I have been hovering around the Watt’s Up With That website for a while now. and the last two articles I have read have persuaded me that I possibly need to pay more attention to what (watt?) appears there. I shared a very recent one in a recent post here. Today I am dusting off an article from 11 years ago because while it may have been recognised at the time, or not, I don’t know, it has today assumed an even greater importance due to the entanglements so manifest in the modern climate narrative.
I have long had my suspicions about the overwhelming prestige assigned to the Royal Society within the science world. They have not always been truthful in several scientific disciplines, including climatology, of which ‘climate science’ is but a very insignificant section. A section which for some reason – and there is usually money associated with such reasons – has been grooming the science community, and through them, the world, a series of lies and distortions (although I suppose distortions are also lies) about the nature and influence of climate change in the modern world. This has been accompanied by the breeding of horses (human horses) over recent generations. Horses to be groomed, to take on the lies of corrupt science, as so much chaff.
Are you a ‘horse’? The kind that needs grooming? Or are you a free-thinking, free acting, human being who can make up their own mind (independent of ‘experts’), because they know stuff?
Here’s a list (quoted from the article below by Dr Tim Ball) of stuff you have to know at least something about in order to talk sensibly about climate…
An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.
Dr Ball follows that up with (another quote)…
It’s an interesting observation that underscores the dilemma. Climatology is listed as a subset, but must include all the disciplines and more. You cannot study or understand the pattern of climate over time or in a region without including them all.
and also (another quote)…
Climatology, like geography is a generalist discipline studying patterns and relationships.
Now, I admit, I do not know much about several of those disciplines, but I do have sufficient grasp of many of them to know that climate scientists are “specialists trying to be generalists” (another quote), and they are doing this purely on the basis of the lies first propagated by the Royal Society – as described in Dr Ball’s article.
Further, if you do have the background to know what is what about the subject loosely described these days as ‘climate science’, you will know – as does the majority of Earth Scientists (those who have a generalist understanding of ‘Geoscience’) – that the modern theory of ‘Climate Science’ is nothing but a ‘Crock of Shit’, from many viewpoints (read my back-posts). The problem has been that modern scientists are not self-funded independents as many of the earlier ones were (though they were never very honest either – for other reasons). Scientists today are career workers, with mortgages, and cannot risk losing their positions with risky outbursts of truth telling.
That is mostly what I wanted to share today. There is more of interest in the article of course. Stories about hockey sticks and GHGs, all subjects no longer in vogue today – or shouldn’t be. Anyway, I think it is worth reading, and spreading. It is high time the Royal Society was outed as the basement dwelling trouble-makers they have proved to be. That hasn’t happened yet as far as I know. Even though more and more people are throwing off their horse blankets and joining those who know. High time.
The Important Difference between Climatology and Climate Science – Dr Tim Ball – Watt’s Up With That – 11 years ago (which would be roughly 2013, I think).
Not Something Else 
Leave a comment