Scientific conspiracy on a global scale

Written By: - Date published: 1:54 pm, December 15th, 2009 - 40 comments
Categories: dpf, Environment, Satire - Tags:

In a recent post my good friend and fellow concern troll DPF covered the Associated Press review of the leaked “climategate” materials. The review concluded that the science of global warming was genuine. But DPF had some concerns: “My worry is that there is now a mindset where only data that fits the thesis is considered”, and “The issue is not just whether data was destroyed, but also whether one can have any confidence in those scientists who proposed it”. Good points! The scientific evidence seems so unassailable that of course we should be concerned that it is faked.

It wouldn’t be the first time that “scientists” have convinced the world of a “theory” that is obviously not true. Throughout ancient times it was obvious that the moon went around the earth. This is still accepted today. But in the past it was just as obvious that the sun went around the earth as well. This geostatic and geocentric nature of the earth was repeatedly tested and verified as being factual for a quite some time (going back thousands of years). Then, all of a sudden, just 400 plus years ago, a band of court astrologers started pushing this idea that the earth was orbiting the sun this time, and that the sun was standing still at the center (hence the claim of the system being a ‘solar’ system). Nevertheless this new claim was not accompanied by any new proof. It was simply invoked and declarations were made that the fixed nature of earth needed to be disapproved.

Bertrand Russell admitted that ‘whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors held, the observed phenomena will be the same; a metaphysical assumption has to be made’. Yet today everybody ‘just knows’ that the Earth goes around the sun (heliocentrism). But simple observational evidence shows us that the Earth is not, in fact, moving at all! Hundreds of experiments have failed to detect even a smidgen of the purported 67,000 mph translational and 1000 mph rotational velocity of the Earth. Not only can it not be disproved that “the Earth stands forever” (Ecc. 1:4) and has no velocity; it cannot be disproved that the Earth is the center of the universe. And the toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre’s induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja’s lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh’s polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous ‘Airy’s Failure’ experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever.

Another bogus argument that some solar system advocates bring up from time to time is inertia and momentum. What is it that the moving-earth theorists believe is the substance (or the vector field) that supposedly exerts a huge gravitational force on air molecules which prevents the atmosphere around the earth from trailing behind the allegedly speeding earth (as is the case for comets)? Their answer?: Nothing. Instead, heliocentrists usually propose a fraudulent analogy of how the earth’s motion is comparable with some person walking inside a moving train. They claim that since the walker inside the train feels more or less the same as he or she feels when walking on the ground that somehow is supposed to reassure us that the earth could also be moving without we feeling it. The problem with this analogy is of course the fact that once the person inside the train opens a window and faces the elements, he or she will feel it soon enough what the real speed is that the train is traveling at! Therefore the only correct analogy for someone walking on the ground of earth is someone walking in an open train or better yet – on the roof of a moving train. What will happens then?

Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:

“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…”

His great contemporary Henri Poincaré confessed:

“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative (…) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation…”

Lincoln Barnett agrees:

“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (Albert A. Michelson), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle says:

“Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense (…) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down.”

In further startling evidence that the scientific community is stifling dissenting views, Alexander von Humboldt admitted:

“I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus. . . but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it.”

In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth. We are fortunate that some brave scientists are prepared to speak out:

“The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.”

Exit, Einstein. I’m sure that DPF, and I, and the respected expert from whom I have plagiarised most of this post can all agree that we should return to the old trusted truths. Truths handed down to us by knowledgeable, civilized, free people of all stripes, i.e. those who were supposed to know, like astronomers, natural philosophers (a.k.a. scientists), explorers, teachers, traders, seamen, navigators and various other free and educated men – as opposed to schooled, wage enslaved, homogenized, “experts” of modern times who wouldn’t dare bite the hand that feeds them.

40 comments on “Scientific conspiracy on a global scale ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    15 December 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Well written. It is almost plausible that someone would write something like that.

  2. Tim Ellis 2
    15 December 2009 at 2:28 pm

    Interesting post, r0b. Are these all your own words?

    Because it is very similar to the post at http://sites.google.com/site/abafte/geo

    • Daveo 2.1
      15 December 2009 at 3:00 pm

      Tim, if you spent more time reading the post rather than trawling the internet trying to find ways to defame this site’s authors you’d see r0b wrote:

      I’m sure that DPF, and I, and the respected expert from whom I have plagiarised most of this post can all agree

      and linked through to that exact website.

      I really think the only reason you come on here is to smear people.

      • pointer 2.1.1
        15 December 2009 at 8:12 pm

        I was going to say that the final paragraph of r0b’s post was absolutely the funniest — laugh out loud funny.

        But then I read Tim Ellis’ comment. Way to steal r0b’s thunder, dude.

    • Bright Red 2.2
      15 December 2009 at 3:11 pm

      it’s what he’s paid for

  3. ieuan 3
    15 December 2009 at 2:30 pm

    ‘whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors held, the observed phenomena will be the same;

    Actually that is not the case, the orbits of the other planets in relation to the earth are evidence that we orbit around the sun and not the other way around.

  4. zelda 4
    15 December 2009 at 2:35 pm

    All we are saying is that the temperature record has been fiddled with . Both the current temperatures and the historic record using proxies.
    All the rest is still wonderful science but the urgency goes out the window if this has happened. The emails only confirm what some have previously suspected

    • Bright Red 4.1
      15 December 2009 at 3:20 pm

      why does the urgency go out the window?

    • lprent 4.2
      15 December 2009 at 4:13 pm

      There you show your fundamental misunderstanding of the science of collecting measurements.

      The temperature record is ALWAYS fiddled with. In fact, so is EVERY scientific measure. Every instrument collects more data than you are actually after.

      For instance a thermometer is affected (just from memory) by:-
      1. Barometric pressure. This includes height in the atmospheric column.
      2. Direct radiation from surrounding surfaces (ie transmitted heat)
      3. Electro-statics (especially the bi-metal thermometers)
      4. How old or new the thermometers is.

      etc etc…..

      All measuring devices are calibrated against other devices, and by other conditions by measuring other factors and then correcting the raw readings. I used to have to spend hours calibrating some of the stuff I used to play with like X-ray florescence, x-ray diffraction, and many other devices. You then apply the correcting factors to the raw data before you can use it (most modern electronic systems will do a lot of it for you).

      What has become apparent from the stupidity of CCDs (and you) over the CRU e-mails is that they don’t understand this basic scientific concept. They’d prefer to see conspiracy to using their natural intelligence and looking at these really really basic concepts.

      The most extreme was Treadgold from the Climate Change Coalition (one of the biggest gits at that pack of psuedo-scientific clowns) who tried to claim that the Wellington temperature data had been fiddled after they looked at the raw data.

      Of course it had – the bloody testing stations had been moved uphill. You have to adjust for the the elevation, and it significantly changes the measurement because even a relatively few meters difference will significantly drop temperatures. Ask anyone who has lived in a sheltered up a hill.

      If you want a laugh, check out this post at hot-topic looking at the CSC’s monumental cockup and the response from NIWA

      • ben 4.2.1
        15 December 2009 at 4:28 pm

        This just avoids the point Lynn. We can take it as read that raw data is processed. The question is about the detail of the processing and whether it is defensible and done properly. Recall that 80% of the CRU warming is in the adjustments not the raw data, so its an important question.

        • lprent 4.2.1.1
          15 December 2009 at 6:23 pm

          The question that you have to ask is do you get equivalent data in in similar locations worldwide.

          If you do (as in fact happens), then you’re suddenly into becoming a conspiracy nutter when (as many CCDs have) they start to say that all of the data is manipulated by a vast global conspiracy.

          Where is your tinfoil hat, I have some myths to tell you.

          That is the whole point. The climategate nutters are extrapolating from one instance to infer that there is a vast conspiracy going on amongst climate scientists. It isn’t because you’d have to have so many people involved that the thing would leak like a sieve. Besides, scientists are naturally competitive. Cooperation between them takes a lot more organization than could be sustained over the last 30 odd years that the greenhouse gas effect has been chewed over in earth sciences.

      • Andrei 4.2.2
        15 December 2009 at 5:17 pm

        That’s silly modern meteorological thermometers are calibrated ±0.2 C° and none of those effects would come close to that.

        In the meteorological stations were not set up to provide a long term time series and the so called adjustments just introduce more uncertainty into the estimates of past temperature and most if not all the early readings were only accurate to ±0.5C° anyway so how the hell anyone can claim a “rise” of less than a degree over whatever the time period is with a straight face is beyond me

        • lprent 4.2.2.1
          15 December 2009 at 6:13 pm

          If you have a close look at the data that treadwell was claiming was flawed (or read the linked post), you’ll see that stations called the same ‘name’ (ie the city) were moved. This is common in most long-series meteorological stations somewhere in the lifetimes especially around urban areas.

          The damn cities just grow and bollix the original stations with their heat plumes (most cities generate a significant plume downwind). Or buildings or roads are put in close enough to the measuring site that will bollix the measurements. That one is strong enough for a human to feel on a hot day. Not to mention rents changes….

          Anyway, read http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/ (was linked to in the post I linked to)

          The difference of a 125m in elevation is about 0.79 degrees C in Wellington (another reason not to move there).

          As you say variations in thermometers currently is about 0.2C. But the move in this case happened in the 1920’s when the device errors were quite a lot larger (not to mention that the data was probably manually read then).

          • Andrei 4.2.2.1.1
            15 December 2009 at 8:55 pm

            Do you know anything about measurement science?

            If the input data is only known to within ±0.5C° the output figure cannot be any better than this in fact it will be worse so whatever the change in temperature has been it is swamped by the uncertainties ie NIWA’s graph is crap but we already knew that.

            I know someone who is savvy will try and say the variation from the “true value” is normally distributed and the errors will cancel out but in truth the errors in measurement here are almost certainly systematic and the “adjustments” certainly i will ntroduce a systematic error even assuming they are nearly correct which is unlikely

            • lprent 4.2.2.1.1.1
              15 December 2009 at 9:03 pm

              Yes. I know about sensor measurements. At various stages I had to code for the damn things on various devices at the analog level (ie converting to digital) and write digital compensations for their vagaries. As well as using them through several different ‘careers’ and courses.

              Do you know anything about atmospheric science? I think not – you don’t seem to be aware of how temperature varies with altitude, around buildings, in cities, near roads, within range of reflective windows etc etc. Furthermore you seem to be obsessed with saying +/- with what looks like little understanding about how those calibrations are arrived at. Hell you probably believe the numbers in vendors tech specs without bothering to check them.

              Any other questions? Nope – now I expect you to go back to the same tired lines you’ve been running without bothering to discuss anything I’ve said. Pretty boring. Pretty damn pathetic.

              • Andrei …
                15 December 2009 at 9:30 pm

                Of course I know about variation of temperature with height, actually temperature varies not only with height but spatially and temporally as well as does pressure another slippery customer in atmospheric physics.

                And I also know you cannot compare apples with oranges which is what you are doing if you construct a time series from different instruments with different tolerances in different places using different measurement protocols to take the measurements.

                And using fudge factors to overcome the problems only makes matters worse.

  5. Deus ex Machina 5
    15 December 2009 at 2:46 pm

    “…which prevents the atmosphere around the earth from trailing behind the allegedly speeding earth (as is the case for comets)?”

    The tail of a comet does not ‘trail behind it’ but extends from it in the direction away from the sun, and can even be at right-angles to the path of the comet. This is because the dust and gas coming off the comet is blown away from it by the solar wind. Far out from the sun where the effect of the solar wind is negligible comets don’t have tails and their detritus travels with them. The earth’s atmosphere is not affected by the solar wind as the solar wind is diverted around the earth by its magnetic fields.

    So with a little bit of knowledge of basic science one can be a heliocentrist again.

  6. David Farrar 6
    15 December 2009 at 3:01 pm

    Good God you misrepresent what my position is so badly, that I wonder why you are incapable of being honest. Why do you have to invent false positions fo me rather than actually debate my real position?

    I have never said GG emissions are not causing warming. In fact my insistence this is the case gets me attacked massively on my own blog. I’ve even explained several times that there is no dispute at all over the link between GG gases and warming, The dispute is about the extent of any positive feedback.

    The AP article I extensively blogged concluded (as you said) that the do not disprove global warming. Again I mainly got attacked from people from the right for posting the story, and here you are trying to paint me as something I am not. It is absolutely dishonest and basically a smear.

    The point I made was that some scientists proposed illegally deleting data, to prevent people questioning it. This should be of concern to everyone. I questioned whether the people who proposed deleting the data should be able to be trusted again – not because they support global warming is man-made, but because they proposed illegally deleting data.

    What would you think of officials in NZ who proposed deleting official information to stop Labour accessing it under the OIA? Would you not be outraged?

    • Bright Red 6.1
      15 December 2009 at 3:03 pm

      I got about half way through, but all I was getting from Farrar’s comment was ‘whaa, whaa, whaa’

      You know the game you’re playing, David. Don’t fool yourself that we don’t.

      • zelda 6.1.1
        15 December 2009 at 3:11 pm

        Now who’s playing the ‘dark conspiracy’ game. Like to have some proof of that.

        But dont hold your breath for anything from the global warming idiots

        • Bright Red 6.1.1.1
          15 December 2009 at 3:23 pm

          It’s not a dark conspiracy, David is just a political actor skilled in dogwhistling.

          Davids’ no idiot. He knows (or would know if he looked into the issue seriosuly) that climate change is the problem that the scientists say it is but he objects to doing anything about it because it would mean collective action and control of capitalism.

          So he throws red meat to useful idiots like you at every opportunity. Note he never denies climate change himself. He just seems ‘concerned’ with minor issues which he projects as major. He knows he is fuelling the deniers, and he knows why he is doing it.

    • ieuan 6.2
      15 December 2009 at 3:10 pm

      Any chance of a vote down system?

      If we get to -10 can we get this comment hidden?

      (Weak argument David, I think you are really stretching things to say it is ‘It is absolutely dishonest and basically a smear.’)

    • r0b 6.3
      15 December 2009 at 3:20 pm

      It’s satire David. The stationary earth arguments have the same nature, and employ the same tactics, as the AGW denier arguments. The absurdity of the comparison is supposed to illustrate the absurdity of the denier position.

      You only got included as a topical lead in because of the concern troll tactics in your recent post. Your summary of the AP review was not: “So the stolen emails are a non issue, let’s get on with saving the planet” it was “My worry is that there is now a mindset where only data that fits the thesis is considered’. More subtle than an outright denier of course, but the end result is the same.

    • lprent 6.4
      15 December 2009 at 3:29 pm

      What are you talking about? It could be that you got caught by the pesky reply that is causing problems over the last few days. But it looks like you’re responding to rOb’s post.

      I have never said GG emissions are not causing warming

      rOb never said that you did.

      Again I mainly got attacked from people from the right for posting the story, and here you are trying to paint me as something I am not. It is absolutely dishonest and basically a smear.

      Huh? He said that you’d reviewed the AP article. Did two quotes from it and then said.

      Good points! The scientific evidence seems so unassailable that of course we should be concerned that it is faked.

      I’d have to conclude that you didn’t actually read the post. It is a slightly satirical post, but rOb really didn’t attack you in any direct way. I suspect you were just pulled in as lead. he could have written it about any of the vaguely ‘concerned’ people commenting without understanding on ‘climategate’.

      I realize that it difficult to deal with some of your more virulent commentators. But please don’t transfer that irritation to attacking one of my posters without cause.

      Read the damn post!

      BTW: I fundamentally disagree with your position on climategate, but that is a different matter that I’ll get around to at some stage. Mostly that is to do with your lack of understanding of science. That will probably be a lot more attacking. But that is my nature…

      • Jackryan 6.4.1
        17 December 2009 at 12:54 pm

        What is your science background Iprent? You seem to be lecturing others on their lack of understanding of science, but I am unsure of your credentials.

  7. bill 7
    15 December 2009 at 3:14 pm

    “The point I made was that some scientists proposed illegally deleting data, to prevent people questioning it. This should be of concern to everyone. I questioned whether the people who proposed deleting the data should be able to be trusted again not because they support global warming is man-made, but because they proposed illegally deleting data.”

    But your point is bogus. There was no proposal to illegally delete data (whatever illegal in the given context might mean). .

    15 years worth of correspondence gives up three small snippets of nothing that have to be ripped from context and twisted into never seen before shapes to have any chance of constituting even a half arsed point.

    15 years. Three snippets (twisted and turned). Big conspiracy.

  8. Tim Ellis 8
    15 December 2009 at 3:33 pm

    It is fair to conclude from the evidence that some of the proponents of AGW, including members of the scientific community, have been dishonest and withheld science that is contrary to their position.

    • snoozer 8.1
      15 December 2009 at 3:48 pm

      is that relevant?

      It doesn’t affect the weight of evidence or the urgent action that is needed in response.

      • Tim Ellis 8.1.1
        15 December 2009 at 4:07 pm

        Well it is a little bit relevant snoozer and shows very bad judgement on behalf of the dishonest scientists concerned. If there is a scientific problem supported by the weight of evidence, and if there needs to be a public policy response to the problem, trying to fiddle with the science undermines public support for the public policy solution.

  9. Andrei 9
    15 December 2009 at 4:06 pm

    You know the big flaw with this “satire” is that there is nothing to determine between either the heliocentric or the geocentric models of the Solar System as being more valid than the other. Neither is true or false.

    It is purely just a matter of where you place the origin of your co-ordinate system, and what co-ordinate system you will use BTW. The whole purpose of the exercise being to make the mathematics describing the system as tractable as possible.

    I suppose it could be used to satirize non nonsensical disputes about questions with no real answers that don’t matter anyway.

  10. Deus ex Machina 10
    15 December 2009 at 4:08 pm

    A scientist’s future career, including positions at universities, tenure, publishability and peer respect can vanish even more completely and rapidly than a certain golfer’s sporting future, at any doubts being cast on his scientific integrity.

    That some scientists were willing to take that risk in order not to weaken their case that the world needs to take urgent and serious action now to limit emissions merely tells me first that they have no real doubt where the truth lies and, secondly, that it scares them silly.

    • Tim Ellis 10.1
      15 December 2009 at 5:19 pm

      That’s an amusing piece of logic, deus. Scientists were only dishonest because they really believed their claim.

  11. deemac 11
    15 December 2009 at 5:27 pm

    back to the original post; it is a foul slur on those ancient Arab and Greek astronomers who knew the earth went round the sun etc. Human history is not just a record of progress as the present govt exemplifies

  12. B Hanson 12
    16 December 2009 at 11:28 pm

    So climate change is bullshit. It’s called WEATHER morons.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.