Climate Science = Lysenkoism

Can you explain me again why non-AGW views are "excluded" ?

Do you even know what excluded means? One thing it doesnt mean is "everyone is free to post anti AGW stuff and nothing bad will happen to them if they do, no agents will pick them up in the middle in the night".

Buy wait, your claim is that it is forbidden to criticize AGW and everyone that does get shot right? :) Did this guy get shot?

No it isnt ad hominem. I did take a course in logic, and contary to you I know what ad hominem is. And there's nothing wrong to check out people's background AFTER you have found them wrong.

I can repeat this again to you to show people how deliberately you are ignoring counter arguments, because off course you will not answer this time again.

Jamie says AGW is Western Lysenkoim

Japan not in west

Japan do AGW research

So AGW research no western property

And no under west control

I only block people who make personal attack, or wildly stray from the subject matter (spam).

I don't recall ever blocking Wolfbird.  Obvious not blocked now.

"Lysenkoism" is the official government sanctioning of faulty science for political reasons.  It is very much alive today.

Killing the "deniers" would work at cross purposes; silencing their voices seems to be the method of choice.

History also tells us Lysenkoism spread out of the Soviet Union and pervaded the East Bloc satellite states during the 1940s-50s.

In academia, access to journals is part of the "publish or perish" mentality.

The "climate" specialty journals are all controlled by fellow travellers.  The more generalist journals are editorially tepid when it comes to standing up to the climate cabal.

You can see right here, the scorn heaped on brilliant scientists with decades-long records of great scientific acchievement, for daring to speak again the Lysenkoists.

Good thing in this country the Second Amendment is still in place.  Even so, that hasn't stopped corrupt Lysenkoists from demanding "Deniars" be prosecuted.  What a sad day for science.

http://watchdog.org/239397/environmentalists-seek-rico-prosecutions/

"A climate scientist from Vermont is among 20 environmentalists calling on the Obama administration to use federal racketeering laws to prosecute climate change dissenters.

In a Sept. 1 letter, academics and activists from eight universities and multiple research institutes urged the president and attorney general to investigate corporations and other organizations that have “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” The group wants President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to silence political opponents of government climate change policies."

It wasn't the first time:

"Climate Depot reports that another prominent green, Robert F. Kennedy Junior, has called for climate “deniers” to be jailed. Is it just me, or is there something very wrong with a political landscape in which people find it acceptable to demand their opponents be jailed for disagreeing with them?"

Robert Kennedy Jr, video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41yJTxrPFhM&feature=youtu.be

For your reading pleasure (or horror, if you care about honesty in science):

http://sppiblog.org/news/lysenkoism-and-james-hansen

(An Australian point of view)

Currently, global warming alarmism is fuelled by an estimated worldwide expenditure on related research and greenhouse bureaucracy of more than US$10 billion annually.

Scientists and bureaucrats being only too human, the power of such sums of money to corrupt not only the politics of greenhouse, but even the scientific process itself, should not be underestimated. In recognition of these events, the term Hansenism is now sometimes used to describe the climate hysteria which had, until recently, gripped western media sources and political, business and public opinion in a deadly grasp.

Histories of science contain an account of the ideological control of Soviet biology during the mid-20th century by plant scientist Trofim Lysenko, who by 1940 had risen to be Director of the influential Institute of Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Lysenko and his supporters rejected the “dangerous Western concepts” of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution. They preferred the Lamarckian view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics; for instance, that cows could be trained to give more milk and their offspring would then inherit this trait.

I'm used to the constant flow of invective from leftists and AGW true believers.  It started in pawnkeeper's topic (Global Warmin is a Fake) and has continued unabated.

Scientific argumentation and structured thought processes are not the forte of the Left.  They prefer to shout down the opposition and argue from mindless emotion.

Good read!  Interesting - another pseudoscience

It reminds me though:

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy!"

That's a good summation.  This entire thread is based on a incredably crude concept  put forth by denialists completely incapable of understanding complex and nuanced ideas.

And besides if the United States was anything like Soviet Russia wouldn't it be your duty to rise up with your guns and revolt or at least defect to a free country?

The whole “Climate Science = Lysenkoism” is just ludicris.

A typical Alarmist reply!

History:

"Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counter-evidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award.  Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism. 
The V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced on August 7, 1948 that thenceforth Lysenkoism would be taught as the only correct theory.  All Soviet scientists were required to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenkoism.  Ultimately, Soviet geneticists resisting Lysenkoism were imprisoned and even executed.

Sounds a lot like the United States these days.  Alarmists want "climate deniers" criminally prosecuted.  Scientists who question AGW orthodoxy are reguarly denounced.  Gore's flawed global warming film (which won awards!) is required curriculum in some places.

AGW data has clearly been faked.  Nope, it's a pretty good comparison.

You have this hang up about Japan.  I don't care about Japan, or their ocean temperature data.  Japan, in the western Pacific is affected by the Decadal Pacific Oscillation.  That pretty much explains their findings.

Perhaps, you should state your concerns in a cogent manner.

NOAA-NCDC (now NEIA) is a repository for worldwide temperature information, which they reprocess in an undisclosed manner and with no accountability.

It's interesting to see how some people raised during the cold war compare everything to Soviets and Stalinism and the like.

Good post, Alexander.

Some people would argue that President Garfield was not killed by the assassin's bullet, but died from his non-antiseptic treatment by his backward doctors.

Here is a good example of Lysenko-like global warming propaganda.  This is from a news article today.  Do you see the problem with the graphic (besides the obvious misspelling)?

Let's deconstruct the bad science and propaganda used for the graphic.

Citing the IPCC and NASA, the top graphic claims,"Geenhouse (sic) gases trap solar energy in the earth's atmosphere, overheating the planet."  It show in the graphic "90% heat trapped by greenhouse gases" and "10% heat reflected back into space."

By heat, the propagandists seem to be referring to thermal infrared energy."

In actuality, NASA reports:

"The atmosphere radiates the equivalent of 59% of incoming sunlight back to space as thermal infrared energy, or heat. Where does the atmosphere get its energy? The atmosphere directly absorbs about 23% of incoming sunlight, and the remaining energy is transferred from the Earth’s surface by evaporation (25%), convection (5%), and thermal infrared radiation (a net of 5-6%). The remaining thermal infrared energy from the surface (12%) passes through the atmosphere and escapes to space."

The propganda then lists six "longlasting greenhouse gases" (IPCC uses the term "long-lived greenhouse gases") with the implication they are the same gases at work in the graphic above.  They are not.  The most important of the greenhouse gases is water vapor, which is ignored in the graphic altogether (no mention of clouds, for instance).

The truth of the matter, natural greenhouse gases keep the planet alive.  Without them, the Earth would be as cold and dead as Mars.

Greenhouse gases are not "overheating" the Earth.  They are keeping it alive.  And in geologic history, the Earth was much warmer, lusher, and moister than it is today.

The propagandists appeal to emotion of the reader at the expense of facts.

http://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-odds-obama-science-climate-050328474.html

Digging deep into the accompanying article (link above), the authors quote Alden Meyer, "Director of Strategy and Policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists."

What is the Union of Concerned Scientists?  Is it one of the more that 200 scientific organization ballhyhooed by some to endorse AGW theory.  Probably.  But the truth of the matter, it is an evironmentalist lobbying organization with a grandiose name.

And who is Alden Meyers?  Is he a scientist?  No, he is a lobbyist and a Democrat Party apparatchik.  Here is his UCS bio: http://www.ucsusa.org/about/staff/staff/alden-meyer.html#.VliGfb92HYg

He is a shill for Al Gore, as seen in this news release coincident with Gire's testimony before Congress in 1999:

"WASHINGTON (January 28, 2009) - Former Vice President Al Gore told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today that Congress must pass a comprehensive climate bill this year to address the urgency of the climate crisis and to lay the groundwork for an international climate treaty later this year in Copenhagen. Below is a statement by Alden Meyer, director of policy and strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists:

"Once again, Vice President Gore is speaking the inconvenient truth: It's long past time for the United States to join the rest of the world in the fight against global warming, and it's essential for Congress to pass comprehensive climate legislation this year. The United States has joined other countries in calling for adoption of a new climate change treaty at the Copenhagen climate summit this December. Having a congressionally approved plan in hand would strengthen President Obama's ability to negotiate a strong agreement in Copenhagen. "Federal climate legislation should provide substantial assistance to developing countries for expanding deployment of clean energy technologies and preventing tropical deforestation, and to help them adapt to the mounting effects of global warming. Such assistance must be a central element of any international climate deal, and recognition of this in domestic climate legislation will make developing countries more willing to work with the United States."

If course, Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" has been exposed as convenient mistruths.  LOLZ

It defies common sense that a human population that grew from 1 Billion in 1904 to somewhere around 7 Billion now should have no impact on earth's climate. We look at pictures of darkened skies in China, polluted waterways ahead of the Rio Olympics, deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia. Yet the claim is that all these added humans have no impact on our climate despite seeing the impact everywhere else? That is so counterintuitive that it is laughable. 

There is little point in debating graphs and numbers as too few have a grasp of it. However, it should not even matter as the proposed measures should be done regardless of what your opinion is in terms of AGW. Let's look at some of it:

- Moving away from fossil fuels for our energy needs should be a no-brainer considering alone the environmental impact of strip mining, fracking, oil spills, and so on.

- Improved energy conservation. Again, why is there even a debate? At least, there is some progress to report in terms of vastly more efficient lights and tougher building codes.

The key is that if the proponents of AGW are wrong then in the worst case the earth is a bit cleaner and our homes are more comfortable. If the opponents are wrong then we mightily screwed ourselves. Seems like an easy decision to make.

I don't get paid.  My reward is educating "the great unwashed."