Monday, October 28, 2013

No "Kind Regards" for the Pretend-Scientists Promulgating Anti-Scientific Tyranny in the Name of Science

Claes Johnson has posted an inquiry to one Hans Rosling, a high-profile climate alarmist in Sweden, and Rosling has responded with "answers" to Johnson's questions. My response follows:

Hans Rosling: I reject your "answers" as blatant political and ideological chaff, i.e., scientifically non-responsive, thus worthless. And since they ARE so clearly political chaff, it is also obvious you are not a scientist, at least not a competent and honest one. You are one of the Insane Left, relishing a position in which you can promulgate empty alarmism to the people of the world (blaming especially those in the more developed countries--by which you mean the West--again without evidence). You have well shown yourself ignorant of any definitive evidence supporting such alarmism, only a "consensus" you admit you are not competent to judge, and which you choose to accept blindly, or fraudulently, to the people of the world. This is one scientist who will never accept the likes of you as a true scientist, or a true voice for the people. You are nothing but a fellow-traveller of utopian tyranny over honest reason.


  1. opit,

    I received your comment, suggesting I might "like to review" someone else's post, on the problem of unquestioning belief in the incompetent climate "consensus" (or as that person, an academic, called it, "the wrongheadedness of scientific consensus fetishism" in the climate science debate). I prefer not to advertise that person's (generally, merely activist) opinions on my blog, couched as they are in the elevated jargon, agglutinated phrases, and authoritative tone (unwarranted, in my view) of academics, rather than simply, with strict adherence to the definitive evidence, as I try to do, for the sake of laypersons and real-world, working scientists seeking clarity and focus above all. I prefer, right now, to be seen as a completely independent voice (making my own contributions and my own mistakes), in the present divided and tattered intellectual environment.

  2. I understand completely. My questions fall much more easily to my mind as well - predicting the future being a game to sucker people and posing computer scenarios based on questionable assumptions and lack of context making a bad idea worse. I just happen to think academics aren't necessarily bad judges of the facts ! In that spirit I rather like that Roger Pielke Jr. was so taken with the popularity otf sacientism as to write a book on the topic : The Honest Broker.
    But I do not recognize the idea of the Insane Left as worth much in a country where the idea of 'left' and 'right' encompass corporate parties varying from openly nuts to apologetic about their programs of wars of colonization, garnished with hypocrisy and delusion.

  3. opit,

    We are not really communicating (so this will be my last word to you). I understand that you referred to that other person's post because, though he is an academic--all of whom I hold in low esteem right now, because my unprecedented scientific discoveries overturn much about which they are so proud and so vehemently defensive, and because they have aided and abetted climate science's long public descent into a complete, and tyrannous, fraud--he and I nevertheless agree that the climate consensus is worthless scientifically. My main point against him, however, is not his political views, but that his academic style is not clear and direct enough (nor are his arguments new, or better stated) to substantially improve, much less to end, the politicized public debate on climate science, which is a total mess.

    I'm not going to defend my use of the phrase "The Insane Left" (which is my own) here; I consider it a repeatedly well-demonstrated fact, since the 2008 presidential campaign. I will only say that I voted Democratic for President from 1976 through 2004, I do not argue on the basis of Left or Right dogma (as you do in your second paragraph), and I do not use the term "Insane Left" lightly now. I use it because things ARE that bad on the Left (and particularly with President Obama and the Democratic leadership), and I am determined to write and speak the truth as I know it, which dogmatists on all sides of every confrontation today are determinedly avoiding--I regard these confrontations as a general testing, of a mankind now addicted to false, divisive dogmas, and much of mankind is failing, as far as I can tell. I deal in new knowledge, and stand on the other side of all these current confrontations.