Climate Fraud Could Devastate The Reputation Of Science

Ten years ago, climate scientists made this prediction

ScreenHunter_10565 Oct. 01 02.11

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

Since they made that brilliant forecast, California wine sales are up 33%

ScreenHunter_10564 Oct. 01 02.10

2014 California Wine Sales Grow 4.4% by Volume and 6.7% by Value in the U.S. – The Wine Institute

About stevengoddard

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

39 Responses to Climate Fraud Could Devastate The Reputation Of Science

  1. 1saveenergy says:

    The vines are bingeing on CO2 so we can binge on wine… CO2 maybe the cause of drunkenness, can I get a 5 year grant to study that ??

  2. 1saveenergy says:

    by the way its 9 years ago, climate scientists made this prediction
    & I make it 36% (2006-2014)

  3. Marsh says:

    The Reputation of Science, has already been devastated,,, but Warmists are blind to it! This reminds me, to look up all those failed Alarmist predictions ; they should be in the Guinness world records by now…

    • Koop in VA says:

      If you read the article the prediction was that wineries could be harmed by the end of the century. I’m sure that we can agree that we aren’t quite to the end of the century yet. And we could perhaps also agree that that makes this article pretty much rubbish.

      • Jason Calley says:

        If the California wine industry is set on a 95 year path to devastation, it seems unlikely that ten years in to it, production has not declined even a little, but instead has more than doubled.

        Then again, (if increasing CO2 causes global warming), it seems unlikely that after 18 years of massive (largest ever recorded) increases in CO2 that the global average temperatures would not have risen.

        Hmmmm…. maybe those two unlikely trends are related.

      • Marsh says:

        Koop in VA : This doomsday prediction, as with almost all Global Warming related predictions ; generally fail spectacularly. Obviously , the growth trend in the industry is contrary to everything stated by Alarmist’s thus far. We have no choice but to interim evaluate the progress ; we will not be here at the end of the Century… that’s an inconvenient truth.

    • DD More says:

      Marsh says: “The Reputation of Science, has already been devastated,”

      But which way is their current Reputation? Goes both positive and negative.
      Will this devastate their ‘current negative’ reputation (making it better)? Enquiring minds want to know.

      • Gail Combs says:

        At this point I have lost all respect for the university where I got my degree. They have come out (very loudly) with some really crackpot science lately. I used to recommend them to kids looking to go to college. Now I suggest learning a trade instead.

        • Marsh says:

          Yes Gail, but all is not lost ; there are also, many honest Scientists like yourself. But I don’t know how some institutions can recover ; they have not assessed consequence with reputation ; the mind-set has changed with their leadership.

      • Marsh says:

        DD More : Playing a devil’s advocate with a facetious twist, makes it more interesting.
        We could also consider, the devil we know and the devil we don’t. With AGW, evil comes in many forms, there are also known known’s and known unknowns involving alarmists within PseudoScience. On the issue of devastation to a collective reputation,
        they can only build from ground zero ; you make a good point.

  4. There should be some sort of board of examiners that should award people the right to call themselves scientists, the way doctors have. Before medical boards, every sort of quack in the world could hang a shingle and call himself a doctor. These idiots are not scientists.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Morgan, WHY ever would you give the GOVERNMENT control over who is a scientist?

      They would strip PhDs off every single scientist who disagrees with their propaganda!

      • Gail, what got into you all of a sudden? Are you against government regulations of science or something?

        • Gail Combs says:


          Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

          The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control Source

        • 1saveenergy says:

          We should ALL be against government regulations of science !!
          We need true facts, not political facts ( that can change every other day).

      • Beale says:

        I have to say you interest me. At one point you approvingly quote Ayn Rand on the virtues of capitalism; at another, you cite the enemies of capitalism, like Howard Zinn.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Every once in a while someone like Howard Zinn can let a bit of truth actually slip out. And lets face it. History IS a weapon. (That was the point I was trying to bring up.)

          Look at the way the story of Thanksgiving has been rewritten. Originally it was a warning against socialism and an example of the advantages of capitalism. Now it is a “we all can live together in peace” fairy tale that makes me want to lose my breakfast.

          The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

          Since the victors write history we really have no idea of what is or is not true.

          This is another bit that caught my eye on the subject of history. (My most hated subject in school)

          Ignoring Elites, Historians Are Missing a Major Factor in Politics and History Steve Fraser, Gary Gerstel (2005)

          … Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country’s evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history….Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II.

        • rah says:

          Perhaps you know that this day in 1789 is when President G. Washington first announced a day of Thanksgiving to be observed on Nov. 26th. And then on this same day in 1863 President Lincoln announced that a day of Thanksgiving would be observed on the last Thursday of November.

          Ever read or listen to Rush Limbaugh give his true Thanksgiving story? If not you should.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thanks RAH, I will get Hubby to play that for me on his computer.

    • Exactly. Without a board certification, patent clerks fantasize about physics, and amateurs with geology and electrical degrees putz around in climatology. It’s a bloody mess.

      We need the authorities to step in and have board-certified scientists control the access to their professions. A 10-year internship for a board-certified climatologist at one of the major institutions would weed out the current crop of quacks.

      • kentclizbe says:


        Not to put words in Gail’s mouth, but you may want to read her quotes about governments above.

        She’s spot on.

        You’re assuming a well-meaning and competent government (your “authorities” and “board certification”). Unfortunately, your view of government is likely much too trusting and rosy. Maybe based on “the way things used to be?”

        This ain’t your father’s government.

        The US Federal government regulatory function is now, nearly uniformly, controlled by Politically Correct Progressives. They have goals that are directly contrary to the needs and interests of the general public. If you’re unsure about this, see examples of the following agencies’ actions: EPA, IRS, Education, Federal Reserve Board, and many others.

        Any “certification board” would be drawn from the ranks of the ruling PC-Progs.

        Nothing good can come of that.

      • Neal S says:

        It is possible that Colorado is being sarcastic in a manner that is too subtle for some.

        • True, it is possible but I get easily confused this time of day. Can someone remind me what are the degrees held by our host? I just know that uppity patent clerks get on everybody’s nerves and make a royal mess in sciences. Everything would be neat and orderly without these people.

        • Jason Calley says:

          “I just know that uppity patent clerks get on everybody’s nerves and make a royal mess in sciences. ”

          Yes, they are relatively messy! 🙂

        • Gail Combs says:


          I really liked “patent clerks fantasize about physics”…..

        • AndyG55 says:

          Gail, do you have the link to that image that shows that CO2 does not emit below about 15km?

          There’s an idiot on another thread still not understanding anything about CO2 non-warming.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy here is the URL, sorry I am a day late.

        • AndyG55 says:

          That’s ok, I found the image in my pic folder, and now have it on “postimage” or where-ever I uploaded it to.

      • Beale says:

        Just to keep the record straight, Albert Einstein was an assistant examiner, not a clerk, in the Swiss Patent Bureau.

        • An uppity patent examiner. He abused the benevolence of the Bern cantonal government and practiced science without a permit.

        • kentclizbe says:


          Einstein is probably not a good role model for touting science outside the establishment powers-that-be.

          Einstein was a pure establishment figure for the vast majority of his career. He was the darling of international academia. Those who disagreed with his theories were marginalized and demonized.

          He was installed in do-nothing academic positions in multiple universities. He was involved in international politics beyond his ken or scope of knowledge.

          For a much better example of scientific genius rejected by the establishment, see Nicola Tesla.

        • kentclizbe says:

          “Einstein was a pure establishment figure for the vast majority of his career.”

          Einstein’s full-blown academic career began in 1905, when he was granted a doctorate degree. But even before that, while working in the patent office, he was a full-time academic, publishing papers from 1900 onwards.

          In 1908, Einstein was appointed to a post as a university lecturer.

          So, yes, the vast majority of Einstein’s career, 1908-1955, he was an establishment figure of the scientific community.

          At the end of his career, Einstein vigorously opposed rival theories and approaches to his pet theories. He quashed many up-and-coming physicists’ approaches to solutions to various physics issues.

        • Kent,

          I didn’t want to knock Morgan too hard for suggesting a board certification for scientists. It’s asinine but I thought his comment was one of those things we write in frustration and post it before we realize what we did. We can’t erase it and it stays put. Now, I’ve written some stupid thing myself so I thought a little friendly sarcasm was appropriate and knowing Gail’s views quite well, I rattled her chain, too. I thought my language was clear but what do I know? I don’t use /sarc tags—others can do what they want but I think it’s silly. It’s just like people making an off-color remark and crying right away: “Just kidding! Just kidding!” They should have shut up in the first place.

          You took my sarcasm seriously and responded as if I was in favor of that absurd permit proposal. I understand, sometimes I make the same mistake myself. It always happens because I care about something a lot. I get very serious and swallow some jester’s hook, line and sinker. When I finally smarten up it’s time to fess up to my earnest idiocy, have a chuckle and move along. It’s good to not take ourselves too seriously.

          You are just being stubborn, now.

        • kentclizbe says:


          Guess i missed your tone of voice in that sarcastic remark.

          Hard to tell in written format.

          Although I’m pretty sarcastic in person, I try to refrain from using it in writing–especially in short formats.

          “Intercollegiate Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.”

        • Gail Combs says:

          Colorado and Kent,

          From one point of view, given todays society, having a PS (Professionally certified Scientist) with the same legal standing as a P.E (Professional Engineer) might not be such a bad idea.

          I found out through a lawyer many years ago that a scientist has no legal standing and pretty much has to do what a corporations tell him to. A PE on the other hand has legal protections and obligations when it comes to honesty.

          The Board of Ethical Review is a panel of engineering ethics experts that has served as the profession’s guide through ethical dilemmas…

          The engineering profession’s emphasis on ethics dates back to the end of the 19th century. In 1946, NSPE released its Canons of Ethics for Engineers and Rules of Professional Conduct, which evolved to the current Code of Ethics, adopted in 1964. While these statements of general principles served as a guide, many engineers requested interpretations of how the Canons and Rules would apply to specific circumstances. These requests ultimately led to the creation of the BER in 1954….

          …as a result of changes in the law, especially antitrust laws and commercial-free speech laws, the emphasis shifted to professional competence issues, such as the signing and sealing of work, whistleblowing, conflicts of interest, and the engineer’s obligation to protect the public health and safety.

          Besides producing advisory opinions on ethics cases, the seven-member BER is involved in many other engineering ethics activities. It participated in the development of the ethics video Gilbane Gold, which shows the dilemma of an engineer caught between doing what he feels is right and remaining loyal to his company. It also established a Code of Ethics Exam….

  5. Frank K. says:

    Hey, if I lived in California, I’d be drinking more now too… 😉

  6. rah says:

    Earthquakes have destroyed more wine in that period than climate.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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