Greg Burnham

...

Thanks for all you do to provide this resource to us, John.

I don't believe Butterfield was ever with the Secret Service. He was a pilot, an aid to Nixon in the White House, and later the head of the FAA.

Seinfeld Clip - Babu Bhatt And The Cafe' [note the pictures on the walls of the cafe'] The Single Spit Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

Thank you, John. I think I'll go check out FIAT, too.

BTW: It is not that John is a denier or even a skeptic. Not at all. He simply is not persuaded yet. However, he is highly critical of their sloppy--if not deceptive--application of the scientific method, as well as their abuse of the peer review system. I think that is the point. I am not saying that I know enough about climate science specifically to claim to know they are wrong. However, I may know enough about scientific method to recognize that the presence of fallacious arguments tends to yield less than legitimate conclusions. In other words, IF they just happen to be correct it surely is not due to their methodology. Until I see sound methodology I will not be persuaded.

John, My main objection to this type of reasoning is simple: Scientists should never attempt to generate research funds by swaying public opinion through unsubstantiated alarmist rhetoric. If the claims can be substantiated then there should have been no need for these climate scientists to silence the skeptics within their own ranks. Let me say it a different way: Not only did these climate scientists dismiss the opposing conclusions of scientists who were outside of their inner group, they even vilified scientists within their own community whose research seriously challenged the validity of the claims being made! That is huge. The scientists (even within their own group) who rejected the methodology being employed to prove that global warming was man-made were SILENCED and even worse, their opposing conclusions, trivialized. As John said: THAT IS NOT CLIMATE SCIENCE. So, John, at this stage we do not know what caused the increase in temperature last decade. However, it is a fair bet that it had MUCH more to do with solar activity than anything else. Have you noticed how silent Al Gore has been since all of this started? He didn't even attend the Copenhagen Summit. Perhaps if he hides his eyes and crawls into a tight ball in the middle of the living room--like the small child, playing hide and seek, who figures if "he can't see them then they can't see him" -- perhaps Al Gore thinks this gaffe will just go away and his Nobel Prize will be intact...

Very good presentation Greg. Wish it has been a bit longer. A little more focused on 273. (I thank Terry Mauro for bringing this to my attention yesterday in a moment of synchronicity.) Dawn Thanks Dawn. Did you recognize the voice of our favorite "Rockefeller did it" nut in the audience?

There is no climate crisis...at least not a "man made" climate crisis. Anthropogenic global warming has been mostly discounted as a result of the poor science that went into its inception. Even if it turns out to be true, still it has not been demonstrated reliably in the models and methods put forth by the climate scientists who made it a practice to bias there own results in favor of a predetermined agenda. =========== Why Climategate is so Distressing to Scientists John P. Costella B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed. 26 Cassinia Avenue, Ashwood, Victoria 3147, Australia john.costella@gmail.com; assassinationscience.com/johncostella (December 10, 2009) The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies, or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works. The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the criminal justice system—which is (rightly or wrongly) abundantly depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows what happens if police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court. The justice system is not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent; rather, that determining the truth is impossible if evidence is not protected from tampering or fabrication. The same is true in science: scientists assume that the rules of the scientific method have been followed, at least in any discipline that publishes its results for public consumption. It is that trust in the process that allows me, for example, to believe that the human genome has been mapped—despite my knowing nothing about that field of science at all. That same trust has allowed scientists at large to similarly believe in the results of climate science. Until now. So what are the “rules” of the scientific method? Actually, they are not all that different from those of the justice system. Just as it is a fundamental right of every affected party to be heard and fairly considered by the court, it is of crucial importance to science that all points of view be given a chance to be heard, and fairly debated. But, of course, it would be impossible to allow an “open slather” type of arrangement, like discussion forums on the Internet; so how do we admit all points of view, without descending into anarchy? This question touches on something of a dark secret within science—one which most scientists, through the need for self-preservation, are scared to admit: most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases, and dogma. Why is this so? Because the mechanism by which scientific debate has been “regulated” to avoid anarchy—at least since the second half of the twentieth century—has been the “peer review” process. The career of any professional scientist lives or dies on their success in achieving publication of their papers in “peer-reviewed” journals. So what, exactly, does “peer-reviewed” mean? Simply that other professional scientists in that discipline must agree that the paper is worthy of publication. And what is the criterion that determines who these “professional scientists” should be? Their success in achieving publication of their papers in peer-reviewed journals! Catch-22. It may seem, on the surface, that this circular process is fundamentally flawed; but, borrowing the words of Winston Churchill, it is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. Science is not, of course, alone in this respect; for example, in the justice system, judges are generally selected from the ranks of lawyers. So what is it that allows this form of system to work, despite its evident circularity? The justice system again provides a clue: judges are not the ones who ultimately decide what occurs in a courtroom: they simply implement the laws passed or imposed by the government—and politicians are not, in general, selected solely from the ranks of the legal profession. This is the ultimate “reality check” that prevents the legal system from spiraling into navel-gazing irrelevance. Equivalent “escape valves” for science are not as explicitly obvious, but they exist nonetheless. Firstly, a scientific discipline can maintain a “closed shop” mentality for a while, but eventually the institutions and funding agencies that provide the lifeblood of their work— the money that pays their wages and funds their research—will begin to question the relevance and usefulness of the discipline, particularly in relation to other disciplines that are competing for the same funds. This will generally be seen by the affected scientists as “political interference”, but it is a reflection of their descent into arrogance and delusions of self-importance for them to believe that only they themselves are worthy of judging their own merits. Secondly, scientists who are capable and worthy, but unfairly “locked out” of a given discipline, will generally migrate to other disciplines in which the scientific process is working as it should. Dysfunctional disciplines will, in time, atrophy, in favor of those that are healthy and dynamic. The Climategate emails show that these self-regulating mechanisms simply failed to work in the case of climate science—perhaps because “climate science” is itself an aggregation of many different and disparate scientific disciplines. Those component disciplines are extremely challenging. For example, it would be wonderful if NASA were able to invent a time machine, and go back over the past hundred thousand years and set up temperature and carbon dioxide measurement probes across the breadth of the globe. Unfortunately, we don’t have this. Instead, we need to infer these measurements, by counting tree rings, or digging up tubes of ice. The science of each of these disciplines is well-defined and rigorous, and there are many good scientists working in these fields. But the real difficulty is the “stitching together” of all of these results, in a way that allows answers to the fundamental questions: How much effect has mankind had on the temperature of the planet? And how much difference would it make if we did things differently? It is at this “stitching together” layer of science—one could call it a “meta-discipline”— that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through the Climategate emails, one can see members of that community—usually those with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers—questioning (as they should) this “stitching together” process, particularly with regard to the extremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers. Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own domain of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thought-out, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions. So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge— thanking them for their experience (no one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand. This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology. It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists. ==== .

Great post, David.

Thanks Bernice. Jim, Here's an apropos post from that thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14521&view=findpost&p=176816

I visited the United States last year and if I was to go and live in your country I would probably select San Diego. If you visit here again, John, be sure to let me know.

Interesting:

QUESTION: So, if San Diego has the very best climate on the planet...who can help you relocate there? The Answer Hey, San Diego is my home, so I'm a bit partial...but ARE YOU KIDDING ME RIGHT NOW! Look at the daily temperatures and precipitation here! In the future, I really believe that when the baby boomers begin to retire in mass (after the economic delay has resolved) this may become both the retirement and the Real Estate investment capital of the country. Of course, by then, the prices may have begun to recover and interest rates might be higher. All in all, San Diego is a very interesting study in Real Estate economics. ...

Yes, there is a way to download it. Just go to BOR 2012 Archives and you'll see options for playing it with Real Player or downloading it as an MP3 file.

I agree, Greg. This interview is a MUST hear for anyone who is a serious student of this subject, IMO.

We may never know. And, even if he did pursue it, he's not telling us what he found out, if anything.

Thank you Dean. I appreciate the kind words. This is a very different venue to be sure. I'm looking forward to it. GO_SECURE monk Boy it did not take "the entity" long to begin to interrogate you. I did not read his questions. By now you are familiar with the "players" here. Speaking of the entity... http://www.rense.com/ufo6/jfkss.htm

That Lee Harvey Ford is a fine fellow, isn't he, Ray?

[emphasis added]No offense, but, in my view, the phrase: "capitalist system" is a misnomer and unfairly, if not inaccurately, creates a prejudice in the reader against Western (particularly US) ideology. I am not speaking about the "evolved" Western "system" -- and if that is what you were referencing, then I probably agree with you. But, I do not think that capitalism necessarily must lead to corruption. The difficulty resides in the common man becoming actively aware of and monitoring the "danger signs" against liberty. IOW: Is it really true that citizens need to recognize threats to their liberty ESPECIALLY in a capitalistic system? I think not. However, citizens do need to recognize threats to their liberty in ANY system. Some systems lend themselves to tyranny much more readily than does ours. But, ours also needs to be scrutinized, daily. I sympathize with your need to stay hopeful, Greg, but I think you're looking at the situation through a, shall we say, typical Western lens. Most people in America have a conceit that we've evolved light years since the Middle Ages or even the Roman, Greek, and Egyptian civilizations. In actuality, 90+% of that evolution has been in technology, not in civilization itself. No, we are still living in a feudal system (BTW, I realize that "feudal" is an imprecise term), but one that appears much more highly stylized than Europe of 500 years ago. To be fair, there is one big difference, and that is we have greater (but not great) upward mobility. Doubt me? Ask yourself how much economic and political power the bottom 75% of the U.S. has. How easy is it really for the mean or median person to make it into the top 5%? Possible? Yes (I lived that life). Likely? Not very (most of my classmates did not follow me). Our system of education continues to churn out exactly what it was designed to: worker bees with little context or training about either history or thinking outside of the box. We mock China's creative inability without realizing that our system isn't necessarily better but that their's might simply be worse. Getting back on topic, the point is that the Establishment will do whatever it takes to protect and grow their power. This isn't an evil intent but simple preservation; it's the same attitude that the aristocracy had when trying to stifle the wave of revolutions that occurred during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Luckily, the American Revolution was successful. However, after escaping the "tyranny" of Britain, one can see that we eventually created an empire that was eerily similar to Britain's. Ever ask yourself why that is? Your observation that it could be worse is correct. Due to globalization, vassals are no longer the people working the land, making horseshoes, or building our castles (Cf. Freemasonry). Now, the peons are entire nations or at least most of nations. You can see this easily if you study Central and South American history. Their story is the plight of the former European peasant of 500 years ago--i.e., how to get ahead when the overall system relies upon your cheap/free labor. Luckily, the U.S. is at the top of the food chain so our average quality of life is better than most. I can look at the sweep of history and believe that this is all normal or natural and that people will rise up if it gets too bad. However, there are other things about this system that bother me, specifically when it goes from passive aggressive domination into active mode. The assassination of JFK is a perfect example of this type of action and why I believe we should care about solving this crime and exposing the system. I can condone monopolies and protectionist legislation far more than murder. Fair enough, Tom. All points are well taken. Thanks for your very well reasoned reply. -

Seems like somewhat of a non sequitur there Jim, since I haven't seen anyone calling Clinton "the most corrupt president ever". Unfortunately, every president has been more or less corrupt, so it's effectively a useless term for measuring presidential ability. Comparing relative corruption sounds like such a depressing sport, but it truly does illustrate how poorly the office is run. BTW, I'm not going to say how far we've fallen, since I see no evidence of a sustained period that was corruption free. I agree with Gore Vidal that we have only one political party, with two wings, and that this party has been in bed with the wealthiest one percent for more than a century. It's really par for the course with a capitalist system, but so many people are so adamant about defending and protecting the methods of their own destruction that I've been relatively selfish in my outlook. As long as my family is okay, I'm okay. [emphasis added]Hi Tom. That was a both disturbing and insightful post. I am uncertain as to which attribute I should assign more weight. No offense, but, in my view, the phrase: "capitalist system" is a misnomer and unfairly, if not inaccurately, creates a prejudice in the reader against Western (particularly US) ideology. I am not speaking about the "evolved" Western "system" -- and if that is what you were referencing, then I probably agree with you. But, I do not think that capitalism necessarily must lead to corruption. The difficulty resides in the common man becoming actively aware of and monitoring the "danger signs" against liberty. IOW: Is it really true that citizens need to recognize threats to their liberty ESPECIALLY in a capitalistic system? I think not. However, citizens do need to recognize threats to their liberty in ANY system. Some systems lend themselves to tyranny much more readily than does ours. But, ours also needs to be scrutinized, daily. Absolute blindness, blinds absolutely... in any system.

That Doug Lamson is a fine fellow, isn't he Ray? [emphasis added]--- Sheesh. This is almost like playing kick ball.

Michael, Don't worry, its not your fault. After all, we have both Morrow and Carroll with which to contend in one place!!! Egads...

Hold on a second here. I tried to exemplify how ridiculous it is to suggest that Gary Mack should display every "theory" between the earth and the moon in the Museum. That's the reason, the rest is just your usual speculation about other's sinister motives, whenever what they say is not your cup of tea. Period. "How could you miss that"? But I have no hesitation in giving Gary Mack credit for being far more careful with the truth than most people here seems to acknowledge. No hesitation whatsoever. Hold on a second here, Glenn. Nobody has ever suggested that Mack "should display every theory between the earth and the moon" in the museum. You have built a straw man.