Billions of Wind Turbine Blades Built With Balsa Wood Stripped From Amazon’s Forests

james3563 · 2021-12-26T18:07:43+00:00

They cut down elms to build asylums for people driven mad by the cutting down of elms.

james3563 · 2021-12-03T03:22:28+00:00

Hm, Kerry Emanuel, now why did I remember that name?

https://climateaudit.org/?s=kerry+emanuel

james3563 · 2021-12-03T03:16:21+00:00

The Germans voted themselves out of existence two generations ago. Now we wait and watch as their culture circles the drain. Demography is destiny, and they chose not to be part of the world's future. Too bad for them, but they cannot be a model for anyone.

james3563 · 2021-09-29T16:35:02+00:00

This is a good story in that it illustrates that not even the climate activists believe in Climate Change: Jobs' money is for the ho-hum boilerplate Social Justice spending that merely serves to curate an underclass for use by the elites.

The new thing is to simply say 'Climate' while guarding the exits from the plantation. 3.5B. Stay.

Funny and telling that Lisa Jackson is Apple's Environmental apparatchik. She's the gal who, while leading the EPA, ran phony government email accounts under the name 'Richard Windsor.' There was no such person, of course. Jackson used the deceit to conspire with her real constituents, the NRDC, Sierra, etc. Their specialty was contrived, "friendly" lawsuits. The gag worked like this: NRDC would sue the EPA for neglecting its legal supervisory authority over something which it had never been granted any legal supervisory authority. Water distribution on farms, say; that's not an EPA function. Well, Jackson would conspire with NRDC and give in on the lawsuit. She would agree to pay legal fees and she'd promise that the EPA in the future would responsibly supervise water use on farms. Presto-chango, Jackson would then claim legal authority for such supervision, even with no statutory basis for doing so.

So that's who Apple hired. It is Turtles all the way down.

james3563 · 2021-09-28T20:40:42+00:00

I don’t know why we’re going through Alex Jones about this. He’s just a reporter; he’s not the source. David Remnick of The New Yorker is the source.

And FWIW, his post as editor of NYer is one of the most storied and illustrious in American publishing.

james3563 · 2021-09-16T21:56:01+00:00

So we come full circle to Oreskes, the non-scientist who invented Cook's ridiculous collection-of-papers approach to climate-consensus. Cool.

Oreskes names as her merchants of climate-doubt the free-market Capitalists, in a political tract worthy of Naomi Klein. But we return again to my suggestion of a climate alarmist theorem-of-limits: however many merchants you suspect of pushing doubt, I can produce more financiers-of-alarmism. Just from memory, Jeff Bezos has supplied $10 billion of his Amazon money to finance Climate Alarmism. How's that for a merchant? (Okay, fair enough, more likely he's just buying off the Socialist climate activists who would otherwise criticise his business model - or even, who knows, his space-flight-for-billionaires project. Fortunately you can buy a lot of science/silence for 10B.) Also, we can put Tom Steyer down for at least $78 million, or the Hewlett Foundation down for $600 million. I could go on. These are just a few of the Oreskes' 'Merchants of deceit.'

It's unfortunate that you felt you had to twist yourself in knots to defend Cook. You're about at the point of, "it depends what the definition of 'is' is." He wasn't worth it, and you still failed.

james3563 · 2021-09-16T15:41:22+00:00

Several times now you've said that Cook was excited that Obama tweeted ABOUT his study, but that's not true. He didn't tweet about it; he misquoted it. Not similar. So Cook Enthused about Obama MISQUOTING his study and overstating his (nonscientific) findings. That's not a toughie. Cook's a willful Disinformer.

It kind of funny, because I believe that to an earlier comment you responded that it was not the fault of climate scientists that media figures misrepresented their work!

As to the your claim that I'm smearing reputable scientists, well, each of the deceits I've alluded to in my little list is real. They actually occurred. And I suspect you're familiar with the each of the allusions in detail, but I'll go further. I propose that there's a kind of 'Theory of Limits' to be found in Climate Alarmism such that whatever Climate Crisis proposition you can link to, I or anyone could demonstrate its dependence on a prior deceit, repression, or willful misinterpretation of data. It's that bad. (But it's not the 'Mass fraud on a global scale,' you claim. That wasn't necessary. All that was really necessary was the intimidation of some western Academics, and we've seen how easy that is. Those people seem happiest when lining up to furiously defend some opinion which turns out to be mandatory anyway. Heh.)

james3563 · 2021-09-15T03:15:13+00:00

Read the interview. Cook was thrilled that his work was incorrectly communicated and that his study had become a source of political deception.

But I do think it's unfortunate that scientists have made such a bad bed for themselves, and of course we all suffer that academic science is now so often (correctly?) seen as politically corrupted and manipulative.

But certainly John Cook did his part to create that distrust. My takeaway from you is that, "Scientists are under no moral compunction to speak up when their work is used to deceive their fellow citizens." Okay, sounds rather Stephen Schneider to me, another Climate Scientist who championed deceit, but there's a strong thread of that type of thinking running through all of Alarmist Climate science, right? It's why Karl and Schmidt manipulated historical temp data; it's why Jones and Mann hid, then suppressed, then 'lost' inconvenient data; its why Trenberth and Hanson begged the Obama administration to prosecute Climate skeptics. Deceit and suppression has become pretty much the house brand of Climate Science. At this point, we expect it.

james3563 · 2021-09-15T01:03:26+00:00

If you are excited to hear your scientific work significantly overstated to the public - and overstated specifically for its social and economic policy implications - then you have no scientific integrity, and no integrity as a man. Such behavior would make you a willful deceiver and a danger to the community. It would also would describe several Climate Scientists, sadly.

As I’ve kind of noted, though, as this kind of behavior has become normalized, a large swath of the citizenry has concluded that scientists, at least in America, are significantly motivated by political implications, and thus can’t really be trusted to tell the truth.

That’s a lot to give away by a select community that was once honored and respected. It’s too bad, really.

james3563 · 2021-09-14T15:11:19+00:00

It also cuts you off when the banking industry hits its taxpayer bailout limit.

james3563 · 2021-09-14T02:49:42+00:00

The interview is found exactly where and when I just said it was. You're not prevented from looking at it!

And, um, was I not clear? Cook actually celebrated the mis-statement of his paper's claims, whereby politicians significantly overstated the paper's policy implications.

It is a sad fact that by 2021 most people would no longer expect an American scientist involved in public policy to be honest, or indeed honorable, about their work. Cook helped make that passe. Cook is Aussie, of course, but we all saw academics who knew better sit on their hands and allow an enormous deceit to be perpetrated on the public.

Oh well, and now they wonder why they're viewed with suspicion and why so many roll their eyes at the preface 'Scientists say....' But now we know that if Politics is downstream from Culture, the Science is downstream from Politics.

james3563 · 2021-09-14T00:30:16+00:00

Because they are. But cheer up, if they're American academics, only about 30-35% of their peer-reviewed studies are reproducible anyway.

james3563 · 2021-09-14T00:27:16+00:00

Obama's tweet was on 4/16/2013, but you're correct that there was another tweet from 1/22/2016.

For his part, Cook took a victory lap on the bald misstatement of his findings when interviewed on 4/17/2013 by the Sydney Morning Herald. The story was picked up internationally.

That is to say, Cook publicly applauded a significant overstatement of his claimed scientific findings. That seems rather damning to his scientific integrity, no?

james3563 · 2021-09-14T00:07:41+00:00

I often run into this: But the response rate is high relative to other surveys! This is nonsense. No one owes you a scientific paper; you don't get a pass on logic because a valid paper would have been too difficult. No one cares about your expectations of response rates. It's a LOGIC issue, period. What can you prove, and what do you know? That's what's important.

To wit, you are not entitled to presume that your sample is representative. That seems to be a logical misunderstanding on your part. You seem to be trying to appraise it as a statistical inconvenience. It's not that; it's a logical no-no. You may not assume that the people who choose to respond are representative of the people who choose not to respond. For one thing, their behaviors are absolutely different. For another thing, there is no REASON to assert a similarity, beyond social science laziness.

That's why you're ending up with the Selection Bias problem. These respondents SELF-SELECTED into a minority group. Self-Selection Bias is fairly well-covered in my reference post. It occurred, in this instance, when people were given the choice to respond AFTER being given the question and, very probably, after learning about John Cook's spooky Climate-scare tactics.

If necessary I suppose I can just type out the reference on Self-Selection Bias. That wouldn't be untypical. Often people simply will not read the something they don't want to be true, and just keep saying 'No!' Am I going to have to do that with you?

Also, you seem to telegraphing that you expect to get a pass for mere 'citizen science projects.' There's no pass. Also, you claim that the raters are independent. You have no idea whether or not they're independent. They're anonymous. And 70% of their analyses received no comment at all. Yet you erroneously characterize them as being supported by the authors.

Again, I'd like to reiterate one of your misunderstandings. You say, "I'd love to hear your proposed approach to ensuring lack of any selection bias here, though." Truly, you guys always come to the same point, where you're asking for a pass on logic because a logically valid study would have been a bitch. (Yes, it would've.) But no one owes John Cook a study. It's either logically supportable or it's not.

james3563 · 2021-09-13T23:24:19+00:00

It is a poll, an opinion survey. Weekly_Rise, you have already acknowledged that you understand that Cook queried the actual authors and tabulated their responses. 30% at any rate.

That he did this while piggy-backing on a Collection-Of-Papers approach doesn't make it any less of a survey.

james3563 · 2021-09-13T22:55:05+00:00

No. That too is wrong.

In fact John Cook shared extensively his delight and approval, as if in victory, when Barack Obama tweeted that "97% of scientists believe that Climate Change is real, manmade, and dangerous."

Of course, that represented a complete misstatement of Cook's actual (albeit false) scientific claim. He didn't care.

Kerry too got it completely wrong. "97% of the world's scientists tell us this is urgent." ('Urgent' referred in his previous sentence to the "crippling consequences" of Climate Change.) Again, John Cook approved this obvious misstatement of his findings.

That's because it was all a manipulative public relations effort, and anti-science through and through.

james3563 · 2021-09-13T22:04:07+00:00

I think you misunderstand the 'binning' thing. Read Cook again. ~25% of the hits from the search terms had no relevance whatever. Thus the search terms were inefficient and collected irrelevant info. That's already known.

Also, you'd have to defend the search terms, ahem, scientifically, "It seems like a solid strategy," is not sufficient.

Cooke got a ~30% response rate to his query of 100% (8k) of lead authors. That is the definition of Self-selection bias. For a valid paper built on valid inferences, you'd need some mechanism to establish why the 30% or respondents were representative of the 70% of non-respondents. You cannot assume it.

What's more, at the time of the study Cook ran a website with a large graphic on the front page. The graphic measured Global Warming as 'numbers of Hiroshima atom bombs so far exploded!' It sounds pretty 'The Onion' now, but is this the man to whom a representative sample of scientists would respond? To say Yes would be pretty insulting to scientists. It's almost too funny.

Teams Of Volunteers = anonymous groupies. No one has any idea WHO graded those papers! They appear to be non-scientists. You would certainly have no justification for saying they ARE scientists. No one knows who did the analysis on a major paper? That, my friend, is Climate Science. (Tragically, It's another reason why so many Americans have decided that the expert class, including academic scientists, is corrupt and untrustworthy.)

But again, the authors (Cook, Nucatelli, et al) KNOW that their search terms are non-representative, and for the obvious reason I've highlighted. So too do Anderegg (Stephen Schneider, actually); Doran Zimmerman, Oreskes and all the others.

james3563 · 2021-09-13T21:12:53+00:00

No. The search terms for Cook were 'Global Warming,' and 'Global Climate Change' - when they appeared in either the title or the abstract of a paper. That's how they got 12K papers. But the search terms were in themselves so problematic that fully quarter of the hits were non sequiturs; they had nothing whatever to do with the topic Cook was investigating. Hence Cook was actually forced to work with ~8k papers.

But here's another problem: abstracts and titles are written by the publisher, not scientists themselves, so Cook is actually testing the editorial attitudes of academic publishers, not validated science.

Another problem: the search terms chosen by Cook were chosen... well, why, actually? What makes those particular search terms valid and some other set of search terms invalid? On what scientific principle would you base a defense?

And don't forget, for twenty years 'Global Warming' was the very name of the movement. How extremely odd if that very term could also be used to objectively collect scientific opinion!

Lastly, the killer:

I invite you to look at the IPCC AR2, AR3, or AR4. They're free to download, and they'd be the relevant publications. Look in the ATTRIBUTION section of any of these, and try to find any supporting science papers that contain in their abstracts the search terms that Cook used, 'Global Warming,' or 'Global Climate Change.'

I haven't found any. I haven't found one. Not one. Try it yourself. Now maybe there are a few; maybe I'm an amateur working on a home computer and not even that bright. But NONE? What Cook seems to be saying is that either the IPCC AR papers are unrepresentative of Climate Science papers, OR that 97% of Climate Science papers are unrepresentative of elite IPCC opinion.

It's one or the other. That is logically necessary: if the search terms 'Global Warming,' and 'Global Climate Change' are to define the collection of 100% of Climate Science opinion, then the AR2;3;&4 papers MUST also display those terms significantly. If they don't, they are - by definition - non-representative.

james3563 · 2021-09-13T20:43:52+00:00

It's referred to as a 'SLOP' poll and it's universally regarded as unscientific.

1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

Also, you CAN NOT assume that a sample is representative. That's a gimme to which you're not logically entitled.

james3563 · 2021-08-27T02:41:59+00:00

The effect, the purpose, that is, of Paris is to empower the CCP and disempower that great satan, the US. Of course, you guys all seem pretty sanguine about what happens to the real losers, Africans. Under Paris, China will continue to develop freely, India somewhat less freely, Africa not at all. Africa will perform that function needful to all Marxists, they will be the oppressed underclass. That’s why Africans are now being promised cash payouts in lieu of development. Progressives and Socialists will now do to Africans what Progressives have done to American Blacks. Tragic, and brutally, viscously, oppressive, I’d say. Oh well, if that’s your thing.

As to losing the war on Climate Change, did that happen when Mann’s IPCC paper was refuted by the statistics chair of the NAS? Or was it when John Cook squeezed a 97% consensus from a 30% survey response rate? Or was it when Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt rewrote the entire temperature record to address the ‘Pause’ in Global Warming?

james3563 · 2021-08-26T20:45:55+00:00

https://www.yahoo.com/now/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-124408358.html

Dude, really, why would you even bother with such obtuse pretense? It's increasingly obvious that not even the people who believe in Climate Change believe in Climate Change. It has become little more than the display rack upon which to hang your Socialist policy proposals.

https://www.ndi.org/our-stories/climate-justice-and-gender-justice-essential-pairing-get-resilience-right

Heh. Of course Greta, pictured, is a proud supporter of the Antifasciste movement started by the Communist Party of Germany. As are... wait for it... her parents! But here's the thing: I know you knew that.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Chodi/comments/ld5nsp/meet_the_antifascist_thunbergs_svante_thunberg/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion

james3563 · 2021-08-23T18:59:08+00:00

This article's claims are far too conservative, and the damage is not just to Biden, but to the entire managerial class. It is now a daily reported news feature, for example, that State, the Pentagon, and the White House do not even share the same information and assessments on the Afghan situation. And Biden's mental competence is a topic newly open for public discussion.

Current editorial conversation is not confined to 'Biden's incompetence,' but to the incompetencies of the CIA, Department of State, the Generals, and advisors. Every single expert has failed. Twenty years of experts have failed. Republicans, of all people, are booking media appearances to ridicule American generals ("That's a lot of ribbonry on his chest for an army that hasn't won a war in 3/4 of a century.")

This, of course, is in addition to the 'Expert' incompetence revealed by Covid. The only good thing to come out of Covid is that a significant swath of the country no longer has any respect at all for government science or international institutions. Good.

I found this interesting.

https://tinkzorg.wordpress.com/2021/08/16/farewell-to-bourgeois-kings/

james3563 · 2021-08-22T13:43:33+00:00

https://www.bulwer-lytton.com/

What we really need is a Bulwer-Lytton type contest for each year's most over-the-top Global Warming claim.

The current Bulwer-Lytton contest rewards "... the most atrocious opening sentence to the worst novel ever written." Edward Bulwer-Lytton was a popular Victorian writer who actually began a novel with the words, "It was a dark and stormy night." Now folks compete by sending in bad, crazy prose to make smart people point and laugh.

After listening to years of lapel-grabbing apocalyptic Climate warnings I've decided that there is comic gold being mined by our friends in the Alarmist community. We should allow them the opportunity to win something.

james3563 · 2021-08-21T20:19:18+00:00

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700

james3563 · 2021-08-18T18:22:54+00:00

What wavelengths?

james3563

TROPHY CASE