Or so a very large number of people believe. And, are you surprised when so many lie through their teeth?

View full article here

As a retired scientist, the thing that has saddened me most throughout this whole dreadful AGW saga has been the obvious legacy of distrust and dishonour that will hang over science and scientists as people come to realize the level of dishonesty and exaggeration of findings that the 'political'/climbing pseudo-scientists have indulged in to please their masters. The politicians are always slippery enough to move on and transfer their share of the blame to their underlings and will show their horror, horror, I tell you!, at how they have been misled by scientists and 'top' national scientific institutions like the Royal Society - and how they have determined on another Westminster committee on very moderate remunerations, perks and fringe benefits, who will make sure this never happens again, until the next time it is politically expedient!

I don't despair at these developments - I did that years ago!

When I recall the films of the 1950s+60s there was a view of scientists as potentially dangerous people - those like Dr Strangelove may destroy the world. That was extreme but it had the useful by product that people understood that there had to be oversight of science by people outside the scientific circle. Science might give us answers but it couldn't control policy.

The recent scares including AGW have succeeded because this view has been replaced. Now we see AGW campaigners and politicians claiming the science as authority for what they want to do. "The science says we should" do X is seen as an unquestionable justification.

What I find disturbing about the Guardian article is there is no self awareness. They talk about the issue of scientists informing the public but forget that it is the media that do this job. They forget that it is their failure to adequately question the scary predictions that causes the loss of faith in science in general

Dear Richard
You must be aware that Daniel Nepstad is going to be WG II Ar5

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/i ... uthors.pdf, see page 2

Scientists, Mann, Hansen, Jones et al., who do not adhere to the discipline of Science, in particular falsifiability, are not just dangerous, they are our worst nightmare.
The long march through the institutions is now almost complete.
All we can place our hope in is the fact that the Establishment of every era must inevitably fall.

That explains a great deal ... Nepstad had a reputation to protect!

It might be worth pointing out to them that science NEVER says "we should" anything. In this respect, the best it can do is make predictions, but even they aren't guaranteed.

If anybody sticks a "should" or "ought" in, then that has nothing to do with science and they've slipped in a Mickey Finn for unwary public consumption.

People might not be too bad on their "general knowledge" of science and its output in technological terms but I think the vast majority don't have a clue as to how it works and what the pursuit is. In short, most people are not scientific and wouldn't know how to take a scientific stance on pretty much anything. (They might use a formula etc but that isn't science.)

Also they find it hard to distinguish between science and its byproduct*, technology.



* Ignoring the complication of feedback loops. Nothing is ever simple.

My point exactly.

They say "science says" we should stop development in Africa because people are dying due to climate change. I say "science says" preventable diseases like Malaria are minimised or eliminated in developed countries so we should accelerate development.

They say "science says" Bangladesh is vulnerable to climate change so we should stop development. I say "science says" poor places like Bangladesh are vulnerable due to their poverty and that if we allow development its vulnerability will cease.

"science says" is meaningless.

Courtesy of Tim Worstall's blog: BP Relied on Faulty U.S. Data



Whoops.

The problemis somewhat that scinetist, like human beings generally, are influenced by their paymasters & the richest & most monolithic paymaster is government.

However this is made much worse by the handle that government has on appointing "scientists" & controlling their media access.

I have written previously about how both the UK & Scottish governments appointed Chief Science Advisors who, by their statements are scientific illiterates yet the mere fact of them being so appointed gives them media credibility. The same applies right down the ladder - even the Royal Society, getting £45 million annually from government, has been turned into another fakecharity.

The answer is for professional bodies to start disbarring political (or indeed commercial, should that happen) who are caught lying or if the professional bodies are so corrupted that they will not do so, for real scientists, even if they are in a minority, to quit such "professional" bodies. A "professional" body which only had bean counters & political appointees would be no more a scientific body than the "Union of Concerned Scirntists" (membership $25 to anybody).

It's not only AGW that scientists are scamming people on.


‘’They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’

World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview

http://cagecanada.homestead.com/Intervi ... rEven.html


Why not speak up earlier?

As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

Le Parisien



This should shame all those that have, with a passion, demonised smokers as the dregs of the earth just because they don't like smoking personally and have used the 'passive smoke' crap as an excuse for their vile, malicious hatred. Shame on them all.

Rosie,

That's very interesting. It says a lot about the social/political agenda in scientific establishments. This news should be spread around a lot more.

But going back to the topic that interests you:

I think you're right. It's one thing not to like being in an atmosphere with the smell of tobacco smoke in the air or having the smoke waft across you. And it's fair enough to object too and request the smoker to FO, provided one was there first. (I'm talking about in public spaces. In private, I say the owner is the boss and sets whatever rules he likes, and that includes restaurants and pubs.)

But it's an entirely different thing for non-smokers to get all steamed up, sanctimonious and 'superior' about it — limp, windbag, moralistic posturing (Grrrrr!) — especially when invoking the health issue, which is highly uncertain as I understand it and my guess is that there really isn't one.

I remember reading about the WHO report on passive smoking at least a decade ago or thereabouts. There was some controversy because the basic results, or whatever, showed no statistically significant effect. In fact, the results showed that those subjected to passive smoking were healthier or lived longer or something nice. But again, that wasn't statistically significant either, of course.

The study was clearly 'inconvenient' to the cause of the sponsors but that wasn't going to stop them.

My own view is that smokers should be considerate of others around them especially in paying attention to where their smoke wafts, and they should act on the assumption that if others aren't smoking then they won't want to be subjected to their smoke.

But there's a flip side to that: non-smokers should give smokers a break. After all, smokers are VERY generously paying, in part, non-smokers' tax bills.

Give it up though, Rosie. If it makes you feel better, spend some of your cost savings on stink bombs and drop one anywhere you see a NO SMOKING sign. Take your own needs into account first though. If you are in a restaurant say, then only drop one on your way out. But first check that I'm not around when you do, please.

Ah John, thank you for the kind words, especially as I'm one of those 'non-persons' a smoker, it warms my heart that not everyone reviles me.

Forgot to say, even though they were kind words, especially in view of most words aimed at us, I could still detect a hint of distain for smokers. Never mind though, any kind word is welcome.

Give up, afraid not, contrary to popular belief, I actually ENJOY my ciggies, enjoyment is not known to zealous smoke haters.

Personally I'd prefer they made tobacco illegal altogether so that those that treat me as something left on the bottom of their shoe will have to pay a hell of a lot more tax to make up for lost tobacco revenue. I'd cut off my nose in spite to see this. Because I'd still get my ciggies, one way or another, if you get my drift.

BTW: for a real insight into the anti-smoking hatred campaign look into the Godber blueprint (WHO included of course) from the early 60's/70's, you'll see it's being played out to the letter.


This is below just about sums up the liars & hypocrites.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827172/posts


BISMARCK - North Dakota House representatives Monday voted overwhelmingly against a bill proposing to ban tobacco sales in the state.

Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.

There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued.

The ban also could take away certain funding for these groups for tobacco control programs.


John, people think the AGW scam has many organisations dipping into the taxpayer coffers, not as many as the anti-smoking cartel. Just a taster below: There's thousands more off-shoots all getting rich off of a hate campaign that would make the old nazi regime green with envy. I'm just waiting for one of them to come up with the final solution for smokers.

http://www.tobaccocontrolgrants.org/Pag ... anizations

http://www.tobaccofreecenter.org/

Here http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/18114.html it appears that solar cookers have been used to disprove the greenhouse theory. Maybe it's the goose of AGW that's cooked.