Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[exchemist]

Apart from the alleged cherrypicking, I didn't see anything there relevant to intent.

Then you have not read it properly.

 

[Ebionite]

Actually, I did. I wrote, "The data supporting AGW is robust and beyond reasonable doubt for those who can interpret it."

No, you didn't address the issue of pecuniary interest. In reponse to that, I wrote:

The cult modus operandi is to own the interpretation. Whenever those interpreting the data are picking up a paycheck from those who have an interest in what the interpretation is, then that is when you have a problem.

 

[Ebionite]

Then you have not read it properly.

So tell me what I missed that was relevant to the question of intent.

 

[exchemist]

So tell me what I missed that was relevant to the question of intent.

His misrepresentation at the Russian conference for a start.

But this is all rather pathetic. The guy was obviously deeply flaky and I've had enough now of pointing out the bleedin' obvious.

If you want to hang your beliefs on a solitary, dead, Swedish amateur crank, ignoring the conclusions of everyone else, including the fossil fuel multinationals and the motor manufacturers, then that is your choice, I suppose.

 

[Ebionite]

How could you possibly know that?

Because I've studied it. The underlying issue is the religious prejudice of the (metaphorical) world. The union of church and state implies that any religious prejudice held by the church is a part of the administration of justice that is carried out by the state. The United Nations, symbolically at least, is a development of the Roman empire, with Constantine adopting Christianity as the state religion. The prejudice is implemented within the administration of justice through the language of identity, specifically of humans and persons.

Also, are you aware that if a scientist intentionally falsifies data that this would likely end his/her career?

Religious prejudice can be consistent with an absence of mens rae. If climate dogma is accepted as a matter of faith, then recalibration of data to conform with that dogma can be accepted as proper by anyone who doesn't want to jeopardise their career by bringing up the issue of error of policy.

 

[Ebionite]

His misrepresentation at the Russian conference for a start.

Was that related to his claim that the amount of IPCC data calibration matched the Hong Kong data?

 

[exchemist]

Was that related to his claim that the amount of IPCC data calibration matched the Hong Kong data?

If you can't be bothered to read the link I've supplied, I am not going to copy it all out for you. I've had enough of your nonsense now. I repeat, the fossil fuel companies and the motor manufacturers have got the message - and so have almost all governments of the world. ***mod edit***

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you didn't address the issue of pecuniary interest.

Actually, I did (below) but that's not what you asked for. You've moved the goalpost. Your words again: "The issue was interpretation. You didn't address that."

And is this all you have to say in response to that post? How about the paragraphs that begin, "Are you familiar with the term ethos," "Problem for whom?" and "Sure there is." Did you just want to belly up there like that? It's fine if you do, but it's all understood as concession.

As a reminder:

You: No, the scientific method is essential to science. Adding the element of remuneration corrupts it because the remuneration can have a political agenda attached to it.

Me: Show your argument that not paying scientists produces more useful science than paying them. Or did you mean something else by corrupting science? Then either extend that argument to all others who take a paycheck and show how paying teachers, for example, corrupts the profession. It's not sufficient to show a few cases of teachers corrupted by being professionals rather than volunteers. Paying salaries to judges, for example, doesn't corrupt them. Bribes do. Paying salaries to physicians doesn't corrupt the profession. Direct payment from insurers to self-employed physicians offers an opportunity for fraudulent billing, but a paycheck for working for an HMO doesn't.

Don't forget to consider how these kinds of errors impact your ethos.

If climate dogma is accepted as a matter of faith

There is no climate dogma, and science needn't be believed by faith. Those are the bailiwick of the religious and others who believe passively, who like to tar others outside it with the same stigma religion endures. The following is about atheists, but applies here as well:

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

Ethos, amigo. Ethos. Give a thought to the effect your posting has. I tell this to the creationists constantly. From a previous post:

An interesting phenomenon of creationist apologetics is the failure of the apologist to recognize that his arguments only work on other faith-based thinkers, such as those reading creationist websites. He never seems to notice that when he brings these same arguments to those well trained in the sciences and in critical thinking, that they in every case tell him that his argument is incomplete and/or fallacious, or if he does, attributes it to intellectual dishonesty on the part of his critics rather than that his arguments just don't cut it with the knowledgeable. Here, those arguments are counterproductive to the apologist. Here, his errors are cited. It seems to me that there is zero hope of advancing the creationist agenda in a mixed venue like this one. The creationists routinely are shown their errors and dismissed as unqualified to discuss the science. Or maybe the creationist knows this and doesn't care. Perhaps he sees himself as a martyr in the lions' den doing what he thinks he is commanded to do by his God even in the face of adversity and rejection, which are described as a virtue. It's a common theme in evangelism./

​

​

​

 

[Ebionite]

If you can't be bothered to read the link I've supplied, I am not going to copy it all out for you.

The burden of proof belongs to the one making the accusation.

I've had enough of your nonsense now.

Not my problem that you don't have the ability to comprehend the nature of the prejudice.

***mod edit***

Reported.

 

[Ebionite]

Actually, I did (below) but that's not what you asked for. You've moved the goalpost. Your words again: "The issue was interpretation. You didn't address that."

I didn't move the goalposts. In context, the problem that I pointed out was that intepretation can suffer from bias due to pecuniary interest.

Show your argument that not paying scientists produces more useful science than paying them.

Why would I want to do that? It's absurd on its face. The issue of pecuniary interest depends on the policies or attitudes of whoever is paying the scientists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why would I want to do that?

I wrote, "Show your argument that not paying scientists produces more useful science than paying them." Your implied claim was that money corrupts science, that we shouldn't trust some science because it's funded by industry or government. That's why.

We actually can show that money corrupts some processes, like collecting plasma, which is cleaner coming from altruists than people selling it.

The issue of pecuniary interest depends on the policies or attitudes of whoever is paying the scientists.

Yes, of course. Now show how that corrupts the science. Maybe you'd like to reference tobacco industry "science" or petrochemical industry "science." That's not science. In fact, it's the scientific community that exposed both of these propagandists and explained what the science actually shows. Spoiler: tobacco causes cancer, COPD, and cardiovascular disease, and fossil fuels are generating greenhouse gases leading to anthropogenic global warming. I'm assuming that you get your "science" from similar dodgy sources that you shouldn't trust.

 

[Ebionite]

Your implied claim was that money corrupts science

No, you're leaving out the part about having an interest. What I wrote was:

Whenever those interpreting the data are picking up a paycheck from those who have an interest in what the interpretation is, then that is when you have a problem.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Whenever those interpreting the data are picking up a paycheck from those who have an interest in what the interpretation is, then that is when you have a problem.

Yes, I know. You've made the claim but not the case, which is why I wrote, "Show your argument that not paying scientists produces more useful science than paying them."

You apparently have no intention of doing so, and I have no interest in asking you to again. I'm content that you don't try and am pretty sure I understand why not. Evasion is answer enough. It speaks as much as bad answers, and says the same thing: I can't defend my claim.

 

[Ebionite]

Yes, I know. You've made the claim but not the case, which is why I wrote, "Show your argument that not paying scientists produces more useful science than paying them.

An employer who has a public policy that relates to the subject matter of the scientific work that they seek employees for will tend to attract scientists that agree with that policy rather than those who disagree with it. This leads to a bias in the interpretation of the result of the work in favour of the policies of the employer.

 

[metis]

Because I've studied it. The underlying issue is the religious prejudice of the (metaphorical) world. The union of church and state implies that any religious prejudice held by the church is a part of the administration of justice that is carried out by the state. The United Nations, symbolically at least, is a development of the Roman empire, with Constantine adopting Christianity as the state religion. The prejudice is implemented within the administration of justice through the language of identity, specifically of humans and persons.


Religious prejudice can be consistent with an absence of mens rae. If climate dogma is accepted as a matter of faith, then recalibration of data to conform with that dogma can be accepted as proper by anyone who doesn't want to jeopardise their career by bringing up the issue of error of policy.

I have no clue how the above supposedly relates to what I was talking about in regard to the necessity of research scientists risking their job if they if they dare falsified their "evidence". Now, if they work for a company, that may be of a different matter, such as when many of the scientists working for tobacco companies denied any ill effect of their product for decades.

Global warming is very much real and cannot be blamed on everchanging climate conditions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The United Nations, symbolically at least, is a development of the Roman empire, with Constantine adopting Christianity as the state religion.

Not to me. The UN symbolizes a transnational, humanist vision for peaceful cooperation among nations:

"The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization whose stated purposes are to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and serve as a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations."

You see something sinister there, something to do with ancient Rome and early Christianity somehow having some undesirable effect today through the instrument of the UN. That sounds like grist for a Dan Brown novel.

The union of church and state implies that any religious prejudice held by the church is a part of the administration of justice that is carried out by the state.

I agree with you there, but you seem to be arguing that this is relevant regarding the UN's mission. The UN is a secular organization representing humanist values and the humanist vision for a maximally free and tolerant human society, where people are empowered to pursue happiness as they understand it in liberal, secular democracies. This vision has enemies, and its detractors - mostly theocratic, authoritarian, or corporatist interests - are adept propagandists and willing liars.

The prejudice is implemented within the administration of justice through the language of identity, specifically of humans and persons.

These kinds of generalizations are useless in a discussion like this. Those are conclusions, and it's implied that they are induced from experience. You can present your conclusions AFTER your supporting data and argument connecting it to any conclusion, but if you just present the alleged induction, well, Hitchens' Razor says it all (paraphrasing): what is presented without evidence can be disregarded without rebuttal. I'd go further and change can be to should be.

If climate dogma is accepted as a matter of faith,

Only by climate deniers, which is a faith-based position. What you're disseminating here is some of that climate dogma. The scientific community uses a different methodology, one that excludes faith and replaces it with skepticism for dogma and empiricism as the only path to knowledge. When one has data and can interpret it, he has knowledge, not faith. Those who can't properly interpret data and who can't recognize the expertise of the scientific community dissent by faith.

An employer who has a public policy that relates to the subject matter of the scientific work that they seek employees for will tend to attract scientists that agree with that policy rather than those who disagree with it. This leads to a bias in the interpretation of the result of the work in favour of the policies of the employer.

Yes, but so what? That's what the tobacco and petrochemical industries did, and their "science" was rejected by the scientific community. It took the courts decades to catch up, but that's not a deficiency of science.

 

[Ebionite]

I have no clue how the above supposedly relates to what I was talking about in regard to the necessity of research scientists risking their job if they if they dare falsified their "evidence".

The connection between religious prejudice and job security is the ideology of the employer of the scientists. An ideology that derives from the idea of Roman supremacy as symbolised by the laurel wreath of the United Nations would conform to that of the "sons of Belial" that is described here:

https://hosea6.tech/pages/twin.html#17

 

[metis]

The connection between religious prejudice and job security is the ideology of the employer of the scientists. An ideology that derives from the idea of Roman supremacy as symbolised by the laurel wreath of the United Nations would conform to that of the "sons of Belial" that is described here:

https://hosea6.tech/pages/twin.html#17

There's always going to be a small group within any line of work who may operate in an immoral manner, but your brush stroke is way too wide. How would you like it if someone posted "Ebionites are basically corrupt and bought"?

Global warming is real as the research has continually shown from multiple sources, and if you can't see that then that's the real problem with this.

 

[Ebionite]

There's always going to be a small group within any line of work who may operate in an immoral manner, but your brush stroke is way too wide. How would you like it if someone posted "Ebionites are basically corrupt and bought"?

It's not about individuals within the group, it's about the humanist basis of the United Nations. Individuals within the group may or may not possess the essential qualities of humanism, but it makes no difference because their interactions with the system will - because the system only deals with people as if they were human beings.


If someone said that about the Ebionites then I'd ask them to present their case. The truth doesn't fear investigation.

Global warming is real as the research has continually shown from multiple sources, and if you can't see that then that's the real problem with this.

Straw man. IPCC policy is predicated on catastrophic AGW.

 

[metis]

If someone said that about the Ebionites then I'd ask them to present their case. The truth doesn't fear investigation.

As a scientist, I never fear investigation as that's the basis of our profession.

Straw man.

No, it's not, and the fact is you simply are making the HUGE MISTAKE of ignoring the overwhelming evidence for climate change and what at least a large part of it is being caused by. Maybe consider getting a subscription to a scientific publication instead of spewing nonsense.

OTOH, if you just want to stick your head in a hole somewhere, that's also your choice.