Climate science – the battle for hearts and minds

As I.A. Richards wrote, in Science and Poetry, 1926:

We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forcible in his enunciation. In fact, we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner.

Francis Darwin, in Eugenics Review, April 1914, wrote:

In Science, credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to the man to who[m] the idea first occurs.

The shaping of our opinions, of our attitudes, of our hearts and minds, is what politics is all about.

The concept that the adult human brain is malleable, that it won’t read because it’s not interested, that it will form opinions based on what amounts to sustained propaganda from birth, is not one any of us will readily admit to. Now, at this age, brought up in a non-religious household which didn’t appear to shape my opinions one way or the other, I can see how wrong it is to think we weren’t indoctrinated.

We were. Conservative values of hard work, God, Queen and country, family – I don’t recall any of those being shoved down our throats and yet we believed in them plus allowing children to grow up without sexualizing or drugging them into useless members of society – all of these were taken as read.

And the favourite of the globalists – the big ‘realization’  that what our parents ‘taught’ us, when they did nothing of the kind, at least not overtly, was ‘wrong’, creates a more deep-seated scepticism than if we’d come to our ‘realizations’ apparently off our own bat.   It’s the Witness for the Prosecution syndrome – that if you want people believing B, then imbue them with a deeply flawed A most of their lives, almost a parody of A, then bring out a Voltaire or a Hegel to ‘show’ they were ‘wrong’ to have believed those things.   When, in fact, A was more or less correct all along.

Bring out what appears to be ‘scientific proofs’ that we were wrong up till now and this connects with some chord in our psyche which craves for the new and improved, for the ‘new studies have found’ syndrome, when they damn well haven’t shown that at all. Yet because it tunes in with our national mood, further exploration of what the revisionists are saying is unnecessary in our minds – ‘everyone knows’ is the usual justification trotted out.   You can achieve more through scepticism than through straight propaganda and that’s what this Guardian writer has done – tried to assume the mantle of the sceptic himself, rather than one pushing the globalist line.

The effect is to create a whole society which is sceptical by nature and therefore at odds with the society’s underpinnings, a seething mass of disgruntled people whom the elite keeps bubbling over in their war against each others’ positions, the better to rule them with. At the appropriate juncture, the strings are pulled, we all join together against the Hun or the Iranian and off we go to war.

I never realized just how proactive this all is until reading this Guardian article. As a rule I don’t read the Guardian as it was wrong on most things when I did read something by a person called Toynbee years ago and the occasional dip into its political commentary showed it seemed to have this amazing capacity to put flawed ideas and actually believe in them … or appear to.

What a simply amazing statement:

“The Owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk,” wrote Hegel on wisdom’s habit of arriving late in a time of crisis. Will the final acceptance by some former sceptics of climate science aid effective action by nightfall?

It is all to play for. Global events leave only the most pathological forms of denial standing, and challenge dated economic doctrines.

I’m seriously not strong on this issue one way or the other, having seen definite change over a decade in Russia but equally having seen the counter-science of late. So you might say that I’m still malleable on the issue though not on the Gore/Strong/arcane religion of the greens – as far as anything can be established, I think it has been that these people have a mission and our oppression is part of that mission, through everything from carbon ‘footprinting’, whatever that is, to outright fruitcakery [scroll down for Gordon Davidson and Corrine McLaughlin, who set up the WSI in Washington, D.C. in 1995 and were also instrumental in setting up the Valdez Principles].

Yet there’s something so virulent, so earnest, so overtly propagandist in those opening paragraphs that I thought to myself – Guardian readers must be truly brainwashed if they buy that out-and-out grab for their hearts and minds. ‘Leave only the most pathological’ is not a stance based on science or rational argument – it’s emotive from the start, it’s combative, as is seen in the ‘it’s all to play for’.

To play for? That’s precisely how the global elite see it and let me quote Svali again, from 2000:

[They] believe strongly in balancing opposing forces, in the pull between opposites. They see history as a complex chess game, and they will fund one side, then another, while ultimately out of the chaos and division, they are laughing because they are ultimately beyond political parties.

By poor education, by an unfit society which neither exercises nor eats properly nor thinks, whose only truth comes from the tribal dailies of their choice and from the electronic media, there is a whole malleable mass to exploit – a socialist’s dream. And at the Guardian, you see them chanting their mantras in the comments section, having bought the ‘climate science’, lock, stock and barrel.

This Guardian article pours scorn on the last pockets of resistance to the climate juggernaut – yes, I can indulge in my own propaganda here – and casts sceptics as ‘pathological’. Straight ad hominem in lieu of debate and I’d swear the Guardianisti – another propaganda term – never question the assumption of the appropriateness of the word ‘pathological’ in conjunction with ‘climate sceptic’.

Every major blogger where I’ve read the counter ‘science’ has laid down data, data and more data. The IPCC data has been, if not ‘debunked’, at least ‘scepticised’ enough for us to know that this thing is most certainly not an established ‘science’.

Chuckles is firmly in the sceptic camp and suggests that the last paragraph of the article says it all. So let’s look at it:

Danny Boyle’s glorious celebration in the opening ceremony of what humanity can achieve through optimistic, open and collective endeavour, from universal health care to the world wide web, was an Olympic torch to follow. The oil company BP, the Olympics’ hilariously chosen sustainability partner, is one to douse.

Oh dear, that is pretty bad, is it not?   Propaganda to the end. The call to action, to marginalize sceptics, to snuff out the last vestiges of these upstarts who dare to challenge the climate juggernaut built on the flawed science which Watts-Up recently showed has been literally manipulated by shoddy data choices. And ‘Danny Boyle’s glorious celebration’, which the Labour Party was highly delighted with and said so. I’ve just finished three posts on that very issue – that ‘celebration’. I’m worn out by it.

Guardianisti simply ignore all that energy, all that backgrounding, all that writing just like that [snaps fingers] and proceed on their merry way, reinforced by articles such as this one from Andrew Simms. He needs to be backgrounded and I’d wager he’s a left apologist in general.

A fellow blogger asked me how I could form an opinion, not having seen something. I have seen the accurately described original now and it showed neither more nor less than what trusted sources such as certain fellow bloggers across the world have said but that begs the question. The question was how I could form an opinion, sight unseen.

How do any of us form opinions? It’s absolute garbage to say that we are not influenced by others. So when The Slog, Lord Somber, Chuckles [who has his foibles but is consistently right on many issues], Watts-Up and similar quality sources ALL say the same thing, as distinct from regurgitating known trolldom, then my first move is to accept that, until proven otherwise. I do a certain amount of research to get the general idea, the bottom line, particularly where it quotes instances, blow-by-blow descriptions of the action.

So, after the first post, I explore further, expecting to see it not quite as vehemently as first portrayed but the further and further one goes into it, the more and more it’s confirmed and these guys then become even more trusted sources. That’s how we all operate, that’s how the Guardianisti are so brainwashed into incorrectness, such as this Guardian article which makes mention in passing of irreproachable ‘science’ to make it appear intellectual and Scientific [that God word] and which can be taken apart, if only someone could be bothered and they, the Guardianisti could be relied upon to read it with an open mind.

Sadly, we are more and more hardwired now into camps on various issues. I’m still in a malleable state on climate science but what I do know fullwell is that a science which requires this sort of propaganda to keep the faithful in line is shoddy in the extreme and creates huge scepticism in itself, before one even looks at the issues.

As I.A. Richards wrote.


Check this out if you can.

16 comments for “Climate science – the battle for hearts and minds

  1. August 3, 2012 at 9:21 am

    I didn’t want to put it in the text but the Minerva reference is such an amazingly blatant trigger for those in the know that to put it up front in this article in a major daily shows enormous ‘chutzpah’. That Minerva reference deserves a post on its own.

  2. August 3, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    Initially I went along with global warming, assuming it was a matter of scientists doing science and peer-review doing its stuff.

    The attitude first made me take a deeper look – the settled science attitude, the constant use of emotive language.

    For example, a letter published in the magazine of the Royal Society of Chemistry urged the editor not to publish any material written by climate sceptics. Okay, it was only one letter, but I was astounded and suspicious. I have since learned how right I was to be suspicious.

  3. August 3, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    I made my mind up on the day the cops turned up at Tallbloke’s door.

    Any argument the warmists might have had clearly could not withstand critical scrutiny if they had to invoke Norfolk plod, and therefore they must be lying to me.

  4. Voice of Reason
    August 3, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    I am curious. What part of the data and mathematical models convinces you that the work is fraudulent?

    • August 3, 2012 at 5:29 pm

      To answer it, I’ll need to find the Watts-Up post. As I’m not even blogging this evening and tomorrow due to commitments, VofR, give me until Sunday [if awake] and I’ll reply.

    • August 3, 2012 at 8:27 pm

      The models themselves are clearly not fraudulent, it is the use made of them that is fraudulent – the failure to admit they don’t work.

      The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. IPCC Third Assessment Report – Chapter 14.

    • ivan
      August 3, 2012 at 10:07 pm

      For a start much of the data used is selected to give the desired results – the data sets that don’t are rejected. Nowhere has there been any evidence of control data being used to compare the satellite gathered data with actual physically collected data – this is just bad engineering practice, you always calibrate your instruments if you want reliable data and publish those calibrations so others can check your work.

      Then you have the problem of trying to model a system that requires chaos theory to give a glimmer of understanding. It also helps if you can define the whole system – they can’t at the moment.

      Finally they don’t know how the physical system works so cannot reliably forecast next weeks weather let alone hundreds of years hence.

      Only this week there has been a paper published that shows the earth is absorbing twice as much CO2 as has been calculated and another one that shows the actual temperature calculations for the US are less than half those ‘corrected’ and used for the models.

  5. David A. Evans
    August 4, 2012 at 1:57 am

    Temperature is not a proxy for energy! If you want a graphic demonstration of that, pre-heat an oven to 200°C, open the door with your face in the upflow of warm air. No damage so far and that was 200°C air.

    Now, boil a pan of water and put your hand in it! No, I’m not serious, don’t do that! It does illustrate the temperature/energy difference though. The kitchen is a dangerous place, I’ve burned myself with steam before.


  6. Greg Tingey
    August 4, 2012 at 9:23 am

    I’ll repeat the question.
    IF your claims of anti-GW are correct, why are the big insurance companies, including Loyds’ of London so shit-scared of it?
    Their statisticians have come to the same conclusions as the climate scientists you don’t believe, because you would rather believe the Koch brothers, and (some) oil compnies.

    • Dave_G
      August 4, 2012 at 12:48 pm

      LOL – insurance companies ‘sh1t-scared’ of MMGW? Far from it – they ENJOY scares as they offer the greatest opportunity for them to increase premiums – and who benefits from these premium increases? Especially when the predicted ‘disasters’ don’t come about?? Naive? You epitomise the word!

      • Greg Tingey
        August 6, 2012 at 7:28 am

        Exactly backwards.
        They are worried that the premiums will become too high.

    • David A. Evans
      August 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm

      The Kochs sponsored the never sceptical of CAGW Richard Muller.
      Exxon/Mobil has given $100,000,000 to Stanford for a distinctly non-sceptical study on bio-diversity.

      Now, which oil companies did you mean?

      As for insurance companies, what’s not to like sponsoring studies claiming great hazard so you can increase premiums with minimum payout?

      There is no trend for hurricanes or tornadoes. Accumulated Cyclonic Energy is at record lows! Where’s the problem?

      Let’s assume the catastrophists are right in as far as AGW is happening, they would be wrong as regards increased storms as the energy gradients would be reduced. Warm periods such as we are in have always been periods of relative calm, it’s cold periods that have the worst storms, eg the Little Ice Age.

      I recall in 2009 watching the US temps as recorded by GISS change in the runup to Copenhagen. 1934 went from joint warmest to 6th, whereas 2006 went from 6th warmest to joint warmest. (It has since increased again and is now warmer than 1998.)


    • August 4, 2012 at 4:17 pm

      Why do so many people who believe the outlandish claims of climate heating doom refer to the Kochs like they are some kind of bogeyman? The only time I see the Koch name is as a major sponsor for PBS.

      This constant harping on about the Kochs has all the hallmarks of major league tinfoil hattery.

      • David A. Evans
        August 4, 2012 at 5:43 pm

        Why do so many people who believe the outlandish claims of climate heating doom refer to the Kochs like they are some kind of bogeyman?

        I suspect it’s because when Pete Gleik phished Heartland, the forged document incriminated the David Koch Foundation.

        In fact their contribution was to Health Care!


  7. David A. Evans
    August 4, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    Strange how Greg disappears the second he’s challenged.


Comments are closed.