Critics Face Harsh Climate When It Comes To Expressing Dissent – Especially When It Comes To Science

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Tough Times for Critics

By Die kalte Sonne
(Translated by P. Gosselin)

The climate issue now dominates almost all areas of life. This makes it all the more important that the arguments of the critics of the climate alarm are finally heard seriously. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

On the contrary, those who do not support the alarm line will be publicly scolded, possibly obstructing their career and future. An almost perfectly controlled opinion system has been established.

Has something like this existed before? Have there been cases where good arguments were ignored for far too long, where critics had to fear reprisals, to the point where they were finally proved right and public opinion suddenly turned? Yes, there have been such cases. It seems to be a basic psychological pattern in human society to regard one side as the only valid truth in controversial debates and to present competing opinions as the misguided misconceptions of some madmen. The following three examples illustrate this:

1. The case of Claas Relotius

I’m sure you know the case. A Spiegel editor (Claas Relotius), who was highly respected at the time and showered with prizes, had incorporated years of invented facts into his reports. When another reporter (Juan Moreno) found out about his colleague, his superiors did not believe him at first, although he provided good evidence. This went so far that he was threatened with termination of his contract.

Moreno fought for his professional survival and was able to convict Relotius in the end. You can read in Moreno’s exciting book “Thousand Lines of Lies: The Relotius System and German Journalism“.

 

2. Doping in cycling

For many years, professional doping was used in cycling, and it is probably still the case today. Whoever wanted to make the manipulations public was done in the cycling scene. The best example was the multiple Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, who defended himself against all accusations legally and otherwise with great effort. In the end, everything was discovered.

In January 2013 Armstrong confessed his doping past in an interview with Oprah Winfrey. Read the book “The Cycling Mafia and its dirty business” by Tyler Hamilton and Daniel Coyle.

3. The rejection of continental drift

Today we know that the continents are moving. When Alfred Wegener proposed this at the beginning of the 20th century, he was laughed at and ridiculed. Long after his death it turned out that he was right. We had reported about it here in the blog (“Plate tectonics is catching on: Lessons for the Climate Debate” and “Continental Shift and Climate Change: The Miraculous Repetition of the History of Science“). A comprehensive treatise on the subject was published by Naomi Oreskes in her book “The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science“.

=======================================

4. Alzheimer’s cabal

Another example of rampant dogmatism in science to add here is: “The maddening saga of how an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure for decades” by Sharon Begley.

Her report exposes how a “cabal” of “influential researchers have long believed so dogmatically in one theory of Alzheimer’s that they systematically thwarted alternative approaches.” Had it not been for this dogmatism, “we would be 10 or 15 years ahead of where we are now,” said Dr. Daniel Alkon, a longtime NIH neuroscientist who started a company to develop an Alzheimer’s treatment.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

10 responses to “Critics Face Harsh Climate When It Comes To Expressing Dissent – Especially When It Comes To Science”

  1. Chris Hanley

    A recent amazing example of corruption in science and research is Theranos.
    https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Blood-Secrets-Silicon-Startup/dp/152473165X
    I think a criminal case is still pending in Californian courts.

  2. Don B

    5. Nutrition science: demonizing saturated fat

    There was a lot of research which did not back the consensus view that saturated fat was harmful to heart health, but it was ignored. In the introduction to “The Big Fat Surprise”, Teicholtz tells about a distinguished scientist who dared to question the low-fat mantra and was severely criticized.

    “This kind of reaction met all experts who criticized the prevailing view on dietary fat, effectively silencing any opposition. Researchers who persisted in their challenges found themselves cut off from grants, unable to rise in their professional societies, without invitations to serve on expert panels, and at a loss to find scientific journals that would publish their papers. Their influence was extinguished and their viewpoints lost. As a result, for many years the public has been presented with the appearance of a uniform scientific consensus on the subject of fat, especially saturated fat, but this outward unanimity was only made possible because opposing views were pushed aside.”

  3. drumphish

    Always somebody who wants to harsh your mellow.

    The experiment to prove you were wrong and discovered the reason why.

    The cosmic reality.

    “Victor Franz Hess was interested in radiation from radioactive material. During this work he observed a kind of radiation (“ultra radiation”) which appeared to be unrelated to radioactive decay of materials in his laboratory, but had another source. He assumed that the origin of this radiation was radioactive decay of certain minerals in the bedrock below the ground surface. To investigate this hypothesis, he in 1912 carried out measurements of the “ultra radiation” from a rising balloon. To his great surprise, he found that the radiation did not decrease with altitude, but actually instead increased. This empirical falsification of his original hypothesis demonstrated that the source for this peculiar radiation was extraterrestrial, instead of being terrestrial as originally thought.

    In 1919 he received the Lieben Prize for his discovery of the “ultra-radiation” (cosmic radiation), and the year after became Extraordinary Professor of Experimental Physics at the Graz University (The Nobel Foundation 1936).”

    Climate4you has great reading material.

  4. Critics Face Harsh Climate When It Comes To Science – Menopausal Mother Nature

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  5. Charles Higley

    It should be interesting to see what happens in the future to some interesting developments that are described below. Resistance is already great but it seems that some pieces might be falling into place.

    We appear to be now looking at an expanding Earth, which has even been indicated by NASA observations. Continental Drift will Likely need to be revised as the continents might not be “drifting but staying put as they move away from each other. For instance, how can the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean both be getting wider at the same time. Nowhere on Earth hs an ocean been found to be getting smaller.

    The supercontinent Gondwanaland supposedly covered half of Earth’s surface and the primal Pacific Ocean covered the other half. Now, 200-250 million years later, we have the separated continents and the Atlantic oceans but the Pacific Ocean still covers half the planet. The only way this can happen with Gondwanaland is if Earth’s surface area has grown in the last 250 million years while the continents move away from each other but remain on their half of the sphere.

    No ocean floor has been found that is older than 250 million years. How could there have been shallow seas over so much of the continents back then, leaving the Cliffs of Dover and Coralville, Iowa, a town named for a huge coral reef beneath it? Simple, at that point Earth’s surface was all continental, with lithosphere covering the entire surface. Then, after some huge, unexplained volcanic events that spewed out incredible volumes of lava (e.g., the Siberian Traps), probably as as a pressure relief mechanism for the expanding interior, the crust began to break up and all continents started moving away from each other. A larger planet would have a less curved surface and the continents would have to occasionally crumple to form mountain ranges. This also explains why supposed subduction zones do not have huge piles of mud mounding up as it is scraped from the sea floor during subduction, as the is no subduction. Mid-ocean sea floor spreading and deep trenches are simply the mechanisms of this enlarging sphere.

    The neutron repulsion effect in heavy elements in Earth’s core easily explains this expansion, as, when heavy elements break up, releasing great amounts of heat, the product elements take up more volume that the parent element. Furthermore, two principle products of this break down is carbon and hydrogen, which then percolate upward as methane. However, some hydrogen can be lost during this high pressure and temperature migration and the carbons bond together to form hydrocarbons. This explains why we are finding gas or gas/oil everywhere we drill deep enough, anywhere.

    The huge methane clathrate deposits simply cannot be from bacterial action (just too much of it and it would smother the bacteria in the mud below, making no sense for their being there and so active). These are simply natural methane leaks from under the seafloor that feeds the formation of these huge clathrate deposits.

    I have to say an expanding Earth explains a lot. I addition, where would this abiotic oil-producing (Russian scientists tried for years to get us to listen to them about this) material in Earth’s core come from? It is likely a remnant of a supernova explosion, as is the Sun. This explains nicely why, when sunspots appear, Sun’s interior is black and cold, when, if it is a fusion engine, the interior should be brighter than day. (We have known since the 1960s that the neutrino flux from the Sun is wrong for it being a fusion engine.) NASA has even reported observing clouds in sunspots.

    So, what heats the sun? It appears to be a current coming from a nearby star. We are starting to be able to detect currents/magnetic fields between stellar and galactic structures as we better understand the current flows of our solar system. The ability of a current to flow from one star to another means there must be a sufficient voltage difference. Once the current is exhausted, the current will stop while the stars recharge by traveling through interstellar space, just as an airplane does as it flies. When the voltage difference is large enough the current will flow again. This nicely describes an R-C circuit and the current Ice Age we are in. Glacial periods are recharging times and interglacials the discharge times, the latter which activates Sun’s activity and warms our climate. Out current interglacial even mimics the behavior of an R-C circuit as, when the system stars discharging, the system warms up and resistance drops, but, as the charge difference decreases it cools down and can exhibit a regular fluctuation, just as with our Holocene Optimum and subsequent rather regular Warm Periods with descending peak temperatures. What we do not know is when discharging will cease and a new glacial period will begin.

    It’s fairly reasonable model, that suggests the solution or understanding of many other things.

  6. Tim Whittle

    I know this idiot. Well OK, he’s no idiot. He’s a published PHD/MBA, a Plant Biologist who’s worked on many large projects and been awarded internationally.

    He’s a nutter cyclist. Years ago, when I told him I thought Armstrong’s performances HAD to be drug aided, he yelled at me, belittled me, and was generally plain rude to me for the rest of that occasion. I await an apology…

    He also said to me “Tim, I know CO2 isn’t a problem. I push it because it will help bring about my political goals.” The festering little turd is also a communist.

  7. Zoe Phin

    Reader,
    Do you think that lefty fascists realize that zombie movies are about them?

  8. Steve Borodin

    Another good example, which bears close similarities with climate junk science is the demonization of DDT in the eradication of malaria. This was led by the usual culprits: Greenpeace, WWF and FOE with active backing from the UN. For example, Mozambique had almost eradicated malaria and dengue fever by indoor spraying of DDT when the UN forced them, by economic threats, to cease spraying. Within three years Mozambique had a major malaria epidemic on its hands with millions infected. The NGOs and the UN had completely failed to understand the science. They thought DDT was acting as a toxin, whereas its effect was to discourage mosquitoes from entering houses, where most of the biting takes place. Without the mosquito’s blood meal the parasites life cycle is disrupted and it dies out.

    These NGOs present of misunderstanding science to cause death or economic hardship.

  9. tom0mason

    And there is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura and In June 2019 he put out a small book in Japanese on “the sorry state of climate science”.
    It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis , and he is very much qualified to take a stand.
    From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.

    1. tom0mason

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close