The argument here is extremely simple, and extremely important. I shall put it in numerical terms. One is a dangerous number. Those who can only count to one are extremely dangerous. Two is a very important number. Those who can count to two – and here I include all liberals and sceptics – are capable of recognising that the world is not simple and should not be subjugated to one king, one law, one policy, one protocol. They want to keep questions open. But two is a weak number. The Greeks called it ‘indefinite’. It only has force when it has a civilisation and conviction behind it. The number two cannot support itself. It always advocates fracture, or division, and cannot itself offer us any good reason why we ought to do this rather than that. Crushingly, it cannot offer good reason why we should defend liberalism, scepticism or that major achievement of practical liberalism and practical scepticism, ‘politics’. The most important number is three. Only those who can count to three are capable of finding a reason to defend the number two: because, by reaching the number three, they are attempting to recognise the undoubted power and importance of one, and also the absolute necessity to have some sort of safeguard against it, as symbolised by the number two.
Now, I am sure that most of you will already be complaining about why this cabalistic, hermetic, Pythagorean nonsense is here in the pages of the Daily Sceptic. I hope to show that it does make sense. Let me do it in three steps: one, two and three.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Climate modelling is a cult not a science.
Actually it is modelling that is the cult – and it whore’s itself to any political or ideological objective that needs ‘The Science’ on its side.
The difference between forecasts, prediction and scenarios:
‘Forecasts are constructed by applying quantitative data and trends to predict one probable future scenario’
Everyone clear?
Me neither.
In fact a scenario is (quite obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of the English language) a predicted situation based on certain assumptions.
Modellers hide behind ‘scenario’ because ‘all models are wrong’
Every modeller should be subjected to a ‘personality test’ for levels of humility, the results of which should accompany their every ‘scenario’
Many thoroughly evil sets of dogma: communism, fascism, national socialism, started by manipulating language.
Nut zero is but the latest in a long line, just as dangerous as the rest.
The IPCC only few weeks ago admitted that their worst case “scenarios” are highly implausible and not likely to occur. Yet our dumb UN lackey politicians have been basing energy policy on this politicised trash for years, and silly activists are out gluing themselves to the road based on this junk science that they have allowed themselves to become brainwashed by. —-One day these silly brainwashed dreamers might actually realise how easily manipulated they have been and see what fools they are.
I don’t believe a single word coming from the $cientists regarding so-called “climate change” because whatever BS they come out with it is all lies. I am wholly “vaccinated” against their propaganda and unlike other well-known “vaccines” mine is 100% safe and effective
I see what you mean. You maybe vaccinated against the junk science but the governments using that “science” are going to take away your petrol or diesel car, your gas central heating and they are going to fob you off with a heat pump. They are going to restrict everything you do and remove all affordable energy and force unaffordable energy on you. ——–You vaccination only works against opinion. It won’t stop the Eco Socialism stealing your prosperity.
And the Statue of Liberty is nowhere near as big as the illustration suggests, either. AI strikes again?
We can go back to 1995 where we see a big turning point in the climate change issue (then known as global warming because a little bit of warming seemed to be occurring from 1976-1998). In the main body of the UN IPCC report in that year the scientists involved concluded that they could see no direct evidence up till then that human emissions of CO2 were causing changes to climate. But the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) written by politicians and bureaucrats decided to say that a discernible human impact had been detected. ———– So, the scientists reported being unable to detect a human signal at this time, but the politicians ignored that and changed it into a clear human influence. This led to a lot of resignations from contributors to IPCC reports and to Patrick Seitz (Physicist and US Head of the National Academy of Sciences) to say he had “never witnessed such a corruption of the peer-review process”. It was really at this time that the worlds politicians who mostly would only be influenced by the Summary for Policymakers written by bureaucrats that did not reflect the true state of the science began to get on board with this reshaping of science to meet broader political goals. This idea that there was indeed a “discernible human influence” on climate by industrial activity led to the Kyoto Protocol. ——- It was now the case that instead of being a body that was supposed to about science, the IPCC was now entirely about politics. It has been the case ever since with the output from climate models used to determine energy and climate policies and to help achieve the UN goal of Sustainable Development. —There is only one problem with this post normal “Official Science”———-Models are NOT science, and they are NOT evidence of anything. Despite that fact, we now have policies in place in the western world like NET ZERO which feed of the irrational fear about climate to lower living standards and impoverish the citizens of the west by removing the use of fossil fuels because we have deemed to have used up more than our fair share in becoming prosperous, not because there is a climate crisis, because in reality there is NO real science at all that supports that idea.
Upto a point you are right. However I think one of the big problems with IPCC reports is the politcal summary, which is not written by scientists, but by politicians. Go figure!
Up to a point I am right? ——Which point would that be? Then you say that the problem with the IPCC is “the political report”——-But that is exactly what I said. It is called the Summary for Policymakers, and is often written before the scientists have finished their reviews. In other words the politicians have already decided what is to appear in their summaries. ——–I don’t want to be disrespectful but there isn’t much I need to “go figure” on this issue.
Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.
I think Professor John Christy in this lecture points out that the models do not match real measurments- satelite and weather balloon to confirm in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttNg1F7T0Y0&t=2669s
Long video. Go to 12:11, but whole video worth watching. The models do not match on the warming in the upper atmosphere either- a lot less than predicted. Note the UN tag line- reminds me of the BBC and Bridgen’s debate.
There’s a lot of money invested in all that modelling, a lot of tenures and funding for research and reputations to maintain. And it follows that very few so called climate scientists are brave enough to come forward and say the truth. It’s money basically. Same as the medical establishment’s blindness to the ongoing excess deaths travesty. If only these cowards would see the bigger picture and be courageous, everything would change and we’d hear no more about it. But mortgages, college funds for the kids, alimonies, holidays, that nice wristwatch, the country club, that car, the wife/husband’s Christmas presents, …etc.etc
“Official Science”, NOT SCIENCE
During my chequered career, I worked in a well know UK based big pharma organisation in a company wide top down ‘change management’ project. The methodology required the identification and communication of a ‘burning platform’ to create the motivation to change across the organisation, ie if you don’t change in the way we want you to, you won’t have a job. And that is what the climate hoax is, a methodology where the burning platform is literal. But it’s a fiction based on lies, bad science, unproven modelling, greed and lust for political power.
Exactly
Science requires funding- they can either raise this from anyone with enough money to be able to say to them “just do research, don’t worry about the outcome, your objective is simply to find the truth” or it needs to produce something useful that can be commercialised or it has to find crises that it is imperative to solve
If the message from “climate science” was along the lines of “nothing much going on” it would remain a relative backwater
But you will find that most climate science is funded by governments, not by “anyone with enough money”. ——-The very same governments that want to impose Net Zero on you. ——-or as someone once pointed out—“Never buy medicine from the same doctor that diagnosed your malady”
It’s hard to know whose hand is up whose backside or whether they are all in it together
And of course it’s our money
It is a symbiotic relationship between government and their “scientists” that they fund. —They need each other. Then when the years pass and things don’t turn out as their “science” predicted government get off the hook by saying they were only following the science.
Yup, exactly like the “public health” industry
££££££££££££££££££££
At a guess….
The simple answer to the headline is hubris.
The Clintel.org book is a good resource, and not overly expensive. If anyone’s interested, I review it here.
“Why Are Scientists So Slow to Abandon Their Failed Climate Models?“
I wasn’t expecting comedy, but thanks I really did laugh out loud when I saw the headline.
Answer: it is unlikely that any scientist whose livlihood, status, glory, will abandon what this depends on.
If someone wants to pay you money to look for a purple horse you will likely not be in a big hurry to say you cannot find any. ———As you point out, it really is that crude.
97% of climate scientist would be out of a job if they admitted “carbon” did not drive temperature.
(after about 280 ppm, or thereabouts).
Why Are Scientists So Slow to Abandon Their Failed Climate Models?
That’s a real “do bears shit in the woods ?” question.
Common sense tells you that if there was a real climate crisis, efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in Western Countries is futile. These countries could stop all emissions and there would be no effect since they produce so little of the total emissions. If there was a real crisis these activists would be in China where the vast amount of CO2 emissions are taking place and increasing at a huge rate. There is no climate crisis.
David Attenborough assured us in his latest series that the temperatures are rising, sea levels are destroying coasts, and to top it all the absolutely pristine oceans he showed us do not really exist and were really full of plastic and pollutants.