The politicization of Science

The beauty of the net and political blogging is that data is always coming in from disparate sources. This one, on the climate change targets, comes from the mother of one of my blog’s contributors, Rossa.

Straight to it:

Many of us have been misled to believe that the 2°C was established by leading climate scientists and even made to “international law” that now has to be strictly adhered to, and that CO2 emissions must start falling by 2020.

Prof Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber (0:18 mark), Director of the ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, for example, claimed on German public television on July 3, 2011, that the 2°C target indeed was “international law” and that CO2 emissions needed to start falling by 2020 if humanity was to have any chance of reaching the 2°C target. 

On December 3, 2014, Schellnhuber admitted that the 2°C target was not international law (0:53) and then postponed the year CO2 emissions would have to start dropping by an entire decade, to 2030.

Suddenly we got goalposts that were not international law and had been moved out another 10 years. 

Read the rest at the end of the link above.  Comments were good.  One said:

 Perhaps the scientists have traded their science for a political agenda, but I don’t think any scientist would willingly disguise himself as a politician because it is his science that gives him the knowledge he believes is worth something.

Another answered:

…but then, there are those “scientists” such as Dr. Michael Mann who enjoys playing his quasi-political role from the safety of his ivory tower at the University of Pennsylvania.

Though there are even two universities there it seems.  Comments clears that up.

Seems to me that where they’re getting a bit tied up in nomenclature is that a small s scientist is one interested in finding out about what actually does make things tick.  He’ll hypothesize, experiment, fail, try again, keep searching and he’s always ready to concede that some new knowledge might supercede the old.

The other type, the capital S Scientist is political, greedy for funds or both.  He’s interested in turning a theory into dogma a.s.a.p.  Thus:

Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

“Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling. The idea didn’t hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany’s most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chief scientific adviser — a position any researcher would envy.”

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html

It’s this latter lot, with their Chief Druids found at The Royal Society, writing in Scientific American and of course, in the IPCC and with the whole climate scam, who are the ones we should lump in with politicians and get rid of the lot of ’em.

10 comments for “The politicization of Science

  1. Viscount Rectum
    December 16, 2014 at 11:38 am

    The main cause of climate change is TIME, what was at the North Pole before ice?, it may have been flying fish. Ask why the MSM ignore the Chem-Trail question or better known as “aircraft weather modification”, lookup “skywatcher” on you-tube.

  2. Graham wood
    December 16, 2014 at 11:50 am

    James. I think it is fairly well established that many are not real scientists, but computer modellers, and ideologues with a “warmist” axe to grind. Real scientists in only rare cases would ever say. “The science is settled” where such a range of unknowns and imponderables exist as in the study of global meteorology and climates.
    By the way, they never say WHICH climate is changing, and why do they inconsistently ignore that supposed global temperatures have not risen for the past 18 years or so?
    Questions, questions.

  3. Flyinthesky
    December 16, 2014 at 11:55 am

    I am an ardent believer and enthusiast of “science”, the problem is there is very little untainted science.
    The power and opportunity that modern science confers distorts the purity of it in various degrees. So much so I have little faith in any of it.
    Why would any other area of science be any different.
    Entities don’t secure the services of an expert to question a position, they secure the services to reinforce it. If they don’t they will be replaced by one that will. It all works the same.

  4. December 16, 2014 at 5:59 pm

    The 12-day UN climate change summit in Peru has generated more carbon dioxide than an entire African country. The talks, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, generated more than 50,000 tonnes of CO2, as more than 12,500 politicians, green activists, diplomats and journalists jetted in to Lima.
    The emissions give these talks the largest ever carbon footprint for a United Nations climate summit, and is greater than the emissions produced whole countries such as Malawi, Fiji, Sierra Leone or Barbados over the same period.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/oh-dear-oh-dead-oh-dear-oh-dear-oh-dear-oh-dear/

    • Flyinthesky
      December 16, 2014 at 6:26 pm

      It’s all a gigantic game with specially selected and hand picked players, us normal mortals, or indeed anyone who isn’t bang on message, don’t get to play it, we are just the pawns within and are subject to it.
      Most of the world, care of our faux democracies, are subject to these emmanations.
      When we change the incumbent party in our “democracies” the only thing we change is the party that implements them, the real government remains. Democracy is an illusion, at best.
      We live in a world where agendas abound, none of them ours it all works the same.

  5. December 17, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    “But then, there are those “scientists” such as Dr. Michael Mann who enjoys playing his quasi-political role from the safety of his ivory tower at the University of Pennsylvania”

    The same Michael Mann who is to give a lecture on ‘Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists’

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/14/hilarious-irony-michael-mann-to-give-lecture-on-professional-ethics-for-climate-scientists/

    You couldn’t make it up, as Richard Littlejohn would say…

  6. December 17, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    Thanks, people.

  7. Alan
    December 18, 2014 at 12:00 am

    Is it just me, or has the BBC written the I.P.C.C. out of history since they stated that there has been no significant global warming for the last fifteen years?
    The last BBC “climate news” item I saw referred to some UN weather organisation which, I was not surprised to hear, promoted the catastrophic climate change mantra.

  8. December 18, 2014 at 1:29 am

    The GW mob keep threatening us with weather such as is enjoyed in Queensland. Beautiful one day: perfect the next, as they say up there where the temperature is generally 15 deg higher than down here in Tasmania. No GW ‘scientist’ has ever explained just how Singaporeans and folk in other such equatorial places have managed to thrive given that they should have been inundated and boiled in their beds by now.

Comments are closed.