Skip to content

Pre-Determined Science

August 10, 2017

By Paul Homewood






Marc Morano also covers the fake NYT report on the federal climate report. It covers some of the points I made.

But I was intrigued by this comment:

The New York Times hypes the fact that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has signed of on the 2017 report. Is that supposed to impress us?

The organization NAS is virtually 100% dependent on government funding. So when they do a study like this, we know the outcome of before they do them.



Is it actually true that most of the NAS fundings come from the government? Well, according to their own website, it does!




Little wonder then that Richard Lindzen has said:


NAS is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If the government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.

  1. Athelstan permalink
    August 10, 2017 9:39 pm

    I must say that, Mr. Morano is a man who I rather admire, he is a formidable debater and most, nay – all alarmists won’t go near a TV studio if Marc is around. I would say more but this is Paul’s blog and he is a very fair minded lad, as they are in South Yorks. Whereas us West Yorkies……………..

    Stop right there son!

  2. John F. Hultquist permalink
    August 11, 2017 12:59 am

    These Federal and State climate reports would get William Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Awards were he still alive to do so.
    Consider that volunteers are passing out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to children in the USA.

    I think of these expensive climate get-togethers and report writing to be taking high quality food from those in need. And this is just one of many good uses the money could go towards. Maybe not the best [“opportunity cost”], but there are so many.

  3. August 11, 2017 7:56 am

    Prof Brian Cox who is not even a climate scientist says it’s “irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science”.

    That was in response to the BBC interviewing Nigel Lawson about climate change. Yes, you read that right- ‘the BBC insisted it had a duty to inform listeners about all sides of a debate.’

    Insisted? For a long time it ‘insisted’ such a policy wasn’t in order. Times change it seems, for the better if the new policy survives the flak.

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      August 12, 2017 5:12 pm

      Amazing, could this be a new era where hyenas live closely with lions, or am I in the wrong musical? The hysterical response from the establishment pseudo-scientists is as expected. The BBC article omitted Lawson’s horns from the photo: must be photo-editing.

  4. CheshireRed permalink
    August 11, 2017 8:22 am

    Given the huge amounts of money and policy implications isn’t it past time these ‘reports’ were passed under sworn oath in court? Subsequent independent analysis that discovered material falsehoods (as per the graphs which are simply incorrect and clearly designed to mislead) would lead to perjury charges – with commensurate penalties.

    This is a whole world away from speculative or research science. If scientists wish to merely produce a ‘report’ but do not want to swear to its veracity under oath the ‘report’ could be treated as speculation and left at that.

    The ‘97%’ papers are perfect examples of activist-driven pre-determined rubbish being accepted as truth, when they’re plainly nothing of the sort.

    The problem here is climate ‘science’ treats every last alarmist utterance as gospel even when it’s plainly activist junk, with the questionable main motive of securing more funding. Time to hold those people to account with a veracity reference system that has teeth.

  5. August 11, 2017 9:29 am

    I would say that it is the case for the prosecution in a court case being brought for political reasons. It is a carefully selected and edited collection of “facts” about the climate, yes the facts presented are all (probably) correct, but there is another set of facts that paint a different picture.

    • ScottM permalink
      August 11, 2017 6:41 pm

      Lol, “alternative facts”. Is that you, Kellyanne Conway?

  6. David permalink
    August 11, 2017 9:34 am

    The BBC may have interviewed Nigel Lawson but even allowing for him being quietly spoken it seemed that they kept the sound level for his voice very low.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      August 11, 2017 2:55 pm

      A recent interview? When did they do this?

  7. Warren walker permalink
    August 11, 2017 1:02 pm

    The NAS if funded by tax dollars, yet reports generated are behind a paywall.

  8. August 11, 2017 1:53 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: