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

Trust Them This Time


From Erick Erickson in Townhall, The Continued Farce:


In the United States today, more and more publications refuse letters to the editor from skeptics of global warming. As the world stays in this plateau of no warming, which we have been in for 17 years, the left works harder to silence dissent.

In A.D. 325, Emperor Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea to establish the parameters of Christian doctrine. St. Nicholas, before passing out presents to children, attacked Arius, an Egyptian cleric who embraced heresies in the Council.

Two thousand years later, the secularists have convened their own Council of Nicaea under the rubric of the IPCC to set the parameters of their secular religion. But instead of Santa Claus attacking heretics, the left has journalists attacking a skeptical public as “holocaust deniers” for daring to be skeptical of moralistic crusaders who have caused the deaths of many and been wrong so often in their environmental and scientific prognostications. But trust them this time.

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.