Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Where Are the Hurricanes?
Here we are at the beginning of August, and we are only up to Georgette in the Pacific. This is NOAA’s hurricane prediction for 2022:
When I look at those spreads on the right, I see tons of wiggle room (I’m surprised they don’t have 1-26 for named storms). Nonetheless, I just realized we haven’t had any big storms yet that I know of. What’s a climate change activist to do?
Published in Science & Technology
Yep! That tells it all.
That was a brilliant parody!
Who needs peer review when undergraduates in the department have Twitter to establish the political salience of a paper. And if the professional peers are doing essentially the same thing, why bother.
We shouldn’t expect Expert-Americans to have their ideas challenged or even reviewed. The experts are right, and that’s all that’s necessary.
And that is precisely the great danger, this ossification of credentialed expertise and its gradual transformation into a protected elite class immune to questions or criticism.
Anyone who claims to value science but is in favor of censoring and silencing critics is the worst kind of intellectual scoundrel.
@henryracette
As stated many times before, there is a great deal of proof.
It is the type of proof that the good Allen Savory discusses in the article I wrote early this am:
https://ricochet.com/1295684/allan-savory-alarmed-that-academia-is-killing-off-science/
With the thesis of this article being that “peer reviewed published articles” inform us of little while detailed observations made by individuals are important. As are statements of experts in the fields concerning the observations.
Read the article and then let me know you have read it.
Then I will establish a great deal of very concerning evidence regarding Manipulation of Weather by a combination of chem trails, and discharges of microwave energies from both satellites and radar “NEXRAD” stations. As well as other evidence.
I read the article.
I’m sympathetic to the argument that the peer review process is broken, even that it is sometimes an impediment to progress. It’s designed to be an impediment of a sort, a way of giving greater weight to results that have been reproduced and tested than to new results that have little experimental support. That’s probably a good thing, in general. Ideas have to fight to gain acceptance. New ideas should face a bit of an up-hill battle, because most new ideas are wrong.
Peer review can be abused, obviously. That should be fought, but scientists are people too so there will always be process failures. And there’s a built-in bias in peer reviewed publication, a tendency to accept “positive” experimental results rather than results which tend to cast doubt on widely accepted understanding. There are some interesting efforts to correct for that, in that some publications are now agreeing to publish even before the experiments are performed — and to publish regardless of the results — based solely on the methodology presented by the experimenter. That makes it easier for research deemed sound to get published even if the results aren’t what established understanding expected.
Weather control? Other than in trivial cases of local cloud seeding and urban heat island effects, I’m very skeptical. I’ll be happy to look at evidence, so long as it seems coherent and well-documented, scientifically sound, etc. But it’s going to be a heavy lift for me, for a few reasons.
I have no dog in this fight, so I’m not going to argue for anything very strongly, but chaos theory is huge in weather phenomena because of the very interconnected nature of the global climate and the unknown variables. We have no way of knowing if something minor could affect weather patterns and I wouldn’t put it past academics to consider this kind of experimentation fair game.
Its a possible, but not one I’m betting on.
You are going to have to provide some unusually rock-solid evidence to convince me that anyone can control the weather, even with satellites and radar. This would be a revolutionary scientific breakthrough.
Isn’t there something in the COC about not posting stuff that makes us look like a bunch of fruitcakes?
Experimentation wouldn’t surprise me. I actually have a tiny bit of knowledge of that, in that a close friend of mine spent years doing lightning research, and that included inducing lightning in certain remote mountainous areas in order to study its formation and to develop ways of protecting against it.
But you’re exactly right, Stina (and we need to stop agreeing about things), chaotic systems are notoriously difficult to control in any meaningful sense. I’m very skeptical that anything we would think of as weather “control” has been accomplished anywhere — other than, again, some local brute-force stuff like seeding clouds, changing albedo over a small area, etc.
(Generating cloud cover is actually an interesting possible solution to problems of global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise. For a surprisingly small amount of money, it seems plausible that we could use ocean spray to generate cloud cover and increase reflectivity over the world’s oceans. I’ve read of proposals involving what are essentially automated sailboats that simply travel the oceans, endlessly kicking up spray and lofting it into the atmosphere. I don’t know how practical it really is.)
I’m not sure there’s anything anymore that would make conspiracy thinkers look like fruitcakes. If a macadam road can cause it to rain, who knows what else can cause a weather event.
A macadam road can cause rain? This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere.
Brilliant!
There was, but a team of lawyers backed by George Soros met with the senior Ricochet leadership and negotiated a deal to help take over the world. Ricochet ends up ruling Aruba, where it can implement The Great Reset for that island . . .
And there’s this:
You’re joking, right? Sure it can.
Thanks for reading the article on Savory and peer review and for your astute remarks in reply.
As far as Weather Mod, I will be putting forth the arguments by mid week in its own OP.
There are two groups of people who usually stand on opposing sides:
First there are the urban dwellers who say “Nay! Not possible! It is all airliners and resulting con trails.”
When my spouse was driving the state for business reasons, usually listening to various radio stations, if any mention was made about weather modification while he was in a big city, it was quickly labeled “Conspiracy Theory.”
But out on the open road, when the subject came up in rural areas, it was taken as fact.
Why? Maybe because the rural dwellers understand that it is not possible for a poke-y little place like Lake County Calif to have 75 planes all in the sky at one time, all flying at wildly banking angles to leave our skies like this:
First of all coming up against the “accepted viewpoint” of any debated situation means that “proof” might be difficult to bring forward.
But strong evidence is not difficult.
Remember I was considered “Conspiracy Theorist” when COV made its debut. I was here early on saying “it is not abt two weeks to flatten the curve.”
I was here early on saying “Remedies exist to combat COV that do not involve the harsh drugs like remdesivir, or rocephin, and that certainly do not involve intubation and its scanty 10% survival rate.”
I was here early on to say “Just wait and see – once the COV vaxxes are released, you will have to choose between an experimental jab and keeping your job or forgoing the participation and losing it…”
Oh the people who scoffed at me in May 2020 through until – well until just about til three weeks ago.
Anyway mid week I will be pounding my manifesto into the tough old wooden surface of the “accepted weather mod paradigm.”
That seems like a testable hypothesis. There must be records of commercial flight paths that could be consulted. I suppose military aircraft wouldn’t be included in that, but it would be a place to start.
It would also be interesting to know what atmospheric factors contribute to the intensity and longevity of contrails.
I’d have to see a serious digging into that kind of thing before I entertained the idea that something sinister was going on.
I hadn’t heard about that. Do you have any examples? I’m curious about the fields of study in which that is happening.
The key thing is getting those first dubious results out there in time for the IPO.
I thought he was referring to scientific research.
Looking at the current FlightRadar, it seems that Lake County is on the approach path to SFO, which is a very busy airport.
Maybe the chem trail demons are just targeting busy airports? Is that the real reason airports have mask mandates??
Heh.
But no. I heard about it on a podcast, but I’m not sure which. It was awhile back.
The issue is that there is apparently a bias toward publishing experimental results that support, rather than contradict, previously published results. On the one hand, this provides that resistance to radical departure that we’d like, to protect us from bad ideas creeping in unchecked. Unfortunately, it also tends to mask a real problem in research — and even in true scientific research — of hard-to-reproduce results being accepted as valid because contrary results are not being reported.
In the soft- and pseudo-sciences, irreproducibility is a crisis: when less than half of your published results are reproducible by other researchers, something is wrong. It’s better it the hard sciences, but I haven’t looked for stats on reproducibility and so don’t know how much of an issue it is. (And, of course, if there’s a supporting-research-gets-published bias, we might not know how much of an issue it is.)
The approach to publication I described struck me as making a lot of sense. As I understood it, what the publisher was doing was saying that, if the researchers presented a methodology that passed peer review, then they would agree to publish the results regardless of the outcome of the experiment, so long as the experiment was conducted per the methodology. There’s a logic to that, a kind of objectivity, that I like.
I don’t know how well it’s worked out.
“Registered Reports.” A quick internet search tells me that’s the term that is used for this style of research and publication. I also found this opinion article by one researcher on her attempt to use this method: Peer review of methods before study’s onset may benefit science.
The article was published in 2018 and says that nearly 150 journals at that time accepted Registered Reports as well as the traditional form of research submissions. I’d still like to learn more about which scientific disciplines are doing registered reports.
I don’t mind this so much as long as they don’t try to keep others from discovering and using the contrarian evidence to disprove the proposed theory . . .
Yes, I also am pretty ambivalent about the whole thing. What is intolerable, to me, is what went on in the climate science community as revealed in the Hadley/CRU email dump, when editors were pressured by prominent researchers to reject certain papers that had passed peer review, or hadn’t yet been reviewed.
As long as that kind of thing doesn’t happen, and as long as dissenting opinions are not criminalized or censored (both of which are, unfortunately, supported by some people in the climate sciences), I figure the process will eventually work.
Until the Wuhan coronavirus, the climate science community was the worst offender. Now I suppose it’s climate science and public health. It apparently takes a lot of censorship to keep a crisis alive.
And despite the attempts at censorship, the truth eventually worms its way into the light . . .