A Response to the University of California and the Carnegie Institute

image_pdfimage_print

A Response to the University of California and the Carnegie Institute

by
Clifford E Carnicom
Aug 22 2016

Preliminary Note:  A journalist of professional standing recently contacted Carnicom Institute requesting comments with respect to a recently published paper by the University of California.  The paper claims to issue an authoritative edict as a denial of geoengineering activities that are now actively practiced and that are detrimental to the global environment.  The following comments were provided to that journalist and they are made available to the public as follows:

 

The body of scientific work on geoengineering and bioengineering issues by Carnicom Institute spans close to twenty years.  The library of work, approximately 350 original research papers, encompasses a variety of scientific disciplines.  The methods and results, essentially with no exception, are reproducible and adhere to scientific protocols.  This evidence (not survey) based work is available for your review at:

(by category):
https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/category-listing/

(chronologically):
https://carnicominstitute.org/wp/research-library-listing/

In addition, documentary summaries are available at:

(2005 full-version):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31JFDGHs5bQ

(2011 abbreviated version):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPfm1ljfwkU

The remainder of this response will be necessarily brief: we can pursue further discussion later, should you choose.

Specifically, in reference to the UC “peer-review study” and the presentation on the UC website, I will make the following comments at this time:

  1. The paper in no way represents honest scientific work. This is a shining example of modern “science with an agenda” as opposed to truthful scientific pursuit. The paper is characterized more accurately as an exercise in social engineering versus fulfilling the requirements of the scientific method.
  1. The emphasis upon the act of “debunking,” in itself, is a prelude to a biased investigation. The term implies a strong association with an attempt to disprove, discredit, and refute claims without fulfilling the obligations to conduct the actual research that is required to answer a question or to solve a problem.
  1. The creation of the acronym “SLAP” at the onset is an obvious ruse and manipulative ploy to steer public perception toward ridicule. The term has not existed in the history of the issues and it was created specifically for the purpose above. It is an example of the many clever and subtle machinations to affect public psychology under the purported guise of professional presentation and credentials. It is a cheap ruse.
  1. It is understood that most individuals will never read the actual paper at the “core” of the study. I hope that you may choose to devote some time to this effort, as well as gain some familiarity with the body of Carnicom Institute research listed above. The UC paper can, of course, be dissected to infinity; however, I will make a few individual references to exemplify pertinent topics for discussion.

Let us begin with what appears to be the motive for the study; it speaks more strongly of the desire to influence public behavior than it does to seek observational and evidence-based data to substantiate the scientific method.

“Meanwhile, a growing number of studies have shown that quantifying and communicating the scientific consensus on contested issues such as vaccine safety and climate change can help lower public misperceptions and uncertainty(Myers et al 2015, vander Linden et al 2015, van der Linden et al 2015).

Here, therefore, we report the results of an expert survey in which we asked experts on atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric deposition to scientifically evaluate the claims of SLAP theorists.”

The first assumption implicit within this statement is that for some “unknown” reason, the public is in a state of “misperception” and “uncertainty.” Why would such an assumption need to exist for the scientific method to proceed?  This type of bias is a discredit to the acumen of the public.  Even casual research will reveal that the concern by the public regarding the geoengineering issue is now elevated to a global level.  By what right and upon what basis must we start our endeavor by assuming that this global population is ill-informed?

Notice the phrase “Here, therefore, we report the results of an expert survey….”  This phrase continues the mis-advised logic from above and it states the true motive for the project.  It is to “correct” the misguided ways of the global public in their “growing public distrust of elites and social institutions.”

The project is flawed from the beginning. It does not embody or represent the scientific method; it is not based upon direct observation, direct collection of evidence, the testing of hypothesis, and the fair and honest assessment of bonafide data to reach accurate and truthful conclusions.  None of the work or research in the paper is original.  This so-called “peer-review study” is an orchestrated and manipulative social engineering project; it is not science.

  1. If you continue to examine the processes adopted within the survey (an incomplete approach, at best, to a phenomenon of global proportions), you will see the frequent repetition of the words “thought” and “likely” (NOT observation, NOT evidence) by the claimed experts. No participant offers any objective data or pursuit of resolution to eliminate this ambiguous response. A more fair and thorough response to many of the questions posed would be: What steps are being taken to acquire the data to eliminate the ambiguity? What data do I need? Who is responsible for providing the data? How is the data audited? The peer-review process itself is now flawed and it does not assimilate independently (i.e. “citizen science”) acquired data, contributions, and reviews into science as it is now claimed to exist.
  1. We have an additional curiosity taking place. It will be noticed on multiple occasions that unexplainable data results were apparent to the participants. Subsequently, a generally uniform response of rejection was avowed. The thought process of rejection is not adequately explained and the dismissal is substituted with an ambiguous call for “more data.”

Where is the cry and demand for the data? Not a trailing and vague ending to the most critical questions at hand, but real data, impartial data, independent data, accountable data.  The lack of accountability on this global environmental issue is preposterous.

  1. There are, with no doubt, weaknesses and flaws that exist in the quality and standards of control for citizen collected samples. More importantly, we should be asking the question as to why citizens are in such a position to begin with. Maybe it is because of the inadequacy of the regulatory agencies to fulfill their own responsibilities for environment protection.
  1. There are many technical issues that can also be discussed within this paper. These issues are subject to serious evaluation and debate in comparison to how they have been cited as authoritative references. One example of this includes the elaborate discussion of a mixed “contrail-cirrus” mathematical model. The very basis of the model itself is open to contentious discussion. This and other topics can be discussed further by those with interest.
  1. For now, let me end this brief examination with attention to a closing phrase of the paper.

“We therefore offer the first peer-reviewed expert response on SLAP data.” … “The evidence as evaluated here does not point to a ….”

What a perfectly loaded and crafted phrase.  It is everything that the social engineers need to achieve their goals of manipulating and affecting public perception. Sarcasm aside, it is even more impressive because it is the “first.” This statement is a masterful conclusion of an incomplete and questionable process that avoids the hard-hitting realities and confrontations that come forth from TRUE science. Finally, I would claim that this paper does not present evidence; it present a series of ambiguous and incomplete responses to the reasonable demands from an alert and aware global population that is truly and genuinely concerned about our environment.

This is only a partial response to a purported accredited and authoritative study.  My hope is that readers will pursue honesty and thoroughness in these affairs and that they will be guided by their moral conscience toward truth.

 

Additional Notes:

1. Having attended the University of California at the onset of my higher education pursuits approximately 45 years ago, I must say that I am embarrassed and sorry for the state of education as it now exists in this country.  What was once considered to be an honor and privilege of attendance must now be accepted with a level of disgrace to the nobler goals that were once served.  I encourage each member of that institution, student, faculty and administrator, to reclaim the powers and benefits that come forth from comprehensive investigation and critical thinking to reach honest conclusions and assessments of the state of our world.

2. As of this date, the journalist referred to has not acknowledged receipt of the comments above.  This statement will be revised as circumstances warrant.

image_pdfimage_print

A Response to the University of California and the Carnegie Institute by Carnicom Institute is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.