and efficiently”. The Jap Govt still to date have not a clue what to do and all their efforts have been both futile and make Ronald McDonald look like a serious intellectual
    The BBC like all public-private enterprises are a sad bloody joke… sooner we ditch this public broadcaster (Govt propaganda wing and clearing house for lies) the better

  4. “Michael Manns tree ring data has invalidated itself, that’s what ‘Mikes nature trick’ was all about. ”

    Is this what this is? Take three words from 13 years of emails completely out of context. This was in reference to a (30 year) section of one graph published over 10 years ago. A trick is a common scientific term that refers to something cleverly done, which was to extrapolate a trend from some divergent tree ring proxy because you can’t get temperature readings directly from ANY kind of proxy reading.

    On top of that Mann’s hockey stick is constructed from over a dozen separate independent studies using various proxies. It’s not one set of tree ring proxy covering over 30 years.

    How do you denialists manage to extrapolate a conspiracy out of three words in an email?

  5. @JimmyGiro

    Don’t worry your little head Jimmy Giro. But if you need to know, ‘peer review’ is the evaluation by experts within that field. ‘Conspiracy’ is the label given to science by denialists who haven’t the time to read scientific literature. The latter being the famous quote from the one and only Delingpole.

  6. “A trick is a common scientific term that refers to something cleverly done, which was to extrapolate a trend from some divergent tree ring proxy because you can’t get temperature readings directly from ANY kind of proxy reading.”

    The tree ring proxy fails after 1960 because of the increase in cloud cover. Nurse’s January BBC2 Horizon programme contains film of Dr Phil Jones admitting to Nurse that the WMO asked him to delete the seams in the jockey stick graph, and then deleted the evidence because it was “too complicated for their audience”. It’s not 3 words from an email. They deliberately faked the data.

    Our point is the tree ring proxy data suppresses the wide swings in the temperature record, because the temperature rises cause increased cloud cover, which reduces sunlight and hence tree growth (like trees in the shaded side of a hill). That’s why it’s suppresses the true temperature variability: the increases in cloud cover accompanying temperature rises offset the effect on tree ring growth from air temperature alone. You’re increasing air temperature and reducing sunshine: result, less effect on tree ring growth than from the effect of air temperature alone. So using tree ring data for the last 1000 years to 1960 falsely suppresses the extremes of the random swings in temperature that period, while the use (by Phil Jones and Michael Mann) of direct measurements since 1960 gives the desired WMO and IPCC result.

    Churchill was denounced as a denialist when he said Chamberlain’s appeasement policy was a conspiracy with Hitler, and he was right, like Delingpole with these modern Nazis and their fellow-travelling appeasers. How many kids will needlessly die because of the diversion of billions from worthwhile projects into the Swiss bank accounts of eco-fascist carbon credit traders and wind farm conmen?

  7. @Nige Cook

    Nige, there’s 6 independent studies into the ‘divergence problem’ and it’s openly discussed in the IPCC AR4 Chapter 6 page 40 onwards. Nobody is exactly sure why those particular set of tree ring data diverged. Yet you, without any expertise or relevant scientific background knows exactly what caused it. Either it’s amazing or it sound like you’re one of those who talks out of his a…. Then you move on to accusing the science of being some genocidal conspiracy.

    That openly discussed set of proxies were published in one graph for the WMO and you manage to make into a big conspiracy. What about all the other proxies and all the other studies? One set of tree ring data that diverged is enough for you to negate all other effects? It’s akin to saying just because Newton got some of his theories wrong therefore everything he proposed is wrong. Same goes for Einstein and Darwin.

  8. “is exactly sure why those particular set of tree ring data diverged. Yet you, without any expertise or relevant scientific background knows exactly what caused it.”

    In the 1930s the Nazis published 60 studies all confirming one another on the need for eugenics. Churchill, without any relevant expertise in eugenics, pointed out they were lies.

    In the story of the Emperor’s new clothes, the Emperor ignores the little boy who points out a problem with his clothes, on the basis that nobody else has pointed out the problem.

    “What about all the other proxies and all the other studies? One set of tree ring data that diverged is enough for you to negate all other effects?”

    They all fiddle their results to suppress natural variability in the same way. You haven’t read what I wrote, which has nothing to do with data, but with mechanism. Sigh. Again:

    The increase in cloud cover from increasing evaporation as temperature rises will cause an effect on tree growth, which offsets to some degree the effect of temperature alone in the calibration (greenhouse experiment) tree growth studies.

    Until someone finds some way to estimate cloud cover variations over the past thousand years, no tree ring proxy data will be convincing. All of the studies of temperature, even weather stations (affected by local upwind cities and factories, thus not reflecting global CO2 effects) and recent (post-1980) satellite temperature data utilizing the measurement of microwave emissions from air molecules, are relevant to surface temperatures, and 62% of the surface is covered by cloud. There is no unbiased temperature data. For example, the weather station data for the most part just reflected the increase in heat gas emissions from expanding industry and expanding cities nearby, not the CO2 increase which was indistinguishable in the “noise” background from heat pollution.

    Nobody has ever eliminated all sources of “noise” in any temperature set, and all temperature sets when plotted show remarkable contradictions. The only way you get a hockey stick curve that looks impressive for political brainwashing purposes is by gluing tree proxy data (showing relatively small temperature variations, because of systematic flaws in the tree proxy basis, not really small temperature variations) to weather station bullshit from 1960-80, and then satellite bullshit from 1980-now.

    The satellite surface temperature data is biased in favour of exaggerating CO2 effects because it applies to clear skies: measuring the thermal spectrum of the surface to determine Planck temperature doesn’t work for the 62% of the surface under clouds, and it’s specifically the surface under the clouds which suffers from negative feedback (increasing cloud cover shadowing due to evaporation as temperature rises). So you automatically omit all negative feedback from cloud cover when you study satellite data for surface temperatures. If you just use microwave determinations of air temperature by satellites, you measure the altitude-weighted air temperature, not the surface air temperature. Air at the top of clouds heats up, but convection prevents that warm air from reaching the surface (hot air rises). So the microwave temperature measurements are also biased and ignore negative feedback.

    There is no reliable unbiased temperature data, and nobody at the IPCC even includes negative feedback cloudcover loops in computer models to correct for this bias. It’s complete bullshit. As for the attacks personally on me for pointing this out, you’re probably well in agreement with James Delingpole on this one, who doesn’t stress cloud cover negative feedback, either. The fact is, this isn’t primarily a data issue. It’s a physical mechanism. If someone points out that all IPCC models exclude a physical effect – buoyancy and cloud formation from moist air evaporated in response to CO2 warming in “cloud free” areas – then that factor needs to be evaluated! It’s no good saying that the consensus of experts don’t include that factor, therefore it doesn’t officially exist. You’re just agreeing with what I’ve said, but pretending to disagree. We agree that the consensus of experts differs from reality, so why not consider the outside possibility that they might be all a lot of lying thugs – the iron fist in the velvet glove – like 1930s Nazi eugenicists?

  9. @Nige Cook

    Oh my goodness, here we go again with the Nazi’s, Emperor’s new clothes etc. Hey Nige, you seem to continually miss the point;

    1, we’re talking about one set of tree ring data for a small period of time for one graph;

    2, there’s several papers looking into this “divergence problem”, scientists aren’t sure what caused it. Yet, without any scientific training or expertise, you seem to be the world’s foremost expert on this particular problem;

    3, clouds have negative and positive feedback, but you seem unable to look at both sides;

    4, what about the other proxies, 25000 of them, used to measure our changing climate, are all they ignored?

    What is there to agree to or not because you seem to have completely “diverged” from the main point. Therefore there’s not a lot of point carrying on because this subject seems to have completely gone over your head.

  10. 1. There is not just one set of data, there are lots of different sets of tree ring proxies, from different parts of the world! Hence, you’re completely ignorant of the most basic of facts!

    2. Dr Roy Spencer has shown that the net effect of cloud cover increases (due to evaporation from warming), is negative feedback. I’ve already explained in the comment above which you ignored that the tops of clouds can warm; then the warm air rises. There’s no mechanism for hot air to fall down to low altitudes to warm the oceans. Clouds empirically have a negative effect on surface temperatures by shadowing. Check out composite analysis of the 15 strongest tropical intraseasonal oscillations from 2000-2005 in tropospheric temperature using weather satellites NOAA-15 and NOAA-16, showing strong evidence that as the air heats up, H2O has a negative cloud cover feedback not the positive feedback assumed in computer models of climate disaster from CO2. Source: Figure 4 of Spencer, Braswell, Christy, & Hnilo, 2007: Cloud and Radiation Budget Changes Associated with Tropical Intraseasonal Oscillations, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34: http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2009/110117spencer/ndx_spencer.pdf

    This example isn’t my personal research, but I read it and the ignorant responses to it! I’m just asserting that certain facts exist and have been published in a peer-reviewed journal which debunks all the IPCC hogwash, but this fact is simply being ignored like factual disproofs of the errors in Nazi eugenics in the 30s, like problems with the popular Ptolemaic epicycle theory of the earth centred universe (where the moon was predicted to vary in apparent size in a way not observed in reality), which led to people ignoring – against reality – Aristarchus’s solar system of 250 BC, and Anaximander’s theory of evolution which was based on fish fossils in large rocks high up in mountains. Sooner or later the facts will be “rediscovered”, after your kind of fashionable prejudice – which involves “shooting the messenger” and studiously ignoring all of the solid evidence in favour of “proxy” lies! It’s crass that even on Delingpole’s site, the facts can’t be discussed without anonymous cowardly politicians like yourself trying not to discuss the facts but to deny their existence. You can see the problem Aristarchus and Anaximander had with the solar syetem and evolution in ancient times: even supporters would be targetted for personal abuse, claims of ignorance etc., dressed up as genuine criticism or genuine questions.

    3. See 2 above.

    4. All proxies are indirect inferences, i.e. circumstantial evidence containing guesswork by definition of the word proxy. Get a dictionary, please. I honestly don’t have time to go through 25,000 lies, nor I fear does Delingpole want to scroll through 25,000 items here. Let’s agree that piling on 25,000 lies won’t eliminating your self-delusions. You ignored every point I made, so the facts have gone over your head. 25,000 arguments for eugenics or AGW won’t prove a lie, and my failure to respond to 25,000 arguments for a lie does not change the facts!

  11. Looks like you haven’t paying attention. We’re talking about those words from the email ‘Mike’s nature trick’ remember!!! Like most denialists, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. All you know is how to home in on a few words and build a conspiracy out of it. As for points, I’m not sure what your point is. Possibly you haven’t got one.

    And since you are the world’s foremost expert on the ‘divergence problem’, why don’t you write a paper on it. I’m sure it will be full of your opinions about Nazi eugenics and Emperor’s clothes. But hey, good luck on your completing your paper, but I won’t be holding my breath…

  12. Just as I predicted, you’ve ignored the science again and made personal sneers instead. Try reading Dr Spencer’s paper (linked in my comment) and compare the response to Churchill’s criticisms of Hitler’s eugenics “science” which – like AGW today – in the 30s was being hyped around the world by the fascists.

  13. See the following extract from the Jan 2011 BBC2 Horizon TV show by Professor Nurse (President of the Royal Society) for the errors in AGW:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZlIN-e0Ks4

    I’ve edited out the falsehoods such as the NASA incorrect statements that:

    (1) the rate of climate change effects today is unprecedented (it isn’t, the annual rate of sea level rise between 18,000 and 8,000 years ago was many times the present rate of about 0.2 cm/year; sea levels rose 120 metres since 18,000 years ago, a mean rate of rise of 0.67 cm/year, and since most of the rise occurred over a briefer interval, the peak rate of rise was much higher still);

    (2) weather predictions compared on wide TV screens a few days ahead prove the reliability of IPCC climate predictions a hundred years hence (they don’t because the IPCC models ignore negative feedbacks from cloud cover proved by Dr Roy Spencer in a peer-reviewed paper);

    (3) that the natural CO2 content in nature is tiny compared to CO2 releases. Dr Bindshafter of NASA admitted to making an error here on James Delingpole’s blog after the TV “documentary” was transmitted; the BBC did not check the claims made, they just asked NASA to confirm the false statement, which it did.

  14. Nige, it’s a bit rich moaning that proponents of your side of the argument ‘come in for personal abuse’, while in the same paragraph you compare those who disagree with you to mass-murdering Nazi eugenicists!

    Can you clarify exactly what you think the the similarities to Nazi eugenics comes down to?

    So far I’m getting that you think it’s that:

    a) Both are based on lies
    b) Belief in GW will lead to deaths.
    c) Both were ‘hyped by fascists’.

    If so, it all comes down to “I don’t believe there is good science to support global warming”. The comparison to Nazis is specious. The other side could make the same comparison – those denying global warming are ‘fascists hyping their beliefs’, ‘basing their arguments on lies’; and that ignoring global warming will lead to deaths.

    Your arguments for or against the science should be able to stand on their own merits – comparisons to Nazis and eugenics advance your cause not one jot. That you make these discussion-ending comparisons while complaining of a lack of open debate is bizarre.

  15. No, that’s not true! The mass murder occurred long after the Nazis eugenics “science” fanatics had been appeased. The Nazis started to gain power in the early 20s, the gas chambers didn’t start until the 40s. I’ve been through this before:

    1. Critics of eugenics “science” who warned of the dangers decades before the disastrous consequences were abused with fake claims of an “impending disaster from increasing racial impurity”. Read Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrell’s gas chamber extermination recommendation in his 1935 eugenics book “Man the Unknown”, http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/alexis-carrel-man-the-unknown-penguin-1948.pdf , which a 1935 worldwide bestseller, and was republished by the Nazis in 1936 with a foreword by Carrell praising Nazi eugenics (he was arrested for Vichy collaboration in 1944 after liberation in France).

    2. There was “genuine” enthusiasm for eugenics. Critics were dismissed as ignorant of Darwin’s evolutionary ideas concerning “survival of the fittest”.

    3. The gas chamber eugenics came later, in 1941-5. I’m not comparing the present AGW lies with the 1941-5 regime, but with the 20s regime and up to Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrell’s lying eugenics book promoting gas chambers. This is because by the time wholesale genocide starts in the name of “saving the planet” (exactly Hitler’s ambition), it’s far too late. Not enough people are standing up to the lying “science” on AGW. If they’re not forced to cut the crap out of their propaganda and admit the facts concerning uncertainties, we’re going to be in for worldwide human society eugenics (by which I mean the effects will be targetted upon 3rd world industrial development), all based on lies.

    The whole point about this is that pseudoscience is repeatedly brewed out of science in an effort to “make the world a better place” by do-gooders whose hallmark is “the ends justify the means”. The tree-huggers who look down their noses with disdain on the expanding human population and want to see the “balance of nature restored” with more trees and less “surplus humans” are well on their way to Nazi eugenics, which was a slippery slope, beginning with pseudoscience, then increasing hostility and barbarism. Today, by investing money away from human needs and into poorly-justified and controversial “balance of ecosystem” CO2 stability projects, we’re getting into very deep waters. CO2 levels naturally change. What levels should we try to fix them at? Why interfere at all? Is it the best way to spend money? It is just obvious that once politics gets its teeth into science, science ends because politicians take over.

    Facts don’t emerge from a consensus. My statistics teacher made the point with the old story of the consensus of nasal experts used to determine length of the Emperor of China’s nose in ancient times. All the experts were unable to offer direct measurements because they had never seen the Emperor, but they all guessed a number. The guesses were averaged and the standard deviation determined: 1.2678 +/- 0.678689 inches. very precise, and including a standard deviation. They were then able to calculate precisely the probability that the nose was longer than 2 inches or shorter than 1 inch. the science was settled, as they said. This is what a consensus of experts tells you when they have only guesswork, proxies, incomplete theories and incomplete mechanisms. Very useful in politics. However, as professor Feynman says from this example: “science is the belief in the consensus of expert opinion.” If you’re setting questions on AGW on a science exam or writing or studying a textbook on the subject, your definition of “science” is consensus and what leading experts believe. If you’re interested in facts and have any understanding of how badly half-baked ideas go wrong when politics takes over, you don’t give a damn about what the great and mighty believe, but what the facts are. Not the facts coming from averaging ignorant guesses, but solid science.

  16. Before Hitler became Chancellor, Churchill arranged to meet him (in Germany), but Hitler cancelled the meeting because Churchill mentioned the evening before to a Nazi that he intended to ask Hitler to justify eugenic racism. This is the whole problem: Churchill was “breaking Godwin’s law”, and this closed down and prevented any discussion. It’s the same today. If you disguise your hatred for “ends justify the means” extremism by not pointing out the fallacies in modern pseudosciences which are analogous to the Nazis in the 20s, then you can have a useless discussion in which you are shouted down by jack-booted fascists. If however, you take a more strident approach and make clear what your objection is, like Churchill, then they choose to close down the discussion. As Churchill found out in 1931, you can’t have a rational discussion with a monster. Wars don’t occur because people fail to consider talking out differences. Wars occur because people who are wrong, but have popular support despite being wrong, feel they can close down the discussion without defending themselves rationally.

  17. A brief summary of the key highlights from Adam Curtis’s “ecosystem” debunking, with the addition of a couple of other examples of “groupthink” science consensus where authority is being abused to ignore genuine criticisms by proclaiming that “so many experts can’t all be wrong” and that critics are merely troublemakers (just like the pre-disaster, pre-Holocaust critics of eugenics): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N327zzm4eg

  18. Nige: “. This is because by the time wholesale genocide starts in the name of “saving the planet” (exactly Hitler’s ambition), it’s far too late. Not enough people are standing up to the lying “science” on AGW.”

    And everything you say there – and in the rest of your posts expanding on the analogy – could equally be turned round to compare the eugenicists to those denying AGW. For example, “By the time Global Warming starts destroying the planet, it’s far too late, just like it was too late to stop the genocide”.

    The analogy doesn’t move the debate forward. You’re basically just saying people who disagree with you are like Nazis. Anyone can say that.

    “Wars occur because people who are wrong, but have popular support despite being wrong, feel they can close down the discussion without defending themselves rationally.”

    I agree with you there. But it’s a bit rich to compare your opponents to Nazis and then censure them for wanting to “close down discussions”.

  19. @andrewryan
    Andrew, you did announce some time ago that having realised there would be no meeting of minds you would not be delighting us with your presence any more. I’m flattered that you find my site so impossibly compelling that find yourself unable to tear yourself away. A word about Nazis. Its a word which has been bandied about an awful lot by the liberal-left – always in the laziest of ways meaning: “a right-leaning person of whose views I disapprove.” Personally, like most conservative/libertarian types, I strive to be more accurate in my use of such terms. So, for example, when I use the phrase Eco Nazis it’s because having studied the subject for some time I have noticed some remarkable parallels between the green ideology, the junk science (cf eugenics), and ruthless authoritarianism of Nazi Germany (as formulated for example by Richard Darre) and the Nazis’ spiritual heirs in the modern green movement. I have explained all this in detail in blogs so shan’t trouble to repeat myself here. What fascinates me about the liberal/left/green response to such blogs is that always it involves an absolute refusal to engage with the issues raised in the piece but simply to cry shrilly: “You’re calling us Nazis. That’s an ad hom. Therefore you’re way worse than our side.”
    If you can suggest some meaningful parallels between global warming scepticism and Naziism I should be fascinated to hear what they are.

  20. “you did announce some time ago that having realised there would be no meeting of minds you would not be delighting us with your presence any more.”

    I’ve just looked through my posts and don’t see any post where I announced I’d not post any more*. Perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else? And if posting once yesterday and once today after last posting on 3 June equates to ‘unable to tear myself away’, then so be it.

    OK, you hold that the Nazi card is fine to play if it’s considered and accurate. Perhaps you hold that it’s always accurate when used by the right – from Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Femi Nazis’ to the Christian Right’s equation of Nazism and atheism or belief in evolution – always lazy when used by the left.

    If you think comparing the erection of wind farms with slaughtering Jews advances the debate, then go ahead. I don’t find that argument ‘impossibly compelling’ – if it helps, I disagree equally strongly when Richard Dawkins compares Dinesh D’Souza to Hitler on the grounds that he ‘rants and raves and shrieks like Hitler’. Generally, if the people to whom you’re making the comparison are attempting mass slaughter, then it’s probably a valid card to play. Otherwise, it is you who is being shrill.

    * This: “Given that you don’t seem to have any quarrel with my points, there’s not much further to discuss.”. That translates to “I announce that I will not be delighting you with my presence any more”? Ho hum.

  21. “The analogy doesn’t move the debate forward. You’re basically just saying people who disagree with you are like Nazis. Anyone can say that.”

    1. You’ve bogging the debate down by living in denial of the fascist mentality you have. I’vestated facts, you’ve tried to shoot the messenger and ignored all the facts.

    2. People do deny they are Nazis and then ignore the facts and try to shoot the messenger are certainly fascists.

    3. Ah if only “anyone can say that”. Most of the big cheeses have their hands in the carbon funding till and can’t.

  22. “If you think comparing the erection of wind farms with slaughtering Jews advances the debate, then go ahead.”

    Energy inefficient wind farms are being put up in a global recession because of pseudoscience. Now tell me that there is no analogy to the Nazi eugenics program, which only got going with gas chambers when the food started to run out due to the financial problems of fighting a war on multiple fronts. The analogy is you waste money in a recession like the Nazis and nobody is going to have money which would otherwise be available to save lives and defeat global poverty.

    Alexis Carrel, the medical Nobel Laureate and eugenicist who first recommended gas chambers and praised the Nazis eugenics in 1936, was similarly deluded about the “humane” gas chambers, although at the time it seemed a good idea to millions around the world who bought his cult eugenics book “Man the Unknown”. The Nazis started out “humanely” shooting the messengers who disagreed with eugenics pseudoscience (exactly what you are doing in these anti-science comments of yours) on the basis that, “the ends justify the means”. You assume that if you have a good “cause” than you will be “right” if you strive for that cause using any methods you want. Tell me that human beings the third world will suffer and die miserably, in many cases with less consideration and care than concentration camp inmates, because the money wasted on energy-inefficient wind farms would not have been spent on saving lives anyway, and I’ll tell you you’re deluded.

  23. Nige Cook: “The Nazis started out “humanely” shooting the messengers who disagreed with eugenics pseudoscience (exactly what you are doing in these anti-science comments of yours) ”

    ‘Exactly’ what I’m doing? So me making comments that you judge to be ‘anti-science’ is EXACTLY the same as the Nazis shooting people? Not roughly similar, or similar in their eventual effect, or metaphorically comparable… no, EXACTLY the same. No difference.

    Even if I was ‘anti-science’, which I’m not, you’re comparing someone exercising free speech with cold-blooded murder. Presumably then you think suppressing someone’s free speech is the same as saving someone’s life…

  24. Writing eugenics pseudoscience is what a certain German Chancellor and his friends started doing with literary works of trash like Mein Kampf. Nazi lying for “the ends justify the means” is exactly analogous to lying for commie objectives by “nuclear winter” charlatans during the cold war, and the same applies to anybody today who happens to be a fellow-traveller of the eco-Nazis. That’s just my opinion at present, for what it’s worth. If you’d be prepared to support Delingpole’s defense of objectivity and criticism of social “science” dogma, then my opinion of you would be excellent. Hopefully you will eventually back down and smell the coffee instead of marching around in jack boots sneering at the few people who try to defend the need for objectivity in science.

  25. What you’re deliberately confusing is the pseudoscience roots of the holocaust via fascist propaganda pamphlets and books (analogous to modern internet blogs and books supporting eco-Nazi propaganda), and the end results in the holocaust. The eugenics foundations of the holocaust were laid down over 15 years before the holocaust, whose implementation was finally decreed due to the impending economic bankrupcy of the Nazi regime in the war. The early stages of the Nazi situation or Marxist (19th century) beginnings of communist lies, are the correct analogy to the present AGW propaganda.

    What you’re desperately trying to do is to avoid this charge by falsely changing the analogy to the end results of the Nazi or commie era, millions dead. That’s the end result of spending billions on warfare and weapons and then having to take a short cut with eugenics to starve or gas millions of people; the AGW story is squandering billions on inefficient carbon technology at a time of world economic crisis.

    The money wasting on AGW pseudoscience depletes resources needed to stop inhumanity and needless deaths through poverty. That’s the analogy. It’s preventable if the pseudoscience can be stopped. Churchill failed to stop Nazi eugenics and communist pseudoscience, which after some years led to millions of deaths. The challenge is to nip the AGW pseudoscience in the bud before it causes similar results. Sure, AGW is not directly going to murder people, any more than books on eugenics directly murdered people. The problem is that once pseudoscience brainwashes people into believing lies that seem politically correct, money is misspent and debt leads to a diversion of funds from the needy to fraudulent AGW carbon credit traders and stockbrokers, and there is less money to spend saving lives with food, clean water, sanitation, etc. That’s the mechanism for disaster from the AGW scam. It’s analogous to the commie/eugenics pseudosciences.

    Stalin’s commie pseudoscience of collective farming killed millions in the 1930s. If there had been fewer biased lefty intellectuals defending commie utopia lies, and more objectivity and criticism of Marxist’s speculative idealist crap, millions would have been saved. Have I made the analogy clear to your brain this time?

  26. “Free speech” broke down in Germany even before Hitler gained power, when everyone is brainwashed by pseudoscience, not merely censorship and fear which occurred after Hitler became chancellor in 1933. Remember, Hitler did get some votes in 1933, and this was due to lying and telling the people what they wanted to hear, which was not objective science but eugenics trash masquerading as a consensus of scientific opinion, which is no substitute for FACT. So yes, “free speech” can be abused, just as the rioters in London abused their right to free protest and free demonstration. Media lying over science fact is an abuse which should be subject to censorship, not regarded as “free speech”. It was a damnable danger in Russia 1917 and in Germany 1933.

  27. Are supporters of homeopathy like Nazis too then? Is Ian Plimer like a Nazi then? Should he be censored? Delingpole champions the man. Does that make him like the French collaborators? Oh dear.

    “Ian Plimer’s performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed. Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn’t count underwater volcanoes. When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist.”

  28. Ian Plimer doesn’t suck in billions upon billions of taxpayers money, either. He wrote a book listing criticisms of AGW errors. Probably some of his criticisms should ideally have been censored out, because they were superfluous.

  29. So it’s money that makes it like the Nazis? I thought you were saying any pseudoscience automatically made it Nazi like? I’m trying to work out how low your standards are for Nazi comparisons.

  30. All pseudoscience dogma is a danger to humanity, because deception leads to error that is wasteful of our limited resources, and waste has its price. Pseudoscience that’s already costing billions and becoming politically correct dogma is the more dangerous pseudoscience in the short term than pseudoscience that hasn’t yet got to that stage. Neither homeopaths nor Ian Plimer are like the Nazis, because they’re not trying to waste billions on carbon credit trading and supporting inefficient technology that could be spent on humanity, preventing poverty and saving lives from starvation and disease.

  31. The key problem is the pedagogy of science, the mix-up between critical science and authoritative education which began in the 1850s. From the time of Galileo to Maxwell, authority was seen as pseudoscience, linked to ancient writings like Aristotle’s speculative laws of motion. Authority made a comeback after 1850, particularly in areas like evolution, superstring theory, and now AGW, where “the science has settled” is a political statement. Science never “settles”; the foundations harden into an orthodox dogma.

    True, when the building crashes down in a revolution, much of the rubble can be recycled into a new structure (or theory in this analogy). However, what usually happens is that new theories are put forward prematurely and threaten to harden into a new orthodoxy without sufficient criticism and testing. Then you get gradual subsidence of the foundations after you build many storeys on top later on. The fact is, the oceans contain an immense amount of water which forms a more potent “greenhouse gas” than CO2. Why doesn’t it set off a chain reaction of heating? Why doesn’t the sun evaporate water, causing water vapour to enter the atmosphere and to absorb more sunlight, thus causing more heating and more evaporation until the oceans boil? Answer: hot moist air can’t avoid having low density and being buoyant.

    This isn’t a speculative theory, but a fact. The water vapour that initially evaporates rises until it forms cloud cover, which then cuts off the surface heating by shading the surface below. The heating at the top of the cloud can’t warm the air below because hot air rises (convection). Rain falling from the warm top of the cloud can’t heat the surface because the rain drops cool quickly as they fall in the air, transferring most of their heat to air within the cloud, not to the earth’s surface. So H2O provably does not have positive self-feedback; it has a positive feedback for low temperature air and a negative feedback for higher temperature (i.e. buoyant) air. For H2O to always have a positive feedback, would require the air to be saturated and hot without rising to form clouds. Impossible. But all IPCC models assume that H2O has a positive feedback sufficient to amplify the CO2 emission by a factor of several times. So it’s wrong in principle. You don’t need a single calculation to disprove the crucial positive H2O feedback assumption in IPCC models.

Comments are closed.