Mar 04

CONSENSUS WATCH – 3/1/2010 – ‘Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions could be subject to public scrutiny’

By Editor Al Gore, Consensus Watch No Comments »

Biting sarcasm straight from Planet Moron:

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs.

Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions could be subject to public scrutiny.
As a result of the minor climate contretemps of the past several months in which the entire construct of global warming theory has been called into question, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has decided to launch an independent review of its research vetting process with a specific focus on IPCC chief Rejandra Pachauri, plus re-examine 160 years of temperature data.

Call it a scientific “do over.”

This, of course, should not in any way impede our progress towards manic implementation of hastily conceived measures meant to address the very real threat of manmade public hysteria over impending climate catastrophe.

After all, we already know the conclusion.  Think of these investigations as more of a formality, like a real estate closing only without as much uncertainty.

In another positive development, the multi-talented, Nobel Prize and Academy Award winning Al Gore broke his weeks-long silence (no doubt spent in quiet contemplation with his spiritual advisor and tax accountant) to address a world desperate for his guidance.

While we had hoped he would deliver his message through an interpretive dance routine, thereby all but ensuring a Tony nomination, he chose instead the more conventional path of writing a piece for The New York Times in which he addressed the “two minor errors” of the IPCC reports.

Read it all on Planet Moron.

4 people like this post.
Unlike

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Feb 12

CONSENSUS WATCH – 2/8/2010: ‘Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions could be challenged by people demanding hard data’

By Editor Consensus Watch No Comments »

Biting sarcasm straight from Planet Moron:

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs.

Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions could be challenged by people demanding hard data.

While we continue to dig ourselves out from under two feet of wet, heavy, anthropogenic global warming here at Planet Moron headquarters, we take comfort in knowing that frequent record-breaking snowfalls do not in any way suggest that global warming is anything but real.

Which is not to say that mild winters don’t prove it is real, of course.

This is important to remember, as it has been revealed lately that much of the science underpinning The Consensus didn’t come from “research” in the traditional sense of the word, but rather from more unorthodox sources, such as magazine articles, college student homework assignments, press releases, and idle conjecture.

Sure, that might sound bad taken out of context, but what skeptics fail to appreciate is that the whole purpose of establishing consensus in the first place is to take the science part out of the equation. That way we can move forward with what’s really important: Maintaining levels of hysteria necessary to spur legislative action.

Besides, according to Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the errors and fabrications are actually positive developments noting that such mistakes :

“…Could increase the credibility of the IPCC, not decrease it. Aren’t mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution.”

(We don’t suggest you try that at work unless there is already a consensus with your bosses that you’re doing a good job.  Kind of like with Tim Geithner.)

Given the unconventional nature of global warming science, it is important that Consensus supporters be prepared for additional revelations including some of the following:

Claim: Sea levels will rise in the coming decades, swamping coastal cities.
Source: Something James Hansen thought he saw while watching “The Day After Tomorrow” on his new Blu-ray player.

Claim: Polar Bears are resorting to cannibalism.
Source: Nostradamus.

Claim: Global warming could cause malaria as far north as Germany.
Source: A flyer Michael Mann saw in Berlin for the post-punk German band, “Malaria.”

Claim: We must reduce carbon emissions or we are all doomed.
Source: The image of Al Gore miraculously appearing one morning in a bowl of Rajendra Pachauri’s Wheatena.

Claim: Tree ring data proves CO2 causes global warming.
Source: Hidden message found when you play the Beatles “Revolution 9” backwards.

Also, Paul is dead.

Claim: Hurricanes will increase in frequency and intensity unless we transition our power generation away from carbon sources and toward wind turbines.
Source: An advertisement from wind turbine manufacturer, Southwest Windpower.

Naturally, skeptics will continue to blow these discoveries all out of proportion claiming that they are some kind of indictment on The Consensus.  Unfortunately, these appeals to reason and common sense do occasionally gain traction with the lay public, unfamiliar as they are with the scientific process, so just in case, supporter of climate change legislation have a back up plan:

Make believe it’s a jobs bill.

Remember, Consensus means never having to say you’re sorry. Or wrong.

J.

6 people like this post.
Unlike

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jan 20

CONSENSUS WATCH – 1/19/2010: Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions would have to be based on something other than hearsay

By Editor Consensus Watch, glaciers No Comments »

More biting satire straight from Planet Moron:

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs.

Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions would have to be based on something other than hearsay.

Proponents of anthropogenic global warming have had a difficult couple of months, as the scientific foundation of their claims has come under serious question.

But The Consensus does not rely solely on scientific research.  In fact, the IPCC scientists at the United Nations, who have long been at the forefront of research into which climate factors have the greatest influence on increasing levels of global hysteria, have a number of sources from which they draw their most important conclusions.

Such as “stuff they read in a magazine somewhere.”

For example, the headline-grabbing announcement a few years ago from the IPCC that global warming would cause the Himalayan glaciers to completely melt by 2035 was based on something the researchers had remembered reading somewhere in an eight-year-old copy of New Scientist magazine. Perhaps in the dentist’s office.  Or was it the hairdresser?

Regardless, some challenged the claim saying that the data showed that the Himalayan glaciers were under no such dire threat, but those denials were simply a sign of arrogance.

Look, these guys read it in a magazine somewhere.  What more proof do you people need?

Let’s face it, “stuff someone read in a magazine somewhere,” has long served as an important source of information on which we have all grown to rely.

For example, see if this sounds familiar:

This post has been interupted to send you to the source, Planet Moron.  Transport yourself to Planet Moron by clicking here.

4 people like this post.
Unlike

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with: •
Dec 02

CONSENSUS WATCH – 12/01/2009

By Editor Climategate, Consensus Watch No Comments »

More biting satire straight from Planet Moron:

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs.

Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to data that hasn’t been properly scrubbed of ideological impurities.

Clearly, The Consensus has come under some pressure recently with the unauthorized release of computer files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, despite the fact that they consist of little more than a decade of accumulated data, communications, and models that implicate scientists and research institutions the world over in a potential conspiracy to fake data, suppress contrary evidence, and punish those who question human-caused global warming.

Like that’s somehow “newsworthy” all of a sudden.

Given this, Consensus supporters must be prepared with persuasive counterarguments to effectively parry the unfortunate questions the release of these files is bound to raise.

For example, let’s say someone comes up to you at work and says:

“Wow, did you hear the CRU threw away all the original data on historic temperature readings leaving no actual evidence of any kind to support the notion that humankind’s emissions of carbon dioxide has in any way resulted in the planet warming beyond natural norms?”

To which you can reply, drawing on your own extensive knowledge and experience in the area of climate research:

“The science is settled!”

See how easy that is? Just remember to say it authoritatively so the listener will know you’re telling the truth.

Let’s try another.  What if your brother-in-law comes over for dinner and casually mentions:

To find out what your brother-in-law hypothetically mentions you’ll have to visit Planet Moron.

3 people like this post.
Unlike

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with: • •
Nov 27

Planet Moron’s CONSENSUS WATCH (Climategate edition)

By Editor Consensus Watch No Comments »

More biting satire straight from Planet Moron:

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs. Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data.

Controversy continues to swirl around the release of confidential files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, one of the premier global warming Consensus supporters in the world, that seemed to suggest that data was deliberately manipulated, competing scientific theories were suppressed and documents illegally destroyed.

What casual readers probably don’t realize is that scientific progress has long been founded on the timeless principles of subterfuge, deception, and trickery.

For example, some critics suggest that this statement from a private email sent by climate researcher Kevin Trenberth to Penn State’s Michael Mann illustrates inner doubt within CRU that was never expressed publicly:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

But compare that to similar doubts Isaac Newton expressed regarding his theories on gravity, in a private letter to English scholar, Richard Bentley:

“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.”

What if some nefarious character had hacked into Bentley’s oak secretary desk and released this letter to the public?  Sure, Newton could try and claim that the statement was taken out of context but by then, the damage would have been done.

And that whole apple-falling-on-his-head story?  A complete fabrication of little scientific value intended as nothing more than an emotional appeal to the masses.  Imagine what might have happened had this come to light at the time. Gravity-deniers would use the revelation to cast doubt on Newton’s work. He would lose all credibility, as would his ideas.  The consequences?  Think of all the ways Newtonian physics lay at the foundation of our modern way of life:  Satellites.  Commercial air transport.  Donkey Kong.

Another source of controversy to emerge from the hacked files are the inaccurate data sets, fundamentally flawed climate models, and hopelessly corrupted results.

That’s a start, but you’ll have to visit Planet Moron for the rest.  Catch a ride here.

3 people like this post.
Unlike

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with: • •
Nov 20

Consensus Watch – 11/20/2009 (Special Edition)

By Editor Climategate, Consensus Watch, Hacked Hadley CRU files 2 Comments »

Biting satire straight from Planet Moron:

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs. Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data.

While we were putting the finishing touches on our piece yesterday regarding Senator John Kerry’s harmless hyperbole overstating increases in US Carbon emissions by a factor of 32, and Al Gore’s innocuous exaggeration of the earth’s interior temperature by a factor of a thousand, news was breaking that a major global warming research center’s database had been hacked revealing that climate scientists had manipulated data in order to support The Consensus.

Naturally, the usual suspects are suggesting that this information demonstrates that The Consensus is a fraud and that scientists are faking data, basing their accusations on little more than the fact that the information demonstrated that scientists are engaged in fraud and are faking data.

This is a woefully inaccurate interpretation of the material.

First, we have already determined that The Consensus is real and that “urgent action is needed by world leaders in order to save our climate.” Given that, it’s not clear why we’re still examining research data.

Second, we have to remember that simply reporting data is easy. However, consensus science demands far more rigor, and requires that we have researchers dedicated enough to do the hard work necessary to apply statistical tricks, hide inconvenient results, and occasionally just make things up. This is largely due to the fact that consensus science requires that research support a pre-determined conclusion, whereas regular science is a more chaotic, sloppy affair, in which no one knows what the data will prove until it’s been produced.

Read the rest on Planet Moron.

4 people like this post.
Unlike

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with: • •
Oct 23

Consensus Watch 10/22/2009: Reason only temporarily overwhelms emotion

By Editor Consensus Watch, satire, video No Comments »

Biting satire straight from Planet Moron:

CONSENSUS WATCH – 10/22/2009

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs. Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data.

The Consensus has come under attack from an unlikely source, the BBC, which noted that despite ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 and predictions to the contrary, the earth has been cooling over the past decade.

Fortunately these blatant appeals to logic rarely work.  Yes, people might momentarily get caught up in the facts of the moment, allowing reason to overwhelm their emotions, but when all is said and done, true adherents to The Consensus can take comfort in knowing that once everyone has had a chance to stand up and get excited, less sober minds will ultimately prevail.

For example, here is a piece of thoughtful research released by ACT ON CO2 (a creation of the UK government) that explores the very real consequences of telling a little girl that everyone is going to die.

Read the rest on Planet Moron.

Be the first to like.
Unlike

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with: • •
Previous Entries
preload preload preload