Global warming and pathological science.

There are many aspects to the style of science underpinning the theory of global warming that remind me of something the American scientist Irving Langmuir christened pathological science. Wiki for once is accurate and defines it as –

“Pathological science is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation.”

It goes on to say it has the following characteristics –

  • The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
  • The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
  • There are claims of great accuracy.
  • Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
  • Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
  • The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

If ever there was a thumbnail sketch of the “science” behind global warming and what looks to be the life-cycle of its popularity, it would be the above.

Basically, they’ve a theory which they are single mindedly determined to prove and therein is the essential problem. Good science works on the basis of not only trying to prove theories but also trying to disprove them as well. If you can prove or disprove a theory, you’ve learnt something either way. The characteristic of a pathological scientist is they can never entertain any suggestion that their pet theory is incorrect. If there’s real world data flatly contradicting their beloved theory, then it’s a data problem.

The wishful interpretation of data in climate science is fairly obvious and indeed goes a bit further in that it is blatantly selective on so many occasions. A good example of this occurs in the treatment of land based temperature stations. In the 1990s there was a worldwide network of approximately six thousand stations but of these, only about a subset of sixteen hundred are used today to measure the global temperature. Even allowing for malfunctions, it’s difficult to see a plausible explanation for why the data from four thousand three hundred of the originals is now being ignored even though they still work.

Of the remaining stations being used, the raw data from a significant number of them would appear to show the Earth is warming but when a corps of citizen volunteers actually went and looked at as many of these stations as they could get to, there was a simple explanation of why they were showing the increase. Roughly eighty percent of those examined now failed the original siting criteria because encroaching urbanisation meant they had become surrounded by heat sources such as housing, air conditioning ducts, car parks, barbeques and even aircraft runways.

This pollution of the raw data has now supposedly been offset by applying an arbitrary correction which “normalises” it but to us folk of a skeptical persuasion, they’re just torturing the data to make it conform to the warming they’re absolutely convinced is happening. If you have a large enough sample of decent raw data, a small number of anomalous spikes, or noise as it’s called in statistics, will be drowned out; normalisation is simply not required. If the data has too many spikes, then it’s rubbish data and should be discarded. You’d have to be out of your mind to attempt to use it as the input data to make any valid statistical inferences.

Within that sixteen hundred being used, there are blatant instances of cherry picking; my personal favourite being the use of only 25% of the available stations to measure the ground temperature of Russia. When you consider that most of this 25% are situated in urban areas of that vast country (you could fit the whole of the USA into it nearly twice, by the way), you can see why the data is easily interpreted as evidence of global warming occurring, even in Russia. The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) concluded two years ago that the average temperatures calculated for Russia were quite simply wrong.

Given the relatively small number of sampling stations being used and the big question marks over both the siting and data quality, one would think it foolhardy to apply sophisticated statistical analysis to derive a global temperature trend but that’s exactly what they do. Statistics is a tricky branch of math that is usually taught in conjunction with Probability not just because of the obvious congruence but also for the very good reason that so much of the time, the correct technique or answer is counter-intuitive in both of these disciplines.

It’s an experimentally proven psychological fact that most people are naturally and appallingly bad at probability and statistics and the whole of the gambling industry is predicated on this, as is my continued long-term ownership of stock in that industry. If you doubt this, ask a friend what the odds are for “heads” on the single flick of a coin and they’ll quite rightly reply 50:50. But then ask them what the odds of getting two “heads” on two successive flicks of the coin and you’ll see what I mean. If you know the answer to that one but they didn’t, get ready to draw some diagrams for them. If you didn’t say one in four, then speaking as an investor, you’re my sort of punter.

If you really want to hear a very dense technical debate, listen to two statisticians discussing the correct technique to be used to analyse any non-trivial data set. It’s no place for amateurs, even if they’re fully qualified climate scientists. They’re just as bad at it as everyone else, which is why one of the “enquiries” into climategate recommended they should get some professional statistical help. That is official speak for they don’t know what they’re doing when it comes to statistics and in my reasonably well-informed opinion, they certainly don’t.

The most graphic illustration of their statistical incompetence is the famous hockey stick graph. When Steve McIntyre, a man who actually knows something about statistics, looked into its derivation, he realised that the particular technique being used was not only inappropriate but would always produce a hockey stick shape, irrespective of the data. You can even feed it random numbers and it will still produced the same shape.

You have to ask yourself why the graph’s creator or any one of its vast host of IPCC supporters, never tried that same simple sanity test, just to be sure the correct analysis technique was being used. They never did because all they’re interested in is proving that the theory of global warming is true rather than raising any challenges to it. This is not so much post-normal science but rather half science or 50c science as I call it, because they’re simply not attempting to do the disproving bit. Show me a decent attempt at the other 50c and I might even become a reluctant believer but at least go for the full Dollar.

It’s normal for people think that science is all about discovering and proving theories but if they know a little bit more about science, they’ll know it’s also about seeking to disprove theories but even then, the truth is a bit more subtle. The reality is, no scientific theory can be proved incontrovertibly, to use that particular word now made infamous by of all people the American Physics Society, who should really have known better.

A scientific theory can only be tested, never proved. However, a theory can definitely be disproved, which is why this facet of science is so important. It’s actually what drives progress in science. The philosopher of science Karl Popper called this vital process falsifiability or refutability. Einstein put it in a nutshell, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

Isaac Newton’s theory on how gravity worked overturned every previous theory in that area and eloquently so. Einstein’s work overturned Newton’s, showing it was unfortunately just a special case and if the recent measurement of particles exceeding the speed of light turns out to be accurate, then Einstein’s theories are about to join Newton’s in that great Elephant’s Graveyard that all wrong or superseded scientific theories end up in. If that happens, the hunt is on for a whole new theory of gravity and we’re really talking here about back to square one for so much of Physics. Grown men are holding their breath and secretly hoping for a mensuration error as I write this.

Science can never be “settled”, neither by science itself and certainly not by consensus, an even sillier idea. Anyone pushing that line of argument at you is a scientific ignoramus. Any scientific theory can only be disproved.

The hard physical evidence continues to pile up that there is no untoward global warming occurring but supposedly reputable scientists continue to insist in public that the planet is getting warmer, it’s just a matter of finding the missing heat. Kevin Trenberth privately in one of the climategate emails complains about it, “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” and Phil Jones, giving evidence before a UK parliamentary committee, publically admitted there’s been “no statistically significant global warming for a decade.”

As more and more temperature data comes in from satellites and the story the satellites are telling diverges from the heat maps they’ve derived for the Earth using the land based stations, their answer is to search even harder for the missing heat. It simply must be somewhere. The satellite data is a really inconvenient truth for them but of late they’ve come up with an explanation for the missing heat and it’s a corker; the heat is actually skulking at the bottom of the world’s oceans, safely out of sight of those pesky satellites and well beyond the reach of any mere skeptic like myself. Perhaps it’s shy, a cousin of one of Rabbie Burns’ wee timorous beasties.

For God’s sake, it could only happen in that crazy topsy-turvy world of climate science that hot and therefore less dense water, could sink to the bottom of cooler and therefore more dense water. Someone should tell the Gulf Stream about that. No, scrub that idea. If it ever found out it shouldn’t exist, it might change its mind. Think Mother Gaia meets the precautionary principle. Phew, that was close.

Another characteristic of pathological science is not just that experimental results cannot be replicated but the exact details of such vaunted experiments are vague to the point where replication cannot even be attempted. As doubts start to rise, the actual details of the science being done becomes more and more guarded. They can give you the details but only if you’re a true believer and promise not to criticise. For years, we’ve had independent researchers trying to get their hands on the raw data on which all the alarmist claims are based. They’ve been fobbed off repeatedly and in the end, they’ve had to resort to Freedom Of  Information requests (FOIs) to get anything.

If getting the raw data out of them is hard, just try to get access to one of the Global Climate Models (GCMs) into which the suspect data is being fed and which are the Delphic sources of all these amazingly exact and scary predictions of the coming thermogeddon. The closest we’ve got to that is the harry.readme file that was leaked with the climategate emails and it doesn’t inspire much confidence, quite the reverse in point of fact. Bear in mind that all the GCMs fail Popper’s falsifiability test; there’s simply no way of disproving their predictions about how the climate is going to be in a few hundred year’s time.

What possible confidence could any reasonable person have in a branch of science that requires legal documents to be served on it to force it to offer up the basic data underpinning the audacious assertions it is making?

Believe it or not, they seriously thought they could force the radical restructuring of the industrial economies of the whole of the developed world, without ever allowing any independent checking of their science. Wake up lads and smell the coffee, that was never going to happen. You can frig the data as much as you want and even “redefine the peer review process” but there were always going to be a handful of real scientists left who would make it their business to prick the balloon. Your own arrogant excesses contained the essential seeds of your own downfall. All that was required was a lot of patience and a little bit of timing.

The terminal characteristic of any outbreak of pathological science is the way the level of initially overwhelming support for it fades away to nothing. It’s not mentioned thereafter; it’s as if it never existed. Its name is rarely spoken and when it is, it’s firmly placed in the category of “everyone knew it was nonsense all along” but this time around, I feel it’ll be remembered to the lasting harm of science as a valid field of clean endeavour. Trust, once abused, is difficult if not impossible to regain. That’ll take a generation or two.

Global warming has simply had too high a profile in the public consciousness for its demise not to have that effect on science in general. This is the single bitter reservation I have about watching the death of the global warming craze but other scientists outside the field have to take their own share of responsibility for this damage as well. Privately, too many of them have known for a long time that the outrageous claims being made by it were simply scientific nonsense but having seen what happened to dissenters within the field, they kept their heads down and chose to say nothing.

Not my problem would be their refrain but at the same time, they were careful to include a bit of eco justification into their next research funding application. We all have to do stuff to get by but in the future, don’t you ever start whining about people simply not believing you because you’re a scientist. We all pay for our sins, even the ones of omission.

There is an argument that pathological science is somehow harmless because it is eventually found out and therefore nullified by the scientific mainstream and in most cases this is true. Where it becomes really dangerous is when it is adopted by political forces to advance their agendas. Pathological science morphs into a full-blown pseudo science because it is now state approved and state funded.

It gives a stamp of scientific authority to whatever political aims the state is trying to impose on the people. Of course, any research that might debunk it is neither encouraged nor funded. It’s now bullet proof or should I say “settled” science, since no attempt is being made to disprove it.

If you’ve read the “about me” for this blog, you’ll know that I consider the most damage being done by the cult of global warming is in the developing world but it’s not just confined to there. Gas and electricity supplies in the UK now contain green stealth taxes.

Power bills have gone up by substantial amounts as a result and while the population in general can tighten their belt that extra notch and get used to a steady drop in living standards, there are people already at the bottom of the pile for whom there is nowhere to drop down to. Their choices by now are brutally simple; food or heating. They’ll go with the food because it’s immediate and they have to and people, especially the solitary elderly and frail will slowly freeze to death this coming Winter. It’s as simple as that.

Pathological science in this case, and not for the first time, has a real human cost and it’s not scientific reputations but the lives of our most vulnerable, needlessly lost in a slow and brutal fashion to the cold of Winter and there’s not much dignity to it either.

It’s one of those occasions when I know why I truly, deeply hate pseudo science and all its works.


Related articles by Pointman :

So, which is it; Global Warming, Climate Disruption or Climate Change?

Some thoughts on fanatics and how to fight them.

The death of the AGW belief system

The Seductivness of Models.

Click for a list of other articles.

42 Responses to “Global warming and pathological science.”
  1. NoIdea says:


    Pretty petty polls puppet
    Priest prior polyp puppy
    Patently piss poor pumper
    Patiently push pension plumper

    A pretty picture paints a thousand words; Ross McKitrick has a graph on show at…

    Just before the 1990s when as you say “In the 1990s there was a worldwide network of approximately six thousand stations but of these, only about a subset of sixteen hundred are used today to measure the global temperature”
    There had been a network of 16,000 weather stations in the USA; this was cut by 10,000 in 1989. The same year that Hansen gave his infamous air-con off presentation on Global Warming. It was also the same year that Robert Mosbacher (of NAFTA fame, an oil baron banker) was involved in the creation of the National Weather Service Observing Handbook No. 2. This book includes the instruction “Today’s maximum temperature must be at least as high as the higher of today’s or yesterday’s temperatures at the time of their respective observations temperatures were 64 ° and 52 °, and today’s maximum temperature is displayed as 62 ° , you must raise today’s MAXIMUM to 64 °.”
    Is it any surprise that the records are mucking fuddled?



  2. Blackswan says:


    Nowhere is there a better example of the damaging fall-out of “pathological science” than in Australia. This week nineteen bills of Carbon Dioxide Tax were passed through the lower House of our Parliament and, as the Gangrenes now control the cross-benches of our Senate, this travesty of science and democracy will become Law.

    The polls indicate that over 80% of the population are against it, but the ‘settled science’ genie is out of the bottle and is being summoned ad nauseum to justify this massive redistribution of wealth, 10% of which has already been committed to the UN.

    Protesters in the public gallery of the House, chanting “No Mandate”, were thrown out and the voices of the majority silenced – all justified by this “settled science” of lies, obfuscation and criminal theft of this Nation’s wealth.

    You’ve encapsulated this entire Fraud and the fall-out is yet to be seen, though it won’t be until the grim forecasts of skeptics have proven to be true, that we will finally see the demise of this criminally fraudulent scam. We can only wonder what historians of the future will make of this mass global hysteria based on literally nothing.


    • mlpinaus says:

      Gidday Swan…… the buggers in Canberra just get me down. It has got past the thought that the rest of the world is giving up upon the scam… it’s now more immediate for us here. The only hope is the statement from Abbot “not to buy carbon credits”. I am now at the stage I wish to hitch up my suspenders tite, and rush screaming into the night……


      • Blackswan says:

        Geez Marcus, don’t risk snapping a suspender over that lot – not one of them is worth it.

        There is ample evidence that organised crime has taken over our government and our nation’s economy. A browse around Shane Dowling’s Kangaroo Court will shine enough light into the nooks and crannies of Cowards’ Castle to send those cockroaches scuttling for cover.

        Wonder how long it will take to repair the damage after they have been thrown out on their collective butts.


  3. PaulW says:

    It is interesting that Pathological Science happens to have coincided with Pathological Altruism.

    People want to “do the right thing” and the cause of saving the planet is irresistable, thereby giving the political class a vehicle to achieve there broader agendas.

    The undelying cause of our altruism desperation is a story in itself. We, as a western society, are seeking to believe in something, anything. We are reminded every day of our shortcomings, how we are to blame for the worlds ills, how we are intolerant, racist, bigoted, self centred, materialistic….. the list goes on. Therefore we feel we must self flagilate. What better way than to punish ourselves while saving the world.

    While we have serious societal risks with the political agendas now being pushed, there is a further risk of the pendulm swinging back too far the other way. Hitler was able to use the German down trodden feelings, and by offering a vision of a better, more rightful place, was able to then pursue his own goals.

    I am not saying that we are about to spawn another Hitler, just that a charismatic leader, who can show a positive vision and make us feel good about ourselves may be able to get an undue level of power.


    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome Paul. There is definitely a sense that the green movement redirects our own natural altruism to its own ends. This, combined with heaping on the low selfesteem, may indeed give rise to an extremist “feel good about yourself” leader.



  4. scud says:

    Excellent piece P!

    I think it’s not only the distortion of the ‘data’ that shows that the climate is changing (how very odd!) but also the distortion of the numbers who profess to believe it.
    No link I’m afraid but I read this morning that ‘The Guardian’ circ’ has declined by another 10,000 last month alone. Of course this wouldn’t be wholly attributable to their unrelenting stance in cheer leading fraud and corruption where earths climate is concerned but does surly indicate something of a mood swing away from the infantile left.
    Remember about this time 2 years back before the breaking of ‘climategate’? It was a brave man who stuck his head above the parapet and said it was all a load of cobblers; now however it’s pretty much the reverse…even within ‘CIF’..naysayers regularly trump the usual tossers in ‘recommends’ as I feel that the chickens are finally coming home to roost as the inevitable consequence of all this…personal cost…is laid bare which will surely wake up those (the massive majority IMOH) that have not previously taken an interest.
    They can only shriek ‘Wholesale lies…err…prices’ for so much longer.. before these chimps are seriously taken to task.


  5. P.
    Your comment regarding scientists, from all disciplines, ‘looking the other way’ or saying ‘it’s not my problem’ over the past 20 years is very true.
    Where were they when basically the same bs was being spouted back then ?

    Joe Public are going to have a great problem in accepting “A Scientist said” on any subject in future and I think many of them are waking up to this prospect and are starting to shuffle away from their positions ‘around the AGW wagons’, slowly.

    That a trusted body of learned people wanted a dodgy hypothesis to grow into a theory and eventually into a (Hansen’s ?) Law so badly that they would do anything underhand and financially damaging to maintain it’s credibility is a crime against humanity. Especially the poorest of humanity.

    Their individual reasons will vary from political to idealistic to religious to greedy to destiny-seeking with all combinations in between but the groupthink drew them all to the same conclusion – that they, the scientific hero geniuses, alone could/should save the world – now we have to save the world from them !
    The planet is awash with greenieness everywhere because there is money in it,
    not because of any great passionate desire to save the planet from anything.

    Your item could also have encompassed the MSM who’s overall standing in this affair leaves everything to be desired. Their willingness to copy/paste anything sent by the UN/EU funded WWF or Greenpeace without question will also not be forgotten. The role of the press and particularly the BBC in perpetuating the CO2
    myth will come back to haunt them.

    Scientific/Journalistic heads must roll. This crime cannot and MUST not fade away
    as both professions will be fatally damaged if justice is not seen to be done.

    Science and Journalism was always about asking questions; it’s just a pity that neither profession, when it comes to AGW, can be bothered to do that anymore.


    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome Jazznick. The scam could never have taken off without the complicity of silence from the science establishment. This combined with the MSM’s total loss of any critical facility was all that was needed.




      • MikeO says:

        There are numerous scientists who try to counter this for instance

        Click to access GW_malaria.pdf

        The big problem is the advocacy of the IPCC which is following a political agenda. It’s “scientists” are very inferior and have strong ties to activist groups. Yes the “silence of the science establishment” is a travesty as well and a betrayal of trust but I not sure we should say pathological. Recently I have been reading a book called “Economyths” and been struck by the similarity between Economists and Climate “Scientist”. Both pretend science can be used to produce mathematical laws that will enable accurate modelling of the natural world. In the case of economics this can be traced back 2500 years into the Pythagorean cult in Greece.

        I think not pathological but normal human behaviour. Humans know that without controls such as transparency, examination by others, conflict of interest tests, open selection criteria of staff and so on organisations quickly become corrupt. The IPCC fails on all of these as does the financial world also. Activists have most likely infiltrated the MSM and the science establishment in just the same way as the IPCC.


  6. MikeO says:

    Excellent Pointman but maybe we have all missed the true story. Anyone who is concerned about this issue must read now. The resource we are all accosted with is the reports produced by the IPCC. This is what governments take notice of and acts on. It is accepted as a sound rigorous and scientific. It is not it is hopelessly flawed.

    An example is an Ove Hoegh-Guldberg he is described as a “world renowned reef expert”. Nine chapters of AR4 base their conclusions partly on his work. He was a contributing author and has been appointed as a coordinating lead author for ar5. He also has very close ties to Greenpeace over the last 17 years and the WWF. The IPCC is not concerned about this! This is but a small example of the hopelessness of the IPCC, It has no worth. It has very little on science and those calling themselves scientist are activists who do not practise science..

    Ove frequently comes up here in Australia when the Great Barrier Reef is the topic. His line is that the reef is doomed because of bleaching due to heating. Coral thrives the closer you get to the equator and a rise in sea level would help. The area of the GBR has in fact had a fall. So actually Global Warming will help not hinder the reef. Our MSM never mentions Ove’s Green activist connection, funny that. Really as you Pointman noted some time back the MSM is complicite why? The IPCC is easily seen to be worthless with out much effort so why are they revered?


  7. Pointman says:


    Strange that you should mention the Pythagorean cult in the context of dissenting scientists. There’s a pertinent story that a group of them were on board a ship when it occured to a junior member to ask what the square root of a negative number might be. They debated it through the night, since it seemed to drive a horse and chariot clean through their belief system. They eventually resolved the problem by strangling the junior member and throwing the body into the sea.



    • MikeO says:

      I recently started reading a book “Economyths” by David Orrell. He writes about the influences on neoclassical economic theory. In this he goes back as far as Pythagoras and says.

      “The Pythagoreans believed that number was the basis for the structure of the universe and gave each number a special, almost magical significance”. The idea was that the natural world can be described and predicted using maths, spooky! His student Empedocles earned the name Alexanamous “Averter of Winds”.

      Orrell’s argument is that this tradition is a large influence even today on economics. This is because economists believe and are taught that mathematical laws can be applied to accurately predict the future financial situation. They even produce computer models to help them using the “laws”. I was struck by how similar this is to the world of climate “science”. I am arguing that the dissenting scientist sees that applying laws to the natural world is mistaken and does not match reality.

      I disagree with the idea that all the assenting “scientists” are pathological but they are guilty of being incompetent scientists. Donna Laframboise in her critique of the IPCC on the last line writes. “The real moral of this story is that scientists are merely human. They can be as short-sighted and as political and as dishonourable as the rest of us.” Or as someone else said do not blame on malice that can be explained by incompetence.

      Orrell had a different tack on the cult story. Hippasus a disciple tried to express the square root of 2 as a fraction but found it could not be done since it is an irrational number. He then made the mistake of telling people outside the cult. He died at sea under suspicious circumstances. So if you are in a cult do not rock the boat. Humans have a great problem in even seeing the irrational in their own cult.


      • Pointman says:

        You’re quite right Mike. Looking into the story, it was an irrational number rather than an imaginary one. I should stop trusting my memory …



    • MikeO says:

      I just read my comment again. I should say I agree with the thrust of your argument and think many of these people know what they are doing. But a large number are picked for their opinion by the IPCC. So if I give prominence and validity to someone who pretends to know who is at fault? Our problem is at the highest levels of the IPCC.

      I urge you all to get to and read Donna Laframboise’s book I gave a link to it in this thread. It and it’s links are GOLD. Download a copy of Kindle PC or your favourite platform and get it for $5 and learn about the 78 “scientists” directly connected with the Green movement and also authors in the ar4.


  8. Blackswan says:


    Thought you might be interested in listening to this ‘podcast’ from Sydney Radio broadcaster Alan Jones.

    He is interviewing Australia’s Chief Scientist, Prof Will Steffen, the epitome of a pathological scientist. He also happens to be a pathological liar and a pathological spin-merchant. He is the architect of our newly legislated carbon dioxide tax and when you hear his rationale and justification for this economy-smashing rubbish, you will wonder just who could credit this fraudulent scam with any validity at all.

    Let us hope that if the day ever comes when criminal charges to defraud the Commonwealth are ever laid, this character will be at the head of a loooong queue of hucksters who’ll get their comeuppance.


    • MikeO says:

      Thanks for the link I was very good. Alan Jones shows debating skills which are superior to our flock of galahs they call politicians!


    • Pointman says:

      Jeez Swanny, that Steffen is a world class weasel.



      • Blackswan says:

        He sure is a weasel Pointy – and then some.

        He’s the lying SOB who claimed ‘climate scientists’ at the Australian National University had received death threats, though he had never notified the Federal Police.

        It turned out that a single email three years ago had been critical of their work. No such death threats had ever been received while he claimed that ANU security measures had to be increased. Guess he figured such fabrications had worked for Phil Jones, why not give ‘victim’ status a shot when people began to wise up to Carbon Fraud.

        And he still kept his highly paid job as the Government’s chief science adviser. Beggars belief doesn’t it?


      • MikeO says:

        Agreed Swanny but you are being a bit hard on bitches they have more principles! Did you see Costa on the Bolt report on Sunday. Can’t see the L/G party lasting much longer, the Labor right is distancing itself from the roughie. Wonder if Steffan might have a career change? The left are now saying Abbott (leader of the opposition) is a misogynist and untrustworthy, bottom of the barrel. No evidence but the rusted ones will believe.


  9. scud says:

    Yes…thanks for the link Swanny. It’s ‘unequivocal’ I’m tellin’ ya…’unequivocal’!!! Lord give me strength!


    • Blackswan says:

      G’day Scud,

      Yep, it’s a doozy isn’t it? And not one of those dozens of Labor/Union/Independent pollies asked a single one of the questions Jones asked even though it is all a documented matter of record.

      Is it a matter of them being too lazy, too willing to bow to Party directives, too stooopid, too ignorant??

      Nope. In my book they are simply criminally negligent/complicit/culpable. Unequivocally.


  10. The Monster says:

    Spelling correction:
    “Roughly eighty percent of those examined now failed the original sighting criteria”

    The word you’re looking for there is “siting”, as the location (situs) is at issue, not a question of vision.


  11. meltemian says:

    Great piece of work Pointman.
    Sorry I’m late to the party – been in England for my sister’s funeral, very sudden and most unexpected, or I would have been more on the ball.
    People need to hold the ‘climate scientists’ to account but I have a feeling they will get away without ever having been made to confront the real truth. Slippery lot these false prophets!


  12. Sometimes you read about old civilizations that acted very irrational seen from our perspective. They wasted huge resources to please various “Gods”
    while the people was poor and probably starved.

    I just wonder if not our civilisation will be viewed in the same fashion in the future. We use huge resources to stop emission of carbon dioxide which is completely meaningless
    instead of using it on projects that has an impact on health, avoidance of starvation and prosperity.


    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome Ingvar. I think on a 50 or 100 year view, the billions of dollars spent on the global warming craze will be regarded as an aberration and waste of financial resources which could have been spent on so many other needy causes to some effect.



  13. creeper00 says:

    Pointman, I’ve now spent a good part of two days going through your posts. I am desperate to understand the connection you make between the global warming hoax and depressed standards of living in un- and under-developed countries. Is there a post here that explains this in more depth and, if not, would you please expand on it?


  14. Laurie [Laurence] Martinelli says:

    Think Lysenko and political control of science for ideological reasons.


  15. Good piece, thanks.

    As far as I know Popper was not a Physicist. He is often regarded as a Philosopher (of science), and he had a PhD in Psychology


  16. aamichael666 says:

    Great piece. Thanks for writing this. Very well structured, and God help us all from this new cult that has just toppled another PM in Australia. An ‘ex’ Merchant Banker and Corporate Lawyer for Goldman Sachs net worth $200mill who has said he could not live with himself if he didn’t put a price on Carbon, has just staged a coup within the only ‘right wing’ party in Australia.

    As they say, every Socialist system needs a good Banker and Corporate Lawyer to survive globalization … the lefties who know the truth behind Turnbull and understand his ‘right’ wing rhetoric to simply be a cover for his green skin, are probably close to orgasm right now.

    The road to PARIS 2015 is paved with gold … and pathological ‘science’ … and even the Pope gives his OK to burn Climate Heretics at the stake (well, not yet, but maybe next year when the word ‘denier’ becomes ‘heretic’.


  17. 4TimesAYear says:

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.


  18. songhees says:

    Latest book and documentary.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.


Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] Global warming and pathological science. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: