[Sivad]

I'm always in awe of the sheer scale of conspiracy

Even if it did require thousands of scientists to lie, an institutional failure of that scale wouldn't be unprecedented. We just watched the US news media implode over the last three years with the Russiagate hoax. Thousands of journalists and commentators from every major news outlet in the country did nothing but hype and distort and fear monger and lie for three years straight.

The US national security state also lied for three years straight, and this isn't even the first time we've seen an intelligence failure of this magnitude, it's not even the first time in the last few years.

So we know our most important and trusted institutions can fail spectacularly at getting things right and even at maintaining their own integrity and science is just as vulnerable to institutional failure and capture as any other institution. So just going dense and being all incredulous isn't much of a rebuttal, we've witnessed too many of these failures over the last couple decades to take the integrity of these institutions as a given.

[Rugoz]

Even if it did require thousands of scientists to lie, an institutional failure of that scale wouldn't be unprecedented.

I cannot recall an entire field of science deliberately lying about something.

We just watched the US news media implode over the last three years with the Russiagate hoax. Thousands of journalists and commentators from every major news outlet in the country did nothing but hype and distort and fear monger and lie for three years straight.

So much wrong with this comparison.

For starters, Russiagate wasn't a hoax, there were circumstances that justified an investigation (circumstances the Trump campaign did not deny).

Second, we're talking about journalists, who are forced to report what people want to hear. In the age of extreme partisanship the quality of mass media suffers as a result. Scientists are professionals who seek recognition (aka citations) among their peers. If you would personally ask journalists what they consider to be good reporting, most of what the major news outlets produce wouldn't make the cut.

In addition, there are objective criteria of what constitutes good science.

The US national security state also lied for three years straight, and this isn't even the first time we've seen an intelligence failure of this magnitude, it's not even the first time in the last few years.

Intelligence is shrouded in secrecy enforced by law. Science is the exact opposite.

So we know our most important and trusted institutions can fail spectacularly at getting things right and even at maintaining their own integrity and science is just as vulnerable to institutional failure and capture as any other institution.

Science is not "an institution". I happen to have personal experience with scientific research and find your claims about "capture" absurd. I suggest you get a higher degree in a scientific field and do some research yourself.

[Truth To Power]

But you do agree that the trend over the last few decades has been one of warming?

No, it was warming from about 1970-2000, during the up-phase of the ~60y ocean circulation cycle. It was cooling for ~30y before that, even in the face of exponentially rising CO2 and historically high solar activity. And it warmed for ~30y before that, which is why the 1930s were about as warm as today. Ask someone in their 90s who is old enough to remember what the climate was like 80 years ago. Don't rely on systematically falsified data from NASA and NOAA.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, it was warming from about 1970-2000, during the up-phase of the ~60y ocean circulation cycle. It was cooling for ~30y before that, even in the face of exponentially rising CO2 and historically high solar activity. And it warmed for ~30y before that, which is why the 1930s were about as warm as today. Ask someone in their 90s who is old enough to remember what the climate was like 80 years ago. Don't rely on systematically falsified data from NASA and NOAA.

Yes, you are definitely in the orange part of the chart, the part that does not believe there has been any global warming.

So you must believe that all the climatologists are lying, then.

[Truth To Power]

I cannot recall an entire field of science deliberately lying about something.

Economics. Mainstream neoclassical economics has been systematically lying for over 100 years.

For starters, Russiagate wasn't a hoax, there were circumstances that justified an investigation (circumstances the Trump campaign did not deny).

No, it was a hoax.

Second, we're talking about journalists, who are forced to report what people want to hear.

Garbage. They report what their editors tell them to report, which is whatever the people who own them want disseminated. The exact same is true of peer-reviewed scientific journals. They are businesses that exist to serve their owners, not the truth.

Scientists are professionals who seek recognition (aka citations) among their peers.

And for decades now, that has meant toeing the anti-CO2 line. It's appalling and disgraceful how even the authors of papers that flatly contradict the anti-fossil-fuel narrative feel they have to genuflect to it with mealy-mouthed disclaimers like, "These results should not be interpreted as implying that CO2 is not the principal driver of global temperature," in the conclusions of their papers.

In addition, there are objective criteria of what constitutes good science.

Which are ignored in the case of global warming nonscience, just as they are in economics.

Intelligence is shrouded in secrecy enforced by law. Science is the exact opposite.

I guess that must be why AGW screamers like Michael Mann refuse to release their data or the computer code they use to interpret and adjust those data...

I happen to have personal experience with scientific research and find your claims about "capture" absurd. I suggest you get a higher degree in a scientific field and do some research yourself.

I suggest you look at the history of ideological capture in fields like economics, medicine and psychometrics, where baldly false ideas have persisted for decades because they served certain favored ideological or financial interests.

[Truth To Power]

Yes, you are definitely in the orange part of the chart, the part that does not believe there has been any global warming.

No, that is just another fabrication on your part. The orange bar represents people who do not believe climate is changing or has changed. I've stated many times that it has changed, and continues to change, as it always has. It is indisputably warmer now than in the Little Ice Age, because the sun has been so much more active. The Thames hasn't frozen over in nearly 200 years.

So you must believe that all the climatologists are lying, then.

No, only the ones who tout the anti-CO2 hysteria line but actually know it is BS. Many climatologists reject anti-CO2 hysteria, and most of those who accept it are probably sincere, though deluded by NASA/NOAA data tampering.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you have evidence that all the change on the past century has been caused by nature?

[blackjack21]

I cannot recall an entire field of science deliberately lying about something.

There are scientists who are skeptical of global warming. They generally do not get press coverage. Science in Western societies is generally funded by government, which is inherently political. Politicians lie routinely. The effort of politicians to leverage science--largely because they don't understand that the foundational philosophy of science is skepticism--is because they think scientific conclusions represent indisputable truth, which would allow them to further their proposed policies and suppress democratic debate. Unfortunately for them, science and skepticism go hand in hand.

For starters, Russiagate wasn't a hoax, there were circumstances that justified an investigation (circumstances the Trump campaign did not deny).

There was no justification for limiting an investigation to the Trump campaign. Clearly, there were ties between the Hillary Clinton campaign and British and Russian operatives. Yet, the investigation was limited to the Trump campaign. We learned that the initiation of the investigation started with Hillary Clinton's dossier. So again, we have political motive.

Second, we're talking about journalists, who are forced to report what people want to hear.

Journalists are not forced to report anything at all. People who use journalism to try to make economic profits may need to sensationalize their reporting to try to gain a larger and more profitable audience. This is similar to using science to further an agenda. Journalists used to report multi-sourced facts. Today's muckrakers do not bother to ensure the reliability of what they report. Their goal to attract the largest audience to make the most money or to influence a political objective overrides any restraint for presenting reliable information.

Scientists are professionals who seek recognition (aka citations) among their peers.

When the funding is controlled by politically motivated actors, scientists do what they are told to do if they want to make money. Most of them do.

Science is the exact opposite.

Actually, HadCRU did their level best legally to stop people from publishing their data and harry_readme.txt. Try finding any of the original material released "illegally" from HadCRU. You will have great difficulty finding it if you do. In this case, science was not open at all. Instead, it used the heavy hand of government to hide their machinations even after it had been exposed to the world.

I happen to have personal experience with scientific research and find your claims about "capture" absurd.

Why were all the sites publishing harry_readme.txt taken down? It's clear that there is a government-sponsored project on foisting a global warming policy on countries throughout the world.

I guess that must be why AGW screamers like Michael Mann refuse to release their data or the computer code they use to interpret and adjust those data...

Yeah. Mann even sues people who disagree with him. It's very clearly political in nature.

I suggest you look at the history of ideological capture in fields like economics, medicine and psychometrics, where baldly false ideas have persisted for decades because they served certain favored ideological or financial interests.

Frontal lobotomies, forced sterilization, etc. Heck, even up until the 1970s, the entire field of psychiatry considered homosexuality a mental disorder. Now, the field of law wants us to believe that the authors of the 14th Amendment intended to require homosexual marriages, even though marriage literally means procreation. They also need to maintain the fiction of "gender is a social construct" so that they can continue with medical billing fraud of "gender reassignment surgery," which is obviously physically impossible, but nevertheless profitable. For whatever reason, the same people bag on Joseph Mengele for his experiments.

The orange bar represents people who do not believe climate is changing or has changed. I've stated many times that it has changed, and continues to change, as it always has.

Right. The ancient Mesopotamian city of Ur used to be on the shore of the Persian gulf. It is well inland now, because sea levels fell. The city was abandoned, because it was no longer a viable sea trading city. During the Middle Ages, Bruges, Belgium was a major sea port and textile hub. Today, it is a sleepy inland town, because sea level fell. William the Conquerer's forces landed in an area that is well inland now, prior to the Battle of Hastings. Sea level fell. As sea level fell, the Dutch began reclaiming tide waters, literally doubling the size of their country. All of this happened with no internal combustion engines, coal or industrial processes. The climate will continue to change. Rising sea levels mean that coral reefs that were exposed and became islands will submerge again. Kiss the Maldives good bye. It has nothing to do with anthropogenic factors. These processes are global scale and humans have no way of stopping an ice age or starting one for that matter.

Do you have evidence that all the change on the past century has been caused by nature?

You do realize that humans are part of nature, right? We are not separate from nature. 100% of climate change is caused by nature.

[Sivad]

Corruption Of The US Temperature Record

In this video I explain the corruption of the US temperature record by NOAA and NASA - and show that their justifications for data tampering are not scientifically valid.

[Pants-of-dog]

In this video I explain the corruption of the US temperature record by NOAA and NASA - and show that their justifications for data tampering are not scientifically valid.

Do you? Or are these the words of the maker of the video?

[Rugoz]

There are scientists who are skeptical of global warming. They generally do not get press coverage.

For being a tiny minority I would say they get quite a lot of coverage, at least in the US.

Journalists are not forced to report anything at all. People who use journalism to try to make economic profits may need to sensationalize their reporting to try to gain a larger and more profitable audience. This is similar to using science to further an agenda. Journalists used to report multi-sourced facts. Today's muckrakers do not bother to ensure the reliability of what they report. Their goal to attract the largest audience to make the most money or to influence a political objective overrides any restraint for presenting reliable information.

This is more or less what I said. Journalists must attract an audience.

Scientists must attract attention of their peers, that's what makes their careers, for better or worse.

When the funding is controlled by politically motivated actors, scientists do what they are told to do if they want to make money. Most of them do.

It's quite the opposite as far as I can tell. Scientists avoid political positions, since it draws the ire of politicians, which is bad for funding. Best to stay apolitical.

The few scientists-turned-politicians have either nothing to lose or are more interested in politics to begin with. Naturally they get all the attention of the media and distort the public's view about science in general.

Science reporting is abysmal.

Apart from all that, even if climate scientists were forced to publish work that explicitly positions itself as "pro-GW", they are still free to voice their true opinion in surveys.

Actually, HadCRU did their level best legally to stop people from publishing their data and harry_readme.txt.

I don't know the case. There's definitely room for improvement, but in general science is open by design.

Frontal lobotomies, forced sterilization, etc. Heck, even up until the 1970s, the entire field of psychiatry considered homosexuality a mental disorder.

Psychiatry is hardly a science . Obviously the less quantitative a field the more it is influenced by the Zeitgeist.

[Truth To Power]

Do you have evidence that all the change on the past century has been caused by nature?

No. Do you have evidence that you are capable of formulating an argument that isn't a strawman fallacy?

[Pants-of-dog]

No. Do you have evidence that you are capable of formulating an argument that isn't a strawman fallacy?

Well, you claimed that all the climatologists were lying, and that the warming was due to natural cycles.

Perhaps you could clarify what you actually believe instead of claiming one thing, then claiming it is a strawman when you are asked to support the thing you just claimed.

[Truth To Power]

Well, you claimed that all the climatologists were lying,

No, you are again just disingenuously and despicably mischaracterizing what I said. I specifically stated that NOT all were lying, only the ones who falsify data to promote the anti-CO2 hysteria narrative while knowing it is BS.

and that the warming was due to natural cycles.

Yes, and you have now disingenuously and despicably "reinterpreted" that as a claim that there is NO OTHER influence on climate.

Perhaps you could clarify what you actually believe instead of claiming one thing, then claiming it is a strawman when you are asked to support the thing you just claimed.

I have clarified it many times, including in this thread. You just ignore what I say and claim I have said something else. You have not asked me to support what I claimed, only what you falsely, disingenuously and despicably claimed I claimed. The strawman fallacy appears to be your only method of "argument."

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you are again just disingenuously and despicably mischaracterizing what I said. I specifically stated that NOT all were lying, only the ones who falsify data to promote the anti-CO2 hysteria narrative while knowing it is BS.

Yes, and you have now disingenuously and despicably "reinterpreted" that as a claim that there is NO OTHER influence on climate.

I have clarified it many times, including in this thread. You just ignore what I say and claim I have said something else. You have not asked me to support what I claimed, only what you falsely, disingenuously and despicably claimed I claimed. The strawman fallacy appears to be your only method of "argument."

I am not interested in figuring out what you are trying to say.

Write your argument in just a few sentences, describing exactly what you think is happening and what people are doing.

[Truth To Power]

I am not interested in figuring out what you are trying to say.

More accurately, you know you can't refute it, and are accordingly makin' $#!+ up.

Write your argument in just a few sentences, describing exactly what you think is happening and what people are doing.

I have, many times. You just ignore it and make $#!+ up again. Readers are invited to confirm that unlike my claims about what you have said, your claims about what I have said are not accompanied direct, verbatim, in-context quotes to that effect.

From THIS THREAD:

"Of course there is a correlation: higher temperature warms the oceans, reducing CO2's solubility. The amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is orders of magnitude more than the amount in the atmosphere."

"...the effect of atmospheric CO2 on temperature is minuscule, so the positive feedback quickly damps out."

"In fact, we can even pinpoint exactly who is [warming the earth]: the "scientists" who adjust earlier thermometer readings downward and later ones upward."

"there is no warming, and hasn't been since the current low solar activity cycle began. Arctic sea ice reached a cyclical low in 2012 similar to the cyclical low of the 1930s."

"No, it was warming from about 1970-2000, during the up-phase of the ~60y ocean circulation cycle. It was cooling for ~30y before that, even in the face of exponentially rising CO2 and historically high solar activity. And it warmed for ~30y before that, which is why the 1930s were about as warm as today."

"I've stated many times that [climate] has changed, and continues to change, as it always has. It is indisputably warmer now than in the Little Ice Age, because the sun has been so much more active."

[Pants-of-dog]

"Of course there is a correlation: higher temperature warms the oceans, reducing CO2's solubility. The amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is orders of magnitude more than the amount in the atmosphere."

I am not sure about all of that.

However there is evidence that the ocean is absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and this is causing what is known as "ocean acidification".

"...the effect of atmospheric CO2 on temperature is minuscule, so the positive feedback quickly damps out."

Maybe, maybe not.

"In fact, we can even pinpoint exactly who is [warming the earth]: the "scientists" who adjust earlier thermometer readings downward and later ones upward."

This is you claiming there is no warming and it is all a conspiracy.

"there is no warming, and hasn't been since the current low solar activity cycle began. Arctic sea ice reached a cyclical low in 2012 similar to the cyclical low of the 1930s."

There are at least two claims here that you should support with evidence.

1. That there has been no warming since the current phase of the solar cycle began.

2. That Arctic ice reached a record low because of cyclical causes.

"No, it was warming from about 1970-2000, during the up-phase of the ~60y ocean circulation cycle. It was cooling for ~30y before that, even in the face of exponentially rising CO2 and historically high solar activity. And it warmed for ~30y before that, which is why the 1930s were about as warm as today."

"I've stated many times that [climate] has changed, and continues to change, as it always has. It is indisputably warmer now than in the Little Ice Age, because the sun has been so much more active."

We will look at this later after we have looked at the ones for which you need to provide evidence.

[MrWonderful]

I can understand why BigOil sponsors climate change denial. There are big bugs at stake. What I can't understand is why the useful idiots do it.

While the plutocracy attempts to subvert democratic institutions, our only hope are the kids.

The Useful Idiots are the Eco-Hypocrites who proclaim their intellectual supremacy, and *scientificallly* pontificate on how *toxic* and *evil* gasoline is. Then they fill up their gas tanks and drive to the next Hate Trump rally, followed by an Enviro-Hypocrite rally. Then they take an "EcoTour" (sic).

Is anyone getting this?

If everyone were so certain of global warming catastrophe, why wouldn't beachfront properties be plummeting in value worldwide? They aren't. In fact, the Maldives are enjoying immigration and growth. Food for Eco-Hypocrite thought.

[MrWonderful]

Can you show us his evidence for these claims?

It would be utterly futile for anyone to do so. You have had ample time to read volumes of quotes, papers, data, and anecdotes by now. Your mind is made up and so are the minds of those who think the opposite of you. Any "evidence" presented is always rejected in various ways, many of which are insincere and unscientific.