Friday, January 27, 2012

Lysenko and Warmism

Scientists, debunking Warmism today in WSJ, recall Lysenko (photo at left) who did science the Proletarian Way.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Words like incontrovertible usually means science's gone unfalsifiable.  Leaving the world of science for theology (or worse): the profoundly existential world of money.

Follow the path indeed, for it ends with Mike Ryoko's Ubi Est Mea which the Illinois General Assembly included in a tribute, WHEREAS, Mike Royko was Chicago; he created the unofficial motto for Chicago "Ubi Est Mea-Where's Mine?";

Warmism is what it is and don't try and prove it otherwise 'cause there's big bucks at stake. Better instead look for your take.


LdeG said...

Oh, please. If we are following the money, the big bucks are in carbon-based energy extraction and use. Research is a pittance in comparison.

That the earth is round is falsifiable, but incontrovertible - data exists to prove it one way or the other, and the evidence is overwhelming.

Bill Baar said...

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

oh oh... that's pursuit of money talking, no science.

LdeG said...

Gaps in understanding temperature variations

Critics also highlighted a passage in an e-mail sent by Kevin Trenberth on 12 October 2009 that discussed gaps in scientific understanding of recent temperature variations, in which Trenberth wrote:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't,"[5]

Trenberth told the Associated Press that the email referred to an article[63] he authored calling for improvement in measuring global warming to describe unusual data, such as rising sea surface temperatures.[64] The word travesty refers to what Trenberth sees as an inadequate observing system that, were it more adequate, would be able to track the warming he believes is there.[65]

In a statement on his NCAR webpage Trenberth states that,

"It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability."[66]

Bill Baar said...

sounds like a scientist caught with his pants down to me...

no science going on here...this is politics

LdeG said...

Of course it does when you distrust everyone's motives and believe in widespread conspiracies.

Bill Baar said...

I'm a trust but verify sorta guy. I don't see much verification on this one... nothing in science is incontrovertible.

If a theory can't be expressed as controvertible hypothesis subject to challange and testing, than it's instead a statement of faith.

One's left science for religion, and that's ok, it's just the warmists should be candid about that.