What Makes This Blog Different

Unlike some other skeptic blogs, I don’t pretend that global warming alarmists and data tamperers are actually interested in science.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to What Makes This Blog Different

  1. omanuel says:

    You are right.

    The AGW fable convincingly exposed global totalitarian rule of science under the United Nations.

    Michael Crichton tried to warn us of this in his novel, State of Fear.

    • omanuel says:

      Now that the cat is out of the bag,” winners of Nobel Prizes (other than Al Gore and Raj Pachauri) may be questioning their actions in endorsing “consensus science” for personal fame.

    • omanuel says:

      Sir Fred Hoyle and Prof. P. K. Kuroda described events in 1945-46 that explain today’s lock-step consensus science.

      This one page sequel to the climate scandal and to my career marks the end to seventy years (1945 – 2015) of totalitarian global science – intended to isolate mankind from the real Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of every atom, life and world in the Solar System – and the constantly changing climates on each of its planets.

      Click to access Sequel.pdf

      Stalin probably won WWII during a news blackout of events in AUG-SEPT 1945 and used his influence to establish:

      The UN on 24 Oct 1945
      Worldwide science 1946
      ISRAEL on 14 May 1948
      Anonymous reviews 1951

      Stalin died in 1953. The above sequel marks the end of his legacy on 4 March 2015.

  2. gator69 says:

    This blog gives it’s visitors more liberties than most, as well as the great posts and unique analysis.

    • omanuel says:

      Most blogs will not allow scientific challenge to seventy years (1945-2015) of Stalin’s consensus science BS, labeled as Standard Models and blessed with Nobel and/or Crafoord Prizes.

  3. Winnipeg Boy says:

    you have my vote

  4. Owen says:

    It was a no brainer voting for Real Science. I admire the blatant in your face honesty this site provides. Real Science doesn’t sugar coat the truth with politically correct mumbo jumbo many other skeptic sites provide. Climate Liars are called exactly what they are – Liars.

    • gator69 says:

      Yep. I realized a few years back that it was high time to be calling liars and frauds exactly what they are. They are not misspeaking, and they know they are wrong.

      Our society has become too soft, and that goes for language too.

      • Gail Combs says:

        “…Our society has become too soft, and that goes for language too.”

        I am afraid I have to disagree. Our society has not become too soft it has become too Politically Correct. An entirely different matter.

        Use the incorrect word, like ne–o or black instead of the politically correct term African American(?) and you will be subject to vicious attacks. The same goes for ideas as shown by a college professor attacking two girls for expressing their ideas and then the rest of the herd demanding leniency from the judge because exposure to the idea of others was traumatizing. The small child punished by the school for a poptart chewed to look like a pistol is another example of P.C. intolerance of ideas.

        Not a very P. C. Thing to say

        Hate Speech: UK political Leader Arrested for quoting Winston Churchill

        In Praise of ‘Hate Speech’: Delingpole
        Delingpole says of including ‘Denire’ on the Hate Speech list, “only by being exposed to bad thoughts and bad ideas can we develop the necessary strength of will and understanding and moral purpose to oppose them. Censorship is for wimps.” Censorship is also very very necessary for brain washing. If an idea can not be expressed it can not be communicated easily. If a person is hurt every time an idea is expressed you shape their behavior. How many of us grew up with ne–o as the polite term and have now switched our thinking to using black or even African American instead. The word ne–o has literally been wiped from our minds by Polticial Correctness.

        Censorship also keeps the herd cohesive and ‘on message’ as the recent attacks on moderate warmists such as Judith Curry shows. No independent thought is allowed.

        However it seems all that screaming at us has backfired:
        Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists —- New research suggests people tend to hold negative views of political and social activists

        Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.

        That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.

        Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”….

        So they have called in the behavioral psychologists to figure the best way to continue pushing pro-environmental behaviors aka Agenda 21.

        …“Participants were less motivated to adopt pro-environmental behaviors when these behaviors were advocated by the ‘typical’ environmentalist, rather than by the ‘atypical’ environmentalist or the undefined target,” the researchers report..

        …So the message to advocates is clear: Avoid rhetoric or actions that reinforce the stereotype of the angry activist. Realize that if people find you off-putting, they’re not going to listen to your message. As Bashir and her colleagues note, potential converts to your cause “may be more receptive to advocates who defy stereotypes by coming across as pleasant and approachable.”

        • gator69 says:

          PC speech is partly to what I am referring. Bums became homeless and a55holes have anger management issues.

          I was recently censored at a skeptic blog for calling a serial lair a liar. Some yahoo complained about my comment, and called it ‘offensive’ because I called a spade a spade. I plead my case to the blog owner and he agreed that if we cannot call out provable liars and frauds, we may as well give up the fight, and my posts are no longer censored.

          It’s not just PC, it’s people that don’t understand what every school kid knew when I was growing up, about sticks and stones. The words only sting if they are true, and only matter when they are true. Refusing to call out liars and thieves is the same as lying.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Perhaps it was the incongruity of calling a serial “lair” a liar. ;-P

        • Gail Combs says:

          I figured you understood but we need to make it clear exactly what is happening and why it is happening.

          It has never been about hurting someone’s feelings by calling them a n.gg.r or a redskin or whatever. It is all about controlling our minds. About moving Communism forward by deflecting the population on to discussing idiotic things like whether or not the Redskins should change the name of their team because it offends while Mark Twain and other classics are removed from our schools.

          To make it acceptable in peoples minds to institutionalize or kill those with the ‘wrong thoughts’

          The pace at which the USA is headed towards a rigid totalitarian state is truly frightening. At this point all the pieces are in place except the removal of our guns and completing the PC brainwashing.

      • Gail Combs says:

        POLTICALLY CORRECT in our Universities.

        If you ever wanted to know if our universities are teaching facilities or brainwashing facilities, just look at that example of a professor being traumatized by two young teens in a free speech zone sporting anti-abortion information link and compare it to the newest thoughts on campus supporting ‘After-birth Abortion’ up to the age of four years or even more. more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet “self aware.” We used to call it murder or infanticide but that is SOooo passé. “Since their requirements for personhood are completely arbitrary, they throw around numbers, you know, four years old, five years old. I had one friend say a college professor claimed six years old was a good cut-off,”

        Murder is now reserved for Animal Rights activists who scream it in the faces of those who eat meat or wear fur or leather.

        Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide

        In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy,….
        As early as 1972, philosopher Michael Tooley bluntly declared that a human being “possess[es] a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity.”2 Infants do not qualify.

        More recently, American University philosophy professor Jeffrey Reiman has asserted that unlike mature human beings, infants do not “possess in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them.” He explicitly holds that infants are not persons with a right to life and that “there will be permissible exceptions to the rule against killing infants that will not apply to the rule against killing adults and children.”….

        Last year 14 congressional Democrats viciously attacked a bill written to protect newborns who survive abortion procedures. The message was clear: The right to choose is not about a woman’s right to end a pregnancy; it’s about her right to a dead baby. Meanwhile, Wichita abortionist George Tiller kills fetuses in the third trimester of pregnancy (for only mildly disabling defects) and raises the issue with impunity on the Internet.28 Since he’s not killing kitties, he gets away with it.

        Unfortunately the writer does not see where this came from and where it is going. It is not a new idea. On the contrary it is slowly introducing an old idea. The Fabians are all about shaping behavior. That is introducing shocking behavior gradually in steps. Notice the goal is the same as Communism, kill off all independent thinkers just the speed is different. As Shaw said, “Socialism is the same as Communism, only better English.”

        1. Ridicule/remove the influence of Christian churches – 1954 Churches added to section 501c3 of the tax code by Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson. (Note the same does not apply to present day Islam.)

        2. Abortion – 1973 Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court. Along with Doe v . Bolton, legalized abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.

        3. Standing abortion case law, says that the point of viability must be determined by a physician not the state. However states are pushing back. 2013: (wwwDOT)washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/28/the-landscape-of-abortion-bans-in-one-must-see-map/

        In the UK ‘defective’ babies are killed via the Liver Pool Care Pathway. The UK government is giving millions to the NHS to kill off ‘the useless eaters’. link This is not surprising given the UK is run by Fabians.

        KILLING THOSE “UNFIT TO LIVE” – George Bernard Shaw, Fabian Society co-founder

        “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

        Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

        “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

        George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

        The same ideas are written by Obama’s Science Czar.

        “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,”

        Source: John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich: Population Limitation 1973, pg 235

        Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution…

        Source: John Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich: Ecoscience 1977, pg 837

  5. ren says:

    Can see a serious precipitation in the near future. A lot of moisture from the Pacific.

  6. DD More says:

    The first thing I thought of lead me to this.
    This blog is devoted to Learning the Lessons of the Past. Even more importantly, this blog is devoted to applying these lessons of the past to making decisions in the present and to planning for the future. This is what I mean by “historical thought.”

    The Founders of the United States believed that the purpose of studying history was to make us better, better as individuals, better as citizens of a free republic. In other words, the Founders shared the view of the classical Greek and Roman historians, like Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy and Tacitus. The study of history has a moral purpose.

    Uh oh- I have made you mad. We do not believe this today. Oh, yes, many books about history are written. Biographies of presidents become best sellers. There are numerous television channels, devoted to history. Along with the electronic media, we are awash in historical information.

    But as a society, we do not think historically. We do not use the lessons of the past to make decisions in the present and to plan for the future.

    If American political and business leaders thought historically, American troops would not be fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The financial crisis would not have happened.

    The world of 2011 suffers from a fatal delusion. We believe that we are immune to the lessons – the laws – of history. We believe that our modern science and technology has lifted us above the lessons of history.

    However, as the American Founders understood, the lessons of history endure because human nature never changed. All the human emotions are the same today as in Egypt of the pharaohs or China in the time of Confucius: Love, hate, ambition, the lust for power, kindness, generosity, and inhumanity. The good and bad of human nature is simply poured into new vehicles created by science and technology.

    Your followers like, learn and use your lessons from the past. Keep up the teaching.

  7. darrylb says:

    Had a long conversation with a lady this morning. We were quite polar opposites. But, we agreed to talk and listen. We agreed on two things. Whatever is going to happen will happen and there is nothing we can do to change that.
    and adaptation is important and to that is my contribution. Whether it warms, or cools or stays the same.
    —–Because we do not know what is going to happen!

  8. emsnews says:

    But we DO know what is going to happen: another Little Ice Age or worse. It will not be warmer and warmer for at least half a century or more!

    This is vital life or death news everyone should know. Instead, we are told by our rulers and their media propaganda outfits that we are going to roast to death unless we stop eating meat, move into tiny huts and not use energy as much as possible.

    This is a naked attempt at turning the clock back to the nobility that ate meat and lived in palaces while serfs lived in tiny huts and ate bread.

  9. Andy DC says:

    The alarmists care much more about retaining/expanding their funding than they do about science and will thus they will “tweek” the data accordingly.

    On another level, they are part of a larger political agenda, which includes massive worldwide redistribution of weath and regulatiing every aspect of your life from cradle to grave. Not to mention constant brainwashing of our youth by the so called educational establishment..

    If it looks like communism and quacks like communism, it must be communism.

  10. emsnews says:

    The redistribution is from peasants to dictators in the third world and Western ‘nobles’ who are insanely rich already.

  11. hannuko says:

    While I think Climate Audit is the brains of the skeptical blogosphere, I believe that this blog is the heart of it. Your posts are needed in my RSS-feed so that I do not forget what kind of people we are actually dealing with. This is not about few technical details or slight disagreements between civilized men.

    This is about intentional, systematic fraud, institutionalized theft and the destruction of liberty using an imagined crisis as a pretext.

    This is something no skeptic should forget.

  12. ren says:

    Forecast polar vortex (yes, they are very good forecasts) shows the dipole consistent with the two centers of the magnetic field in the north.

  13. Climate science is a branch of environmental science which is a branch of political science which is a branch of liberal arts which is a branch of BS arts. We are not anti-science, we are anti-arts.

  14. DGP says:

    Let’s take it up a notch and start referring to them as global warming/climate change extremists. They meet all the qualifications:


  15. markstoval says:

    “Unlike some other skeptic blogs, I don’t pretend that global warming alarmists and data tamperers are actually interested in science.”

    Unlike some skeptics, I don’t pretend the bastards are human enough to even be worthy of life itself. They have been the direct cause of thousands of deaths in winter due to high heating costs. Bloody bastards.

    • B says:

      Don’t forget what they’ve done to corn prices with their ethanol nonsense (not to mention the damage to older cars). And their hatred of meat eating which meant forbidding livestock from land to preserve it, land which then underwent desertification because of the lack of herd animals.

      Even the believers are starting to turn on the this nonsense.

    • Andy Oz says:

      “Atmospheric CO2 heats the earth’s crust.”
      That one takes the cake. Any geologist would laugh until they cracked ribs at that one. Let’s ignore the molten mantle underneath the continental crust.

      As usual, this bull crap is not for scientists, but is “proof” to stoopid politicians that spending tens of billions on the latest snake oil study that has climate in the title, shows they are concerned citizens and will get votes from the sheeple. As Steve says, these people are not “actually interested in science.”

      They are much more interested in their predatory power over young women.

  16. Ivan says:

    “Unlike some other skeptic blogs, I don’t pretend that global warming alarmists and data tamperers are actually interested in science.”

    Speaking of which…You can probably help to force Antony Watts to finally say what is his plan with the working paper Watts (2012) finding unbelievable data tempering in the USA, which was withdrawn almost three years ago because of bogus objections by alarmistas over TOBS “bias”, and we never heard about it again. I emailed at least ten times to Watts asking what’s going on, he never replied. When I post this question (politely) at his website, the moderators delete my comments in a nanosecond.

  17. richard says:

    this has now become the best blog.

  18. rah says:

    Your straight up in their face. That’s why I’m here. I value straight, head on, talk/expression.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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