Do politicized "scientists" practicing scientism deserve respect?
Andre Jute
a question by Andre Jute
Phil H provides another useful spark:
>unlike you, I do have more than a smattering of
>respect for the scientific community and the scientific method.
I have unlimited respect for the scientific method. It works. It
deserves everyone's respect and close application. But first and
foremost it is essential that the scientific method be respected and
applied by scientists themselves.
Whether I respect the scientific community depends on the behaviour of
individual members of that community, and the evidence of their own
respect for the scientific method.
Here is a sequence in which the official institute of American
science, the National Academy of Science, disgraced itself both by
scientism -- the pretense that the scientist stands unchallengeably
above society and its laws -- and an arrogant disregard for the
scientific method, indeed for truth itself, and sold itself to the
highest bidder, in this case the IPCC:
a) The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age bear historical
witness against any possibility of Global Warming by Manmade CO2. It
is therefore considered politically desirable by the IPCC and its
attendant climatologists that the MWP and LIA be somehow removed from
history (a Stalinist feat, half a century after the monster died!).
b) One Michael Mann writes two papers that analyze proxy data in such
a manner that the MWP and the LIA are flattened and the 1990s show a
sharp peak and rising! Holy shit, suddenly Global Warming by Manmade
CO2 is not only possible, but an imminent threat!
c) The papers are "independently" peer-reviewed by people closely
associated with Mann.The peer review proceeds without ever looking at
the data. How, no one knows. Shortly it will become apparent that this
arrogant neglect by incestuously related "independent"
peer-"reviewers" is standard procedure in the climate sciences. Holy
shit, how the guano piles up!
d) The Mann papers are published, and used by the IPCC to throw a
Global Warming scare into world leaders, and every gullible leftwinger
in the world jumps on the bandwagon of Global Warming. Mass hysteria
and vast expenditures follow.
e) Mann refuses to share his data because he believes those who want
the data are out to prove him wrong. Here is the first indication that
Mann sees himself as above the checks and controls and verifications
that attend the work of other scientists. He is forced by the United
States Senate to release his data. So grossly antipathetic to proper
scientific method is Mann's offense that a Subcommitte of the Senate
appoints the most distinguished statistician in the United States,
Edward Wegman to investigate Mann's methods.
f) The National Academy of Sciences immediately appoints another
distinguished academician, Gerald North, to write a report to counter
the Wegman Report. Eh? The NAS by this action in fact tells us that
they (the scientists, more particularly the climatologists) believe
they are so much above the laws of statistics (which represent the
very laws of physics) and above their own rules governing the ethical
conduct of science, that they intend to find Mann correct regardless
of what other scientists, statisticians, and Senators might say. In
short, climatologists, even the wretched Mann (whom any accountable
professional body would have asked to resign long before this)
pronounce from Mount Olympus and are not to be questioned.
g) Wegman (remember, himself a most distinguished member of the NAS)
condemns Mann as a statistical incompetent, who furthermore behaves
unscientifically, and condemns Mann's conclusions point by point as
unfounded. Under oath North and each of his panelists in turn say that
they do not dispute a single one of the Wegman Report's devastating
condemnations of Mann. The North Report in fact condemns Mann's
statistical procedures, Mann's unscientific behaviour, and Mann's
conclusions point by point as unfounded, just like the Wegman Report
does.
h) The best North (remember, he was appointed to shore up Mann!) can
say about Mann's two papers (on which, remember, trillions of dollars
had already been committed by governments at the urging of the IPCC),
is that they are "plausible", a weasel-word carefully chosen because
it doesn't have any scientific or statistical meaning, such as for
instance "possible" has. North explicitly defines "plausible" as
conclusions which have not yet been disproven. (But he has already
pointed out that each of those conclusions is countered by facts
proven so often they are common currency among those who know their
climatology! In short, North knows Mann's conclusions are impossible
and therefore clearly implausible as well. Dr North was in an
impossible position, appointed by the NAS to shore up Mann, who on
investigation turned out to be a total incompetent, probably a crook,
against what was seen as an attack by outsiders.)
i) North and the National Academy of Science then let the media report
without correction that the North Panel had "vindicated" Mann's Hockey
Stick which disappeared the politically inconvenient truth of the
Mediaval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, in short they knowingly
fronted for a politically convenient lie.
j) The NAS, with the honourable exception of Dr Wegman, are still
fronting for that lie. Two committees led by distinguished members of
the NAS, Drs Wegman and North, found Mann incompetent and said
pointedly that Mann's flattening of the Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age is not supported by the data -- scientific language for
"he lies through his teeth" -- yet the IPCC continues to show Mann's
Hockey Stick graph in various new guises, without a single word of
complaint from the NAS. The NAS, in chasing a political chimera, has
thus made itself an accomplice to by far the most expensive lie ever
told.
So tell us, Phil, is the NAS a scientific community we should respect?
Are climatologists on the whole a scientific community we should
respect? I agree in advance, there are certain outstanding men, like
Lindzen, who have raised their voices, but the rest are either
implicated, complaisant whores of any passing fashion, or careerists
intimidated into silence by the thuggish behaviour of the Global
Warming Faithful, all equally despicable in my opinion.
There are, fortunately, many, many other scientists to respect for
their diligent honesty and sound method and dedication to the highest
standards.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
Tim McNamara
Still Just Me - <stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Do politicized "scientists" practicing scientism deserve respect? a
> >question by Andre Jute
>
> Does a narcissic dickwit like Andre Jute who constantly starts new
> threads from old ones for no reason except to stroke his ego deserve
> respect?
He keeps getting it if you keep answering his stupid posts. If
everybody stopped engaging Jute in his bullshit, his "participation" in
r.b.t. would stop being a problem.
You must bear in mind that Andre's history indicates that he gets great
enjoyment out of ruining newsgroups. He's a dick, basically.
landotter
> In article <9r097593jrecppkn58vdvn4s9usu2cu...@4ax.com>,
Counterpoint: I think he's an asshole.
This may not, in fact, be a contradiction of your assertion. Jute may
compromise a magical duality bridging the taint.
Tim McNamara
<eab73db8-3f3c-49ae...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
landotter <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
You make a good point. Integral mathematical analysis would indicate,
therefore, that Jute is a douchebag.
andre...@aol.com
<stillnoEmail...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
>
> <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >a question by Andre Jute
>
> threads from old ones for no reason except to stroke his ego deserve
> respect?
I don't think that it is Andre Jute who is posting all this messages.
In reality is Andre Jute who is posting the messages and not really
Andre Jute. Its is Andre Jute, passing himself as Andre Jute that has
been posting a bunch of nonesense to make Andre Jute look bad.
andre...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Differentitiation will show how he is sometimes a dick witt, sometimes
an fuck witt and sometimes just a pain in the ass.
Pat
> But I think you're right. Jute exceeds the standard "dick" level.
> That's why I last gave him a "dick-wit" label. However, he might be
> all the up to "fuck-wit".
We do agree on something!