Monckton: Climate Nonsensus is 0.3% — not 97%

6 thoughts on “Monckton: Climate Nonsensus is 0.3% — not 97%”

1. “I’ve known conservatives to use the phrase in English as well. I lean conservative from a libertarian starting point.”

   The problem with the nominal conservatives of whom you speak is that their sociopolitical dispositions are the result of uncritically received “wisdom” which lacks the grounding upon the sorts of philosophical bases which make it possible for them to validate their premises or even consciously appreciate those premises’ derivation.

   Such people are intellectual cripples in whom the strongest driving factors appear to be a kind of incoherent neophobia (“fear of the new” because it is new and therefore strange to them) coupled with an unexamined adherence to tradition and religious faith.

   It is for these reasons that American conservatives are in fact not advocates of capitalism (the market operating free of normative government thuggery), but rather seek to impose the same mercantilism against which Adam Smith addressed The Wealth of Nations.

   These qualities in their make-up do not necessarily make American conservatives wrong. Indeed, they tend to be right far more often than are “Liberals,” who have never been more than what wargames designer Greg Costikyan has eloquently called “milk-and-water socialists.”

   However, because these driving forces in the conservative mental make-up afford them neither impetus to acquire a sound fund of knowledge nor the disposition to employ reliable methods of lucid reasoning, they’re still grievously inclined to screw the pooch when it comes to addressing the vicissitudes of the phenomenal universe.

   I have myself come to the conclusion that both the mercantilist and the religious whackjob qualities of American conservatives impose upon them a profound liability, and make of them not quite as great a threat to social comity, good civil order, and governance under the rule of law as is the case with our “Liberal” fascisti, but a danger not to be lightly dismissed.

   As with the “Liberals,” they reliably demonstrate a profound hostility to analytically reasoned critiques of their proposals and actions, and seek to control education to prevent such practices from becoming widespread in the population.

   So I lean anarchocapitalist (AnCap) from a libertarian position.

   ===========
   “When a school system’s emphasis shifts from helping students learn how to think, to teaching them what to think, the dumbing down process is well under way. The principal failure of the education system is not reflected in the fact that most students cannot identify the kinds of information easily found in a Google search, but that they cannot analyze the meaning of such empirical data. An honor student may correctly answer that the Hundred Years War was a series of 14th and 15th conflicts between England and France; that same student may give you a blank response to such follow-up questions as what were the causes or the consequences of this war?”

   “Persons who were educated in the rote methods of the institution-serving schools, tend to be very weak in the skills of intellectual analysis. Being unable to intelligently evaluate a particular proposition, they may resort to public opinion polls, or the pronouncements of a recognized authority for direction.”

   — Butler Shaffer; see http://tinyurl.com/o7qg232

2. I’ve known conservatives to use the phrase in English as well. I lean conservative from a libertarian starting point.

3. Deus vult!” translates as “God wills it!”

   The battle cry of the First Crusade (1095). I use it in recognition of the fact that, when pressed, the Watermelon abandons all pretense of scientific validity and voices his climate catastrophism as driven by nothing more than belief in what is for him an uncritically received “science-y” excuse for achieving his political objectives.

   Which are invariably “Liberal” fascist.

4. Yep, Galileo and me. But please help me out: “Deus vult” means “God …” huh?

5. “In the recent past — 1995-present or 1998-present or 2002-present, depending on whose numbers you like — CO2 measurement has increased but temps are flat to slightly declining. That would seem to falsify the hypothesis that increasing CO2 concentrations are going to push increased temperatures indefinitely. Human production of CO2 may have had a tiny effect on temps, but that’s all and even that remains open to debate.”

   This is precisely the sort of reasoned, thoughtful, sensible consideration of reality which leads to perfectly justified accusations of heresy.

   Remember, “man-made global climate change” is not a scientific contention but a matter of religious faith, which people are expected to believe.

   Cook et al (2013) is a proclamation of faith, and to receive it as if it were a scientific paper to be considered in the light of scientific method is profoundly inappropriate.

   In response to “Can it be proven?” the Watermelon can only shout the equivalent of an enraged “Deus vult!”

6. “An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al., 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change is happening (Lewandowsky et al., 2012).”
   Except that a scientific consensus is a poor basis for public or any support. If a series of studies validate a hypothesis — and that’s not the case with CAGW, since none of its four initials has been confirmed — then the repeated validations make a hypothesis much stronger. The head-count is only vaguely a way to strengthen the position — after all, if a lot of climate scientists say that CAGW is bunk and some do, we like to point to that “counter-consensus”, if I may use the term.
   In the recent past — 1995-present or 1998-present or 2002-present, depending on whose numbers you like — CO2 measurement has increased but temps are flat to slightly declining. That would seem to falsify the hypothesis that increasing CO2 concentrations are going to push increased temperatures indefinitely. Human production of CO2 may have had a tiny effect on temps, but that’s all and even that remains open to debate.