AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

I didn't call you a cracker

When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything...

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

Is necessary to learn the words [but] it is not science...It is not science to know how to change Centigrade to Fahrenheit.

It is not easy to understand energy well enough to use [the word] right. [It displays no understanding to say] "energy makes it move." It would be equally well to say that "God makes it move," or "spirit makes it move," or "movability makes it move."

“Education is that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.”

Cargo cult science comprises practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but do not in fact follow the scientific method.[1] The term was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology.

Cargo cults—a religious practice that has appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures—focus on obtaining the material wealth (the "cargo") of the advanced culture through magical means, by building mock aircraft landing strips and the like.

Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, researchers must avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment.... "it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science."

The data is sound and solid.

The important ice is not at the north pole but the south pole.

One in 1922: ‘Extraordinary warmth in the Arctic during the last few years’ — Polar ice sheet to melt down? — Scientists astonished by Arctic warming. Northern United States to become “sub-tropical.” November 2nd, 1922 article in the Washington Post article titled “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt”:” The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone…Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

One in 1935: Russian Ship Sailed 500 Miles From The North Pole In Ice-Free Water catastrophic proportions and people living in lowlands along their shores would be inundated…temps in Arctic had increased 10 deg. F since 1900–an ‘enormous’ rise’

The assault on science is by the GW devotees.

It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it...In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.


The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist...to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren’t any.” He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.” I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing—and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.

If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of result. I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.

...the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying—possibly—the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands.

So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described.

But the global trend is to warming, and there are chances it's gona be pretty bad. Fasten your seat belt.

Hell we just might be keeping a new ice age at bay where New York City is under not water but a few miles of ice instead.

No, we're heading towards a global catastrophe of our own making. It's quite tragic actually.

Mankind seems to love doomsday scenarios