Is it Advisable to Always Follow ‘Truth’ Websites?
Part of worldwide fraud is consistency of propaganda. This is what we find in the climate change deception. I have no problem calling it that because of its root, its people, and the way it stops all public discussion in the media and in government circles.
I was directed to one particular ‘truth’ website (factcheck.org), because, I was told, it specifically cited Canada Free Press as a spreader of skeptic lies about ‘Climategate’, and it proved that skeptics are all wrong.
So, I visited the site and found nothing of the sort. It is a fact (not a deception) that most people are unable to tell fact from fiction, opinion from proven truth. They just go with whoever best reflects their already biased thinking! The site is expressing legitimate opinions, so my response here is only banter, pointing out flaws in their argument. They are free to do the same with me. The problem is not with the site, but with those who read it and think opinion is the same as fact. I am looking at it as an illustration of how people can be duped in large numbers by not knowing how to read properly.
I urge you to go to the site in question. Then check my comments against what it says. You will find that in this particular case, the site is not giving proven facts against sceptics, but is merely expressing its opinion, which is not the same as proof. Also note that the site uses the term ‘skeptic’ when most who object to climate change deception are ‘climate realists’. The word ‘skeptic’ implies a solid argument being objected to by a fringe group. This is nonsense, because the number of realists is large, and growing daily.
So, firstly go to the [url=http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/]article[/b],
Bullet-Points Just Opinion
The article begins with a summary of the subject called ‘Climategate’. In the very first paragraph the writer says that claims to climate change misconduct “we find to be unfounded”. That’s a pretty big claim, when thousands of scientists around the world are still arguing their cases! However, as we read on, we see that the article is only giving an opinion, not proven fact.
The opinion expressed by factcheck is prejudiced. In the first bullet-point, commenting on the hacked emails, the article comes to a remarkable conclusion which is actually contradictory: “An investigation is underway, but there’s plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.”
So, though the investigation has not ended, factcheck has already decided on the outcome! This is consistent with others who blatantly said that any altered figures and facts don’t matter, because the conclusions will remain the same! This is so outrageously unscientific, it is not worth talking about! The idea that the emails make no difference to the worldwide scientific view is scandalous, because the emails belong to scientists who are key to climate change science! And, there is no worldwide view anyway – it is all in flux.
Evidence But No Proof
Unfortunately, Factcheck uses the word ‘evidence’ to imply proof. Evidence is only a piece of information that might count towards the validity (or not) of an hypothesis. It is not proof, which is a strong and conclusive statement. There is NOT “plenty of evidence” the earth is getting warmer. And there is certainly NO proof that humans are responsible. One thing NO climateer can prove, is a link between humans and climate. Yes, they tell us humans are responsible because CO2 has increased. But, this is NOT a scientific explanation – it is just guesswork. It is not proof because there is no known MECHANISM by which CO2 can change climate! There is no good in simply claiming it – where is the evidence, let alone the proof?
There is also the other forgotten fact – that there is no way CO2 can be attributed to human beings in the way climate changers say it is. How do they know a certain percentage is attributed to humans, especially in a particular country? Does CO2 have a label on it, giving date and origin of itself? It’s not such a stupid statement to make – it is a genuine obstacle to climateers, because they make unsubstantiated claims about CO2. Also, they ignore periods in history when CO2 was much greater but temperatures were down! And they also ignore the fact that CO2 deteriorates at a fast rate; It does not just collect in a cloud above the earth!
There is another problem: even if the earth was getting warmer, many scientists say the increase is so insignificant as to be laughable. We see far greater increases on a summer’s day any year! And the dire results shown for increasing by 2 degrees are computerised, not actual! Just to show how ridiculous it is, it is like thinking an episode of The Simpsons has a bearing on what actually happens in our own lives.
Many Sources – Same Bias
The second bullet-point is that the 2007 IPCC Report relied on many sources, not just the CRU. That is true. But, the IPCC also claims it had 2,500 contributors to its Report. It failed to say that of that number only about 50 were scientists – the rest were green activists, etc.
The IPCC also claimed its Report was ‘peer reviewed’, but the results are far from fixed, because the IPCC changed figures at will to ‘hot up’ its arguments! Close to the time the Report was published, scientists were angry because the IPCC deliberately changed the positioning of the decimal point concerning sea-rises. This was important because the IPCC dramatically claimed they would be in the region of about 27 feet! When the decimal point was returned to where it was supposed to be, the sea-level rises were only normal! But, significantly, the IPCC did not tell the media or governments, and so the same old lie continues to be used.
Nonsense is Lucrative
Many more fraudulent changes were made. I have been in contact with several IPCC science contributors who say the same things, because their contributions were altered. Then, just a few days ago, the famed melting glaciers of the Himalayas were shown to be another deception, based on a telephone interview, not on research. Glaciologists say that the melting figures predicted in the IPCC Report were ‘ludicrous’. But, nobody takes any notice, because the ‘facts are fixed’!
The professor who allowed the lie to proliferate, Syed Hasnain, was rewarded with a half-million grant!! And the name of his associate is not a scientist, but IPCC head-honcho, Dr Pachauri, who is already under suspicion for his alleged part in secretive profiteering from carbon-trading! Yet, Hasnain has admitted he did not research his views, but gave them off the top of his head on the telephone. The professor in charge of that section of the 2007 Report, though he had no actual research paper to rely on, nevertheless made it a major part of the report… so much for ‘peer-reviewed’… how do you ‘peer-review’ what does not exist?
When Fraud Is Only ‘Misrepresentation’
The third bullet-point is again a mere personal opinion, for it just repeats the claims of the ones being accused of fraud! The emails are, of course, being ‘misrepresented’. The only way factcheck can know that is if they were the ones sending the emails. The ones who did send them are, naturally, trying their best to get on with damage-limitation. No doubt they have many excuses for things they said in the emails. For readers, the implication is that factcheck is right, every realist is wrong. Nice to have such confidence, eh?
In the first few words, then, factcheck have not given any proof that realists are wrong. It only gives an opinion. It also ignores the fact that almost every claim made in the 2007 Report has been challenged, and rightly so; and that a number of grave deceptions were used in it. Readers of factcheck should legitimately question its conclusions, but should bear in mind it is an opinion piece. They should do so because the opinions are so blatantly anti-realist. That is, it is prejudiced towards climateers, even though the ‘jury is out’ and scientists are still debating the actual science.
Gasp! Horror! Conservatism!
And what is the horrendous proof that Canada Free Press is wrong? The article gives just one line, based on Tim Ball’s article: “An article from the conservative-leaning Canada Free Press claims that the stolen files are proof of a ‘deliberate fraud’ and the ‘greatest deception in history’.”
That was presented to me as proof that CFP was deceptive. Eh? The words actually say nothing of the sort – it just quotes a Tim Ball statement! Again, those who try to attack realists use words to suit themselves and not in a proper sense. And, since when has ‘conservative-leaning’ been something to be treated with contempt? And can’t the reader who thinks it is derisory understand that if CFP is ‘conservative-leaning’ it means the others are leftist, with a socialist agenda?
Opinion, Not Science
The rest of the article gives opinion after opinion, not scientific proofs. The opinion is that claims against climateers are “wide of the mark”, but factcheck only gives the opinions given to them by climateers. They are relying on the truthfulness of climateer scientists, and automatically assume realist scientists are wrong or lying. The logic of this demands attention!
Factcheck says realists are trying to “find evidence of a conspiracy”. This is an error – realists KNOW there is a conspiracy! Factcheck should go back in recent science history and look at the evidences (many of which are already proven). They should also look back farther, to see the ‘creeping socialism’ that has produced the climate change deceptions in the first place. The other fact they ignore is the real aims of climateers – to make money and grab power. All of this is available in academic and popular publications.
How can a ‘truth-telling’ website possibly know that arguments by one group of scientists against another group are ‘wide of the mark’ unless those they wish to support tell them so? Do they claim they have studied every climateer research paper and concluded scientifically that they are right? I doubt it very much. The arguments against climate change claims have existed for three decades or more, at least. There is no way factcheck can conclude anything with proper diligence, just by looking at ‘Climategate’.
The site quotes the World Meteorological Organisation, who says that 2000-2009 “would likely be” the “warmest on record”. In itself this statement is nothing and is only a guess (‘likely be’). Accurate records don’t go back far enough to make it a drama! Also, there has been a definite aim to hide medieval temperatures, and a naughty mixing of actual and proxy measurements to produce a single figure. Factcheck has also ignored the recent claim by Russia that the figures are askew anyway, because of measuring station irregularities. Note, too, that most figures were collected at a time when a large number of Soviet stations were closed down. There is no way the figures could be accurate when huge numbers are not there.
Factcheck quotes several organisations (NASA, etc), blindly assuming they were telling the truth. It is known and acknowledged that many scientists will not rock the boat and endanger their own funding by speaking out against climate change and CO2 claims. As these government-funded groups shout that realist-scientists are ‘funded by big oil’ (untrue in many cases), they themselves are funded by ‘big government that wants to get bigger’… and some, like the CRU, are also funded by the ‘big oil’ so despised by climateers!
The fact that the IPCC relies on a wide number of sources does not prove that the sources are telling the truth, nor that once the details have been provided, the IPCC does not manipulate the results… something it does regularly. The claim by the IPCC that it employs extensive peer-review is to be taken with a pinch of salt, given its record. The most recent Himalayan glacier debacle is just one example of this ‘process’ being non-existent at times. And, most peer-reviews are undertaken by pro-warmists anyway. My, that gives confidence in warming ideas, eh?
Mann is treated with sympathy over some of his leaked emails, but the major problem is that Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ has been debunked not once, but twice! His emails pale into insignificance when compared. Mann, like other warmists, make claims they will not validate. They refuse the raw data to other scientists and, lo and behold, evidences have ‘disappeared’. Well, slap my thighs and sing ‘Coming Round the Mountain’!
The Quicksand Approach
The article goes on to give ‘proof’ from a CRU researcher that the emails are being misrepresented’. How can this be accepted as ‘proof’ when it is only his word against that of realists? And when an investigation has yet to give its conclusions? Hm. That’s as solid as quicksand.
To say that the ‘explanations’ are ‘actually’ this or that, factcheck would have to be working in CRU and have intimate knowledge of the emails and the details surrounding them. Compared to years of known abuse of science by such people, this assumption by factcheck is meaningless and, in places, very naive. And the disappearance of vital CRU information is rather suspect, despite its explanations. To repeat (from its own article): “Investigators are still sifting through 13 years’ worth of CRU emails looking for evidence of impropriety.” Therefore, factcheck cannot, by definition, come up with true conclusions, only opinions.
Many years ago my local newspaper published reports about alleged criminal fraud by the council leader. In interviews, his colleagues foolishly said they stood alongside him, supporting him all the way. It was foolish because the man had not yet gone to trial. When he did, his criminality was proven, he was imprisoned, and the colleagues were silenced. In the same way, no group can double-guess what the CRU investigation will come up with. And, anyway, there are far too many evidences (and proofs) of manipulation and deception, even without a conclusion about emails. The only reason the CRU has been highlighted is that their work has been hacked and made public.
The Old Chestnut – ‘Consensus’
Under the title ‘Confusing the Public’, factcheck says something that is factually wrong: that “scientific consensus has only become stronger”. No it hasn’t. If anything more scientists are joining the realist side – some because they are annoyed at being held to ransom by funding, and all of them because of conscience and scientific facts. These scientists number in the many thousands. So any talk of a ‘consensus’ is rather futile. And, again, the only way factcheck can possibly say there is a ‘consensus’ is because warmists tell them so.
And quoting John Holdren is more of a hindrance than help. His words are discounted by many because of his known bias.
The factcheck article is expressing opinion, not proven fact. The opinion is based on pro-warming scientists’ own explanations and not on any science backed by ‘peer-review’ by those against warmist ideas. Therefore, the opinions are prejudiced. I see nothing wrong in what factcheck said in the article, because I can tell the difference between opinion and proven fact. But, it seems some of its readers cannot tell the difference, and that is where the problem is.
What we need is a court-room-style situation where pro and anti are ranged against each other. The actual data can be provided, and both sides can evaluate the figures given, to let the facts speak for themselves. Guess what – this is known as the scientific process! But, warmists reject this process and keep things silent or hidden. They harass editors into rejecting realists’ arguments and refuse public debate. And governments insist on using prejudiced reports in order to tax people, restrict freedoms, and bring in socialist world rule. They have a long way to go before that happens, but if climateers are not challenged, this is what we will end up with.
The advice, then, is for readers to learn the difference between opinion and proven fact, and between evidences and proofs. Without knowing what they are, no-one can think logically or with some degree of accuracy. The realist camp has plenty of evidences, and some proofs, that climateers are spreading propaganda. One only has to watch the UK government’s ‘Act on CO2’ continual ads to recognise they contain no evidence let alone proofs.
(PS. No, I am not interested in furthering this argument… the science is closed).