Admission: Climate Scientists are Extremists and Alarmists

There’s a trailer for another “Trust me I call myself a scientist” videos which is a completely doomed tactic of trying to persuade people that they do good science by taking the shortcut and making a PR movie, rather than doing the hard graft and doing good science:

Like all the past videos, this is another patronising example by an academics working on the implicit assumption that academia is better than anyone else so all they need do is show the academics on their all-expenses paid holidays to the Arctic and the poor ignorant people in industry will just bow down and worship them.So lets examine the claims in this video:
Climate Scientists are Extremists and Alarmists. Could these accusations be true?
Yes they are true. With a few noteworthy examples, almost all academics are on the extreme alarmist end of the spectrum of public opinion.
Were dishonest climate scientists bringing all of us into disrepute?
No! It isn’t just the dishonest ones, even the honest ones are failing to do proper science. The analogy I would use is a fridge which isn’t “broken” but it doesn’t do the job you want as it isn’t cold enough. Likewise not all academics are “broken” so not all set out to intentionally mislead the public, but they just aren’t doing the job for which they are paid. They should be following the scientific method, but instead they are using “science” as a brand name not a methodology and as a result they are producing untested rubbish and then pretending it is tested science merely by applying the brand name of “science”.
As a scientist
Wrong again! He says he’s a geologist. Few geologists are scientists because the scientific method is just not practical in geology. It is difficult to follow the hypothesis, prediction, test against real data, method on things that are “stuck in rock”.
I had to find out …
Great, this sounds promising seeing how well the predictions actually work out.
So I decided to make a film about the scientists at the centre of this controversy
What the f*ck!!!!!!!!
That is what he means by science! To “find out” means “making a film”. No wonder academia has such a poor reputation if  “finding out” means sexing-up preconceived ideas.

Who are these climate scientists?
Does he have to ask? They are almost all public sector academics who clearly have a self-interest as they get funding from the scare about the climate.
what do they say?
They say they can predict the climate. They say they know how the climate works. They say everyone else is wrong.
and do they know what they are talking about
No!!! They haven’t a clue. Everything they “know” is in their models and these show that all they know amounts to nothing. They clearly cannot predict the climate by the way all of them failed to predict the pause.
Are they searching for the truth or peddling a lie?
The biggest lie is that this video has anything to do with real “science” because it looks more like X-factor for academics or the “Big bake” than actual science. That is real hypothesis testing science, not the “bum-chum”, “buddy review”, “never knowingly admit you are wrong”, brand name of “science” which academics now use to sex-up their “cheaper by the dozen” sausage factory work which they then think will con the public into believing their sausages have any more credibility than any activist group.

This entry was posted in Academia, Climate, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Admission: Climate Scientists are Extremists and Alarmists

  1. TinyCO2 says:

    People are too optimistic about what PR can do. Because they see some dreadful person on a talent show go from strength to strength because the producers get the spin right, they assume it can be done for anything. Thus they think if they can give climate scientists and their work the show biz polish, their message will suddenly sink in and we’ll go ‘oh of course, I see it now, we’ll instantly cut CO2 to the level of an African developing nation’. They forget several important differences.
    The first is we want the mediocre performer to do well, we don’t want anything to do with global warming. That doesn’t mean, as the psyche boys would say, that we fundamentally refuse to accept AGW, it just means the amount of proof we’ll require is substantially higher. Spin does not constitute proof, therefore no amount of spin moves people in any meaningful way. Worse to can go a long way towards convincing you that the warmists are liars and tricksters. The first rule of any serious issue should be ‘tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if there will be time for the public to find out where you’ve been lying’. AGW was always going to be spread over a long time.
    Every issue the scientists have exaggerated and the media have exaggerated still more, is an opportunity for them to end up with egg on their faces. Up until recently, ice was a fairly safe issue for them. Glaciers were melting, the Arctic vanishing and they could and still are pretending that Antarctica is rapidly shrinking. They forgot to point out that much of the Arctic ice loss was wind driven and there was a lot of ice at the beginning due to leftovers from the LIA. The Glaciers and the Arctic seem to have reached or are reaching a new normal. A cold snap and favourable winds could see their last ace dissapear.
    The Guardian is pursuing the ‘deniers are in denial’ kick with this latest article.
    At no point does it admit that the evidence may be poor or that the solutions might be pointless, both good reasons why the public have gone cold on warming.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      I was thinking about this overnight and he claims to be an “amateur” but it is obvious this person is either doing this as part of a publicly funded research project so a government paid film or worse misappropriating public money, or they are being heavily funded by the greenblob . Either way this will just re-enforce the view that the film and film maker are deceitful.
      Gandhi didn’t win by the money he had for his PR – he won because he was worthy of being reported.
      And Gandhi was before people watched advert after advert after advert which we all know are telling the lie that we need their product. So, yet another slick advert will not do anything and pretending it is not a paid for production is laughable. Don’t they realise that YouTube is full of fake stunts pretending to be “real”. People can spot them a mile off. If a real amateur made a video on the subject it would look like an amateur made it. Instead, a hugely well funded group pretending to be amateurs will just make people disbelieve it all the more and discredit any who take part in the stunt.

  2. TinyCO2 says:

    I’m not so much bothered by the amateur/professional issue since many talented film makers started as amateurs, though it just adds to the lack of honesty, but I’m bemused by the pointlessness of it all.
    I’ve pointed out to warmists again and again that they are ill equipped to answer the issues that others have with the science and everyone has with the solutions. Their belief is a barrier. Most adults watch propaganda with their own filters in place. When politicians on both sides promise things, few of us believe them. Voting is a balance of fear of the opposition and a slight self delusion that THIS time your chosen party won’t let you down. Voter apathy is as much evidence that neither side is getting it too far wrong as getting it really right. Politicians are buggers for paying too much attention to journalists (particularly those they admire) rather than the public they want to vote for them. It’s why UKIP and the SNP have flourished. The media (and prominent warmists) create strawman versions of sceptics and then try to defeat them. Because the artificial versions of sceptics are not real they discover we’re still there and as strong as ever, no matter what they do. Models are their biggest flaw on all fronts.
    The public don’t need another slick video lamenting the maybes of climate change. They’ve got the message that something’s up. Polar bear, blah, blah, blah; Tuvalu, blah, blah, blah; hurricanes, blah, blah, blah. They need proper detail, even if that detail is less impressive than the spin.
    One thing that really winds up warmists is when someone quips ‘what happened to global warming’ when it snows. I haven’t met a person who says it, that thinks the snow is evidence that AGW isn’t real. They see it as evidence that the climate machine can’t predict more than a week ahead. We’ve never really resented the Met Offices failings’ until they made end of the world as we know it claims. It now becomes a genuine cost, not just the risk of a washed out BBQ. For some reason warmists don’t understand that they’ve moved into a new category, where the burden of proof is much higher. Part of their blindness stems from the belief they are doing everyone a favour.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Great comment and I agree with you wholeheartedly. The big change I think is between the old “buddy reviewed” system: largely a hierarchical system of power where the “sceptics” were like the poor man at the King Wenceslas feast, the PhD researchers were at the low table and then you slowly worked your tenure to the top table … and the new egalitarian system of the internet where everyone has a chance to be read and it is the best work, rather than the work of some professor McWorthy of the institute of McWorthiness who is the only one to be read.
      And that has come at a time when standards in academia are at an all time low as the sausage machine mentality of pushing out papers has degraded standards and with it their credibility.
      So, now much to their disgust – particularly those who scrambled up the greasy pole like Nurse, people like me are getting read and agreed with and there is nothing they can do to stop us.
      They think its some failure of “communication” that everyone is ignoring the traditional way things “should” happen. So, they try to push the same “McWorthy” views out in ever more slick “communications”. And they just can’t understand why it fails.
      The reason is obvious to me. A decade (& half) ago, if someone like me got printed, the academics would just have a quiet word with the miscreant journalist explaining that they would never get any more research work in their paper unless they toed the line.
      So, they had the power to enforce a strict hierarchy with Prof McWorthy at the top telling everyone else what to believe.
      Now that world has been consigned to the dustbin of history. We now live in a meritocracy where McWorthy will have his views heard .. if and only if they are better than all the other views present on the internet.

Comments are closed.