Critics Face Harsh Climate When It Comes To Science
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 alarmist 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 to the misguided misconceptions of some madmen.
The following 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 the 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. [English version here: The Secret Race: Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France]
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. [Ironically, Begley is a climate alarmist who thinks the science is settled, no dissent allowed. –CCD Ed.]
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.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
John Doran
| #
A good reminder of the times when the science “mafias” are resistant to new theories.
Thank you.
It’s a shame that Naomi Oreskes is used as a reference: she is named, along with John Cook as among the frauds who concocted the 97% consensus lies.
Cook runs the climate disinformation site Skepticalscience. Oreskes is supposed to be a science historian.
Both are named in climatologist Dr. Tim Ball’s great little handbook for the layman:
Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History
Only 121 pages reveals the science & scandals, the politics & profiteers.
If Dr. Tim were wrong these clowns would sue him in an instant. They. Do. Not. Sue.
Dr. Tim’s 2016 book names the bankster Rockefellers & the gangster Soros as among the chief pushers of the fraud, with their multi-billionaire cronies. He also names their motives:
Depopulation: up to 95% if freakos like Ted Turner prevail.
De-industrialisation: this is the attack on plant food CO2, it’s a by product of industry.
& A World Totalitarian Govt, based on the corrupt UN.
The plotters reveal themselves:
http://www.c3headlines.com
Click on Quotes.
I note with much interest that P-S.org has this week reported that Soros’ Avaaz organisation is trying to pressure Youtube to de-platform climate truthers. The curtain is being pulled back on the Totalitarian frauds.
JD.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
The content of this article is correct but quite incomplete.
Modern science was begun by Copernicus who questioned if the then current model of the universe was correct. This model had been established by the ancient Greek philosophers led by Aristotle about 4 centuries before there was a Christian religion. And this model had been accepted by the ‘intellectual’ community for nearly 2000 years until Copernicus began to question it.
Sometimes this previous historical fact is overlooked (ignored) as sometime after the Christian religion (the Catholic Church) had become established and had embraced this Greek model because of a couple of lines found in the Old Testament. What is also generally overlooked is that the Catholic Church had become the ‘intellectual’ community by the founding several universities.
Copernicus and then Galileo were devote Christians. Hence, Copernicus knew the following comment applied to both the intellectual community and the Catholic Church. “Therefore, when I considered this carefully, the contempt which I had to fear because of the novelty and apparent absurdity of my view, nearly induced me to abandon utterly the work I had begun.” (as translated by someone) And it seems a historical fact that Copernicus did not go public with his novel view until he was sure he was lying on his death bed.
Galileo was born 21 years after Copernicus had died. And I advise anyone who wishes to learn what was occurring during Galileo’s time to get the inexpensive and short biography titled ‘The Martyrs of Science’ (David Brewster, 1840) For the Martyrs of Science were three: Galileo, Brahe, and Kepler.
From the table of contents a summary of the first chapter about Galileo includes: “Adopts the Copernican system, but still teaches the Ptolemaic doctrine”. About this adoption, Brewster quotes directly from a writing of Galileo: “I [Galileo] cannot omit this opportunity of relating to you what happened to myself at the time when this opinion (the Copernican system) began to be discussed. I was then a very young man … when there arrived in this country … a follower of Copernicus. This person delivered, on this subject, two or three lectures … Believing that several were attracted more by the novelty of the subject than by any other cause, and being firmly persuaded that this opinion was a piece of solemn folly, I was unwilling to be present. .. I found that they all made it [the lectures] a subject of merriment, with the exception of one, who assured me that it was not a thing wholly ridiculous. As I considered this individual to be both prudent and circumspect” [so Galileo began to take a poll] “whenever I met any of the followers of Coperincus, I began to inquire if they had always been of the same opinion. I found that there was not one of them who did not declare that he had long maintained the very opposite opinions, and had not gone over the new doctrines till he was driven by the force of argument.”
Here we have Galileo’s description of the intellectual method of argument which had existed for nearly 2000 years or more. And it seems that many who author articles posted on PSI and comments posted on PSI still intellectually practice argument. But if you read Galileo’s ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’ you will find that Galileo introduced the reader to a new, superior method (observation and measurement) of learning about our natural world.
So because this is a comment and not an essay, I will save a review of what began to occur after Darwin’s accepted theory of ‘natural’ evolution for another comment, or essay (depends how long the next comment becomes).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
josh
| #
ID and creationists get blackballed out of academia by the junk science evolution, but you guys probably think its rock-solid like it’s flawed assumption-based dating methods.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
I can argue for and against evolution. It makes no difference to me. I know what’s in my heart.
Both sides are mataphysical outlooks, but only one side is honest about it. Evolution could be true, but then again: God could be an evolutionary algorithm programmer. This would make both sides correct on one aspect of reality.
I’m not a young earth creationist, but I could argue for it.
I don’t buy into big bang completely, but I could argue for it.
I think entertaining possibilities is more interesting than rigid dogmatism, especially because we know so little.
I will tell you that I’m very skeptical of radiometric dating. I’ll give details at another time, because I’m not thinking clearly anymore. lol
Reply
Alan
| #
Has something like this happened before? It certainly has. In Medieval times people thought that there was an unnatural cause for extreme weather and blamed witches for weather cooking and many were burned for this. Now most of the developed world seem to be blaming every human for extreme weather. This is far worse than Medieval times since we have science to conform this is not true but the climate alarmists have created a pseudo science to support their claims. The concern is that the masses seem to have learned nothing from the expenditure on education and have lost all ability for rational thinking. The “deniers” are not be burnt and our entire civilisation and all the benefits are under threat by ever increasing energy costs and the damage to our secure energy supplies.
Reply