Monday, August 19, 2019

Nature builds a Lysenkoist blacklist of 386 top climate researchers

I was sent links to an amazing Nature Communications article by Petersen et al.
Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians
and two responses at the PowerLineBlog that revolves around a formidable list of 386 climate researchers who have been de facto blacklisted by Nature.

The list contains a huge majority of those who really mattered in the climate change polemics in the world – or at least the Anglo-Saxon world. Lindzen, Singer, Morano, Christy, Lomborg, Soon, Nova, invent your own name (except for me – I haven't really spent much time with the climate in recent years), it's there.

Petersen et al. have divided the participants of these debates to two sets with 386 elements each: the good guys, the "experts", and the bad guys, the "contrarians" (don't worry, the word "denialists" appears in the second sentence of the results).

OK, according to Petersen et al., the bad guys are more visible in the media relatively to the "right" visibility.

Now, what I find amazing is that a paper published in a journal that used to be scientific starts by very sharply dividing people to the "good guys" and the "bad guys". Shouldn't such a thing be the result of some research? And shouldn't the emotional labels be omitted altogether? The fact that this writing is a totally prejudice-driven or ideology-driven propaganda is absolutely obvious.

No one doubts that people like those on the black list are underrepresented in journals such as Nature's journals. It shouldn't be surprising given the fact that these researchers are harassed by absolutely indefensible Stalinist methods such as this very black list. If and when you send someone to the Gulag, his opportunities to publish will be somewhat reduced. Have you tried it? Do you need to try?

Meanwhile, what are the "good guys" doing? What sort of research is really dominating their work? Here you have a recent, August 6th, RealClimate.ORG by Stefan Rahmstorf, How much CO2 your country can still emit, in three simple steps. Apparently, every country – including your country – can only emit a finite amount of CO2. Very soon, it will run out of CO2, much like the "word bag" in Feynman's explanation of the creation of photons (and words) addressed to his father (video).

(Don't worry, countries will keep on emitting trillions of tons of CO2 in coming centuries and billions of years because this emission is an unavoidable part of the omnipresent processes on Earth – both man-made and natural processes.)

What was the methodology of Stefan Rahmstorf by which he made these conclusions? He listened to the speech by his more famous colleague and superior scientist (or honorary scientist) in the French National Assembly. And he saw that her words were great. So he wrote a text on RealClimate.ORG about it! Yes, indeed, the superior scientist is the psychologically ill, mentally imbalanced, and uneducated Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg who is just skipping her classes for a whole year. She took a $4 million solar yacht Malizia II to sail to the U.S. – while her team is flying there or back. That's her way to reduce the carbon emissions.

You know, everyone who thinks that Greta's comments are worth listening to is an unhinged, mega-stupid, brainwashed lunatic. Sadly, lots of such people are among those whom Nature Communications calls "climate experts". These lunatics have hijacked the journals and institutions that used to belong to a modest scientific discipline, climatology. And because these journals and institutions used to be called scientific – and they still call them scientific – they want others to agree that they are scientists.

But they are not. Science isn't determined by the random labeling "science" on journals or institutions. Whether someone is doing science or non-science depends on his method. The scientific method actually cares about evidence – a careful formulation of well-defined hypotheses, empirical evidence, theory, calm not emotional calculations, and especially results of these procedures that are not determined from the beginning. The "good guys" or "climate experts" may call themselves "scientists" but they are not scientists. Relevant scientists interested in the climate phenomena are mainly the members of the "black list". When Petersen et al. measure the "authority" of the folks, they mean the "authority" within a Gr$tinist cult that has failed to preserve its last traces of the common sense let alone the quality of the scientific research.

The similarity of this black list and the propaganda by which the ideologically driven cult wants to harass the sane and cautious people to the Lysenkoist movement in Stalin's Soviet Union is self-evident. Stalin has found his pet agronomist Lysenko who has claimed that he could train crops to be better etc. To enable these ambitious plans, Stalin also needed to suppress – and had the power to suppress – everyone who could disagree with the goals and the underlying theory – geneticists in particular. So geneticists were on very similar black lists – much like relativists etc. were dismissed and banned as "members of Jewish science" in Germany of roughly the same time.

I think that the climate alarmists are more unhinged than Stalin has ever been. To say the least, Stalin wasn't shaping his beliefs according to the holy words of a psychologically ill 16-year-old prophet.

No comments:

Post a Comment