Jim's Blog

Some days are warmer, some are cooler. Some years are warmer, some are cooler. Some centuries are warmer, some are cooler.

Not only does climate vary, but the variability itself is subject to change. Ten degree swings over decade have happened, and when that happens once, usually happens ten or twenty times over the following millenia. Fortunately we have not had anything as bad as that in recent millenia, but during Roman times it was substantially warmer than today, and wheat grew in what is now desert, today’s deserts were the breadbasket of Europe, and during the little ice age, it was mighty cold, and the deserts were bigger.

The Hockey stick curve (which shows climate stable until industrialization) is just phony. The climategate files revealed that those proclaiming it showed no interest in whether it was true or false. Mann delegated the key work to minor grad students, told them what the data should show, and displayed absolutely no interest in how they tortured the data to get his predetermined result. This was obvious when it came out, and confirmed by the leak of climategate files. Mann himself did not know how the Hockey Stick curve was generated, in the sense that he failed to ask, and showed no interest in, the questions raised in the Harry_Read_Me.txt file, which discusses the manufacture of the corrupted and corrupting data used to weight the proxies, and also in that Harry, a low status menial, was tasked with recreating graphs already published, implying that Mann and company had no idea where those graphs came from or what they were based on, if anything.

Mann and company vaguely hoped and sort of believed that they curves that they published were somehow derived from observations, but they did not know, and showed no interest in, what observations, and how derived.

When the Hockey Stick Curve appeared it showed the classic marks of theocratic science.

Everyone used to believe, based on extensive evidence, that climate had been highly variable in the past. And then suddenly everyone in academia changed their belief, quietly forgetting that they used to believe something complete different, without asking for the evidence that supposedly supported their new belief.

Indeed, to ask the new experts how they knew their new facts about past climate was deemed an act of harassment. To ask, was to be anti scientific, since you were showing disrespect to official science. Every academic everywhere, with a handful of courageous exceptions that were swiftly brought into line, agreed with the new line, and declined to ask dangerous and subversive questions as to what data, what evidence, brought the new line about. How did one proceed from observations of fossil trees and glaciers to a conclusion very different to that which past observers of fossil trees and glaciers had concluded? No one would tell, and no one important would ask.

When the state officially recognizes science and scientists, this tends to make scientists into priests.

In the restoration, Charles the Second created the Royal Society to keep scientists on track, which was part of his purge of the priesthood. It is a pity he did not create an inquisition to continue the purges and keep the rest of the priesthood on track.

From the Restoration in 1660, to the end of World War II, the Royal society enforced the scientific method. If you wanted respect and esteem as a scientist, you had to tell us new and interesting things, and you had to show everyone how you knew these new and interesting things from what you saw with your eyes and touched with your hands.

After World War II, Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, and you no longer have to show your work. Instead, your work must be approved by the most holy synod of mother church – in other words, must pass peer review behind closed doors. Peer Review is new. Attempts to root it in the past of science before World War II are artificial and contrived. Somehow we obtained almost all of science that matters before we had peer review, and since we have had peer review, things have started to go terribly wrong with science. Peer Review is science by social consensus, and Galileo told us that that does not work.

Global Warming is much the same religion as the Aztec state religion. Sacrifices must be made, or else the sun will not rise to tomorrow, and the priests can therefore pull strings, so that some people are sacrificed more, and others less, as with Chris Turner’s carbon indulgences.

It is not enough to stop the sacrifices though that is a damned good start. The priesthood itself must be purged, for as long as they have state power, they will continue to apply it against Trump.

The permanent government will always win over the temporary government unless purged, and the permanent state religion will always control the permanent government, unless a King places himself the head of that religion, and, armed with an inquisition, brings it into line. May Trump become God Emperor, or at least King and High Priest. And may his grand inquisitor purge Satanism from our political elite and lies and heresy such as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming from our priesthood, with holy fire.

We need to suppress Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as Castile suppressed the Old Gods of Mexico, and as the Romans suppressed Druidism, and for much the same reasons, and with much the same methods. Global Warming is not an example of science making a mistake. Science always makes mistakes, and advances because of them. Global Warming is an example of an evil priesthood and evil priests, pursuing evil goals by evil means. Scientific errors should not be punished, but evil religions need to be forcibly suppressed by centralized power and state violence, for evil religions propagate by centralized power and state violence, and thus can be suppressed by no other means.