Following the initial snowfall of fake news articles on Trump’s devastating effect on climate from the Once Mainstream Media, something strange has happened:
The number of Newspapers reporting on “Global Warming” has dropped, and now perhaps 1 in 4 “News” articles are just ignorant bloggers, rather than ignorant journalists (Google excludes all blogs and news outlets from Scientific Sceptics from its “News”).
This drop may simply be because the Press are holding their breath awaiting Trumps appointment of various heads (people who will finally get those calling themselves “scientists” to adhere to the standards of us Sceptics i.e. evidence based science).
Or, it may be that Trump’s curtailing those like NOAA and NASA releasing endless anti-industry propaganda dressed up as “science” has had the chilling effect.
Or … it might be that the snowflakes have so much else to fill their bilious columns with.

But I suspect it is the calm before the storm!

For some time, I’ve been aware that the way the media use “science” and what I was taught was meant by “science” are now two very different things. And it comes down to headlines like this:

Scientists Just Sharply Denounced Trump’s Travel Ban

The problem here, is that science (as I was taught it), is a method whereby we try to totally eliminate observer bias and that includes our political views. So you must choose, either you are a politician, or you are a scientist. That is not to say that a real scientist cannot have a political view, just as a juror cannot have a political view about a criminal trial in which they are a juror. But whilst you are acting as a scientist, just as when you are acting as a juror – you leave your politics outside the courtroom/lab.
But that seems to be increasingly untrue these days in “science”. And what is worse, these days, anyone from academia seems to be called a “scientist”. Maybe that’s because I’m reading more articles from the US where it seems to have a far more lax usage. But I’ve even heard “science” used for an archaeologist who I’ve little doubt would not have used the term themselves. Instead it was some cheap journalist using a catch all term for “academic” (not from the arts). It is now almost meaningless as a term. it doesn’t imply any actual standards or techniques or quality.
And so to the vast majority of the population and most journalists – “science” is a pretty meaningless term these days. When I try to define it, I end up with the same basic definition: it’s almost exclusively used for the group of government/University employees who’ve done a non-arts degree. And, whether or not they use the scientific method, whether or not they allow their own political views to colour their public statements, whether or not they’ve actually talking about a subject they know about or in some cases have been taught any science at all – whatever their actual knowledge or the quality of their work, they are all scientists to the press and public.

What then is a sceptic?

I’m more and more coming to the view, that a sceptic is what I used to call a “scientist”. Or what I’m increasing having to call a “Real scientist”. By that I mean someone who requires evidence before accepting an assertion. They require high standards of evidence using for example, the “scientific method” – trying to disprove an assertion, rather than moulding the data to fit. Someone who tries to remove their own personal, political and observational biases. Basically someone for whom “science” means a quality standard.
In simple terms, the difference between a sceptic and a “scientist” is this: a sceptic starts from a sceptical position and requires good impartial evidence to change their mind. In contrast, a “scientist” is now little more than a group identity for certain academics and researchers who’s only group attribute is they “measure things” and use maths.
In conclusion
Scepticism is a philosophy demanding a rigorous intellectual approach.
And to put it very crudely: Science is now a paypacket and/or a ticket into the media.
Terminology
As such I am seriously considering changing my terminology. What I value as high quality work is “scepticism” not science. And those who adhere to this philosophy may belong to the academic clan called “science”, but if they use the sceptic method, their highest accolade is to be hailed as a true sceptic not as another no-quality-control “scientist”.

For years we’ve seen a number of quite outrageous anti-science statements from a variety of judges who clearly didn’t know much about science nor the strong evidence contradicting the supposed theory of catastrophic warming and the clear evidence of deception by those like NASA with their fake temperatures.
However, now a Washington state judge has outraged the eco-terrorists and their snowflake supporters by saying:

“I don’t know what everybody’s beliefs are on [Manmade global warming], but I know that there’s tremendous controversy over the fact whether it even exists. And even if people believe that it does or it doesn’t, the extent of what we’re doing to ourselves and our climate and our planet, there’s great controversy over that.”

I used to work in the fashion industry in tights. And what surprised me was a discussion one day about the colour that was going to be fashionable, not in the next year, but the year after. It turned out, that the fashion industry all sat down and agreed what colours they would make fashionable in two years time.
And … what astounded me even more was how women (for it was mostly women at that time) … were so gullible that they went along like sheep and bought the colour they were brainwashed to buy (when everything in their wardrobe was perfectly adequate).
I could go on about how women seem to be inherently susceptible to fashion as even evident in old photos (except for men who hardly change their fashion until modern brainwashing), but instead today I want to talk about BBC brainwashing:

“The future is electric”

For years, the BBC have been broadcasting these programs about “the future”. Or in other forms “Industry is the past”. When I was a kid, I didn’t know any better and really did think the BBC knew better than I did. But now looking back at the BBC and their total cock-up on global warming and the way they jump on every fad … it’s clear to me their “future” has more to do with the “future” in fashion than it has to do with what ordinary people actual want or need.

In other words, these “the future is electric” ads on the TV (for that is all they really are), are not a prediction in the traditional sense of the word, but instead like the colour fixing fashion industry, they are an attempt to brainwash the gullible public into going clone like to the car show room to buy the latest eco-fascist fad.

The psychology of the Global Warming Gullibles

The basic difference between alarmists and sceptics is simple: alarmists desire to be socially acceptable. As such they go along with ideas like Global Warming they feel are “socially acceptable” and therefore they almost certainly buy clothes that are socially acceptable or “fashionable”. They are the quintessential gullible mass-market consumer who has wardrobes filled with unnecessary clothes they’ll never wear again because it is “last year’s fashion”. (That’s why they feel so guilty – why they are obsessed with finding a purpose for all that garbage sitting in their wardrobe – why they need “recycling to salve their conscience for so gullibly buying the useless fashionable garbage in the first place) Continue reading →

After a week with President Trump in office, I wanted to see what progress had been made in forcing NOAA to comply with the lawful request for data from NOAA by the House Science and Technology committee run by Congressman Lamar Smith. And eventually I found this tweet:

SCOTUS: congr oversight “essential & appropriate.” @POTUS pls direct agencies 2 comply w/our pending requests & let Congress do its job! https://t.co/aC3vHuH3Gn

— Sci,Space,&Tech Cmte (@HouseScience) January 25, 2017

So, paradoxically we are now in a position where the “global warming” hating Trump is now responsible for the illegal activity of NOAA refusing to comply with a lawful subpoena of the house.

Come on Trump – what’s the delay?

In the back of my mind I had a recollection that “Prince” Charles was not exactly a high academic achiever. Indeed, I seem to recall there was something dodgy about his University degree.
However, given how the right Charlie just loves to pontificate about atmospheric physics, I loved this quote I found in the Daily Mail from April 2010.

Hardly a Prince of Maths!:The 1963 exercise book that reveals Charles’s struggle with the subject

the answers in this 1963 mathematics book suggest that while this schoolboy may have been conscientious, he was no budding Einstein.

And here I must add, that in theory the monarch is still elected. That is to say, before William the Bastard seized the thrown, the monarch was elected by the people. And that right has been exercised continuously till this present day. WHAT? you may well ask!
What happened is that the coronation was manipulated so that instead of an actual election by the people, a small group of the “people” (namely the choristers of Westminster School) were instructed to sing in Latin a phrase which voices their and (as no one else knows there’s an election happening at that point) everyone else’s support.
More importantly, no Monarch has the power to bind the people’s choice of their succession. And as parliament acts under the monarch’s power, it too is limited and cannot bind the people to who they choose as successor.
So constitutionally, if enough of us plebs, realised we had the right to elect the next monarch and we all shouted “no” to The right Charlie, he’d not be monarch.
(And no, it does not mean we have the right to have regular elections!)

When I was younger and still under the influence of the BBC, I used to occasionally see US non-mainstream presenters and their hate filled bile (I presume as part of BBC broadcasting in the vein of “look how lucky you are to have the BBC”.
Then this morning, listening to the BBC on Trump and Brexit, I realised I was listening to the same hate filled bile oozing from them. Obviously the language is toned down, but its the same sentiment of disdain, disparaging Brexit and Trump for not agreeing with the BBC political party orthodoxy.
The difference of course, is that in the US, they have a choice of who to watch and listen to, but in the UK, the massive public subsidy kills off any commercial competition to the BBC. So they (and the clone like politics in public subsided Channel 4) have a virtual monopoly on “intellectual” programming. Indeed, “intellectuals”, meaning a few politicians and academics have a channel devoted to brainwashing them: Radio 4. The result is that our “elite” (as they see themselves) are so completely brain-washed by the BBC hate filled bile, that they just inherently adopt the attitudes of the BBC and cannot fathom why anyone could complain when they parrot the brainwashed propaganda.
The more I don’t listen to the BBC or watch its programming, the more I realise the few times I listen, that the self-destructive political movement that has constantly attacked anyone proud to be British and demanded that we live in a “post-industrial” society (which is about as insane as saying a “post-medicine society” or a “post-university society”) … these “cancerous” self-destructive fads all seem to come from the BBC.
Britain is already a Big Brother state – and that big brother is the BBC. And it has been like this for a long time. What has changed now, is not the BBC – but the fact that millions of us can now see the world outside Britain through the internet. We can talk to our peers in other countries, and so when the BBC describes the wall as Trump’s “pet project”, we know that 10s of millions of US citizens only voted for Trump because he would tackle immigration.
In no sense can it be described as Trump’s pet project. If anything, it is the demands of the people that Trump (himself a member of the “elite”) has had the sense to take on board. And I know that, because I know ordinary Americans want something done, and I learnt that through what I hear on the internet. So, I know the BBC are totally lying about the lack of support for the wall, and instead they are intentionally trying to belittle the project and Trump. And that was but one instance – indeed, the only reason I’m listening to the BBC at the moment, is that they so hate Trump and Brexit, that it’s amusing to watch their antics as they try desperately to pretend more than ever that they are impartial when they clearly are not.
Because of the internet, and the fact I hear the views of the world from the barking dogs themselves and not third hand through the BBC, I know we are getting hate-filled propaganda lies constantly beamed to us through the BBC. And now I realise, it is  not the US, who have the hate filled broadcasters …  broadcasting to a few who deign to listen, but instead we have the hate filled BBC forcibly fed to almost the entire population of the UK.
And if it were not for the internet, I’d never have known it – I’d be another BBC attack clone.

If all the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere (meaning anything much less than 200ppm), plants would end up growing and fairly soon they would die without leaving any seed.
That is effectively what has happened to climate alarmism in the US. It still exists, just as the plants without CO2 could continue living on their stored energy, but the stored food will sooner or later run out, just as the public good will/grants/media interest/etc. will run out as climate alarmism is deprived of the “oxygen of publicity”.
My concern with Trump is that he may have been all talk and no action … perhaps I’m just so used to politicians breaking their promises that I was expecting Trump to do the same. But actions speak louder than words … and even I hadn’t expected to see action within minutes of him taking office (I was telling my daughter: “the first official day is monday”).
So, whilst this is not the end of climate alarmism, it is certainly the beginning of the end.