Rebel Yid on Twitter Rebel Yid on Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

Enforced Orthodoxy

Outside the ‘Consensus’–Notes of a Climate Change ‘Denier’ -  by Peter Wood


That diversity, of course, is nearly unheard of in the academy itself, where a hardened orthodoxy is enforced with increasing determination. The enforcement itself tells a story. No one has to enforce an orthodoxy on plate tectonics, quantum theory, or Andrew Wile’s proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. All of these were once controversial. Wile’s original proof was shown to be defective. He fixed it. The theories advanced by the accumulation of hard evidence and the rigor of the analysis. – See more at:

Print This Post Print This Post

How Politics Pollutes Science


From the Wall Street Journal, Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer wrote The Myth of the Climate Change ’97%’:


Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.


Common sense skepticism should pause for a 97% consensus on ANYTHING, especial a subject as variable and uncertain as climate.  This is like the 99% percent of the vote that tyrants claim in sham elections and like sham elections this deliberately false consensus comes with raw intimidation and the squelching of dissent.

It is one of the oldest statistical sleights to survey a large group but select a small subgroup and only report the group that confirms your bias or desired results.  Remember the Crest commercial of decades ago that reported a test group has 34% few cavities.  They did not report that was only one of a hundred groups, some with widely different and unreported outcomes.

Even the word ‘consensus’ is purely political.  But as Winston Churchill noted “A lie makes it way around the world before the truth can get its pants on.”

That Obama and Kerry would parrot such rot is indicative of how much politics has polluted science.

Print This Post Print This Post

The Dangers of a Single Hypothesis

“The insistence of the IPCC and the scientific “consensus” that clouds cannot cause climate variations continues to astound me. All atmospheric scientists know that clouds are controlled by a multitude of factors; my position is that causation between clouds and temperature flows in both directions. In contrast, the IPCC’s position is that clouds can only change in response to temperature change (temperature → clouds). But neglecting causation in the opposite direction (clouds → temperature) can lead to large errors in our understanding of how and why the climate system changes, as well as in our diagnosis of how sensitive the climate system is to human influences.

In science, nothing is ever “proved.” Science provides a way to investigate alternative explanations (hypotheses) for how the world works. Unfortunately, in global warming research only one hypothesis is now allowed by the adherents to the IPCC process and narrative. Most observed changes in the climate system are now interpreted under the assumption that humans are the cause.”

Excerpt From: Roy W Spencer. “The Great Global Warming Blunder.” Encounter Books, 2012-08-14. iBooks.

This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store:

Print This Post Print This Post

Scratching the Instincts

In The American Spectator Online
The hollowness at the core of liberalism today.
By William Murchison


The lack of a coherent, understandable goal. What would Climate Reform look like, once accomplished? Would all regions receive just the right amount of gentle rain at just the right times and intervals? How thick should the polar ice cap be? Thicker than now? As thick as in, say, 1890? Warnings about rising sea levels suggest that experts know, or should know, what levels are ideal. They have yet (so far as I know) to inform us as to these ideals, preparatory to proving, in the face of challenge, why the levels they have in mind are best for us.

Then there’s the really big challenge. Whatever Climate Reform looks like, how do we do it, given the lack of an overarching authority for planning and enforcement? Wonderful slogans abound: for instance, cut out dependence on fossil fuels. Well, OK. But does that mean get rid, totally, of coal and crude oil? Can we retain some? How much, in that event? What about all the investments and jobs for which coal and gas account? We’d replace those… how, exactly? And having done all that (whatever it turned out to be), what would we then use for energy? Wind and solar power? From where? On what timetable? At what cost? And who goes first? The Chinese, on whose doorstep lies responsibility for half the globe’s projected increases in emissions? What if they told us, and all our learned experts, to go jump in the lake? We would respond … how?

To find the president of the United States on the myth-making side of the Climate Reform argument isn’t encouraging. But it’s not surprising either. The liberal way, these days, is to devise a problem so as to scratch the instincts — anti-free market, anti-old time America, pro-big government, pro-regulation — of constituencies likely to respond well at election time to those doing the scratching. Possibly the best thing to say about conservatives is that they tend to lack grand ambitions of this sort, neither trusting reformers very much nor neglecting attention to the consequences of abrupt and far-reaching change.


Undefined and unclear objectives is a wonderful place for the moral supremacists to hide.


Print This Post Print This Post

The Age of Unreason


From Nigel Lawson at The National Review Online- A Wicked Orthodoxy.


So how is it that much of the Western world, and this country in particular, has succumbed to the self-harming collective madness that is climate-change orthodoxy? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that climate-change orthodoxy has in effect become a substitute religion, attended by all the intolerant zealotry that has so often marred religion in the past, and in some places still does so today.

Throughout the Western world, the two creeds that used to vie for popular support, Christianity and the atheistic belief system of Communism, are each clearly in decline. Yet people still feel the need both for the comfort and for the transcendent values that religion can provide. It is the quasi-religion of green alarmism and global salvationism, of which the climate-change dogma is the prime example, that has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilege.

The parallel goes deeper. As I mentioned earlier, throughout the ages the weather has been an important part of the religious narrative. In primitive societies it was customary for extreme-weather events to be explained as punishment from the gods for the sins of the people; and there is no shortage of this theme in the Bible, either — particularly, but not exclusively, in the Old Testament. The contemporary version of this is that, as a result of heedless industrialization within a framework of materialistic capitalism, we have directly (albeit not deliberately) perverted the weather, and will duly receive our comeuppance.

There is another aspect, too, that may account for the appeal of this so-called explanation. Throughout the ages, something deep in man’s psyche has made him receptive to apocalyptic warnings that the end of the world is nigh. And almost all of us, whether we like it or not, are imbued with feelings of guilt and a sense of sin. How much less uncomfortable it is, how much more convenient, to divert attention away from our individual sins and reasons to feel guilty, and to sublimate them in collective guilt and collective sin.

Why does this matter? It matters, and matters a great deal, on two quite separate grounds. The first is that it has gone a long way towards ushering in a new age of unreason. It is a cruel irony that, while it was science which, more than anything else, was able by its great achievements to establish the age of reason, it is all too many climate scientists and their hangers-on who have become the high priests of a new age of unreason.