Change in the Weather
November 23, 2009
For many of us, the main concern about global warming (or “climate change”, as it is called now that the globe is no longer warming) has had nothing to do with the observations or the data or the conclusions from the data or the “science”. It’s the politics.
(By the way, has anyone noticed how the global warming people have turned the word ‘science’ into some sort of shibboleth that, when flourished, ends all controversy and abrogates the need for rational debate? ‘Science’ [or more exactly, "the science"] is now a magic word, a passkey which allows you to slip past ordinary standards of evidence or proof. Science used to be a word associated with rational processes. Now, it’s a token of infallibility used to evade rational discussion.)
Pardon my brief in-line rant. Back to the main point:
As I said, it’s the politics that have been bugging me – and, I’m sure, many other global warming “deniers”. All along, I have been concerned about the activism of global warming: So much of it has seemed a PR campaign designed to overwhelm the reason and provoke a panicked sense of a desperate need for action now. And what sort, what level of action are we talking about here? Why, a 30 to 60% reduction in the standard of living of every man, woman and child on the face of the earth!
I don’t know – and I am sure I will never know – whether the globe is warming, whether it is warming in a significant way, whether this warming is an irreversible process, and whether mankind has anything to do with the alleged warming. In fact, I don’t think that anyone knows, and I am quite confident that no-one will know the answers to these questions for decades or even centuries.
As a rational man, I have to admit that such things are not impossible. But are they probable? Are they true? I don’t know. And, as I said, I don’t think that I will know.
What I can recognize, as an experienced, aware man, is a bulldozer. That is, I know when someone is putting heavy machinery to work, trying to push me in a particular direction. I also know what propaganda looks like – when a supposedly neutral press is pushing a concept or idea. And, I know a snow job, when I am being pressured to commit to something without being adequately informed or allowed time for serious consideration.
And that’s exactly what the global warming hype smells like to me: A bulldozer, a snow job, propaganda: If the ‘science’ is so compelling, why do we need Hollywood blockbuster movies? Why do we need ad campaigns? Why do we need rock star advocacy? Why do we need to marginalize and denigrate those who are reserved or doubtful in response to the “science of global warming”? More troubling still is the wild-eyed rush to take massive, global action now. This is not the sort of thing I would expect from science – it’s what I would expect from a door-to-door refinancier.
So it should come as no surprise that thoughtful, experienced people smelled a rat.
And the rat has been spotted:
Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data ‘manipulation’
(See also Climate Emails Stoke Debate. Many other such stories can be obtained at the moment.)
By rat, I don’t mean Lord Lawson (about whom I know nothing). Rather, what has happened is that a large amount of global warmer insiders’ correspondence has been made public. These inconvenient truths have made it plain that what many of us have suspected for some time has, at least to some degree, been going on for decades: Scientific manipulation of data, cherry-picking data sources, conspiracies to silence dissenting scientists, propagandizing prior to significant conferences – a culture of dogmatism and group-think, closed to opposing views or serious doubts, and aimed at effecting a radical and enormous shift in the world’s power system. (And has it escaped anyone’s notice that the best-known advocate for global warming in the world is a U.S. Politician?)
It is a truism of human nature than, when presented with a button, few men can ultimately resist pressing it. Perhaps this explains what happened in the Garden of Eden. Is that what happened here: A hasty and breathless “consensus of scientists” produced a unique political opportunity which was just too tempting not to exploit? Or is there something more sinister afoot?
As is the case with global warming itself, we may never know – because, just as with global warming (and its 70′s predecessor, Global Cooling,) the whole thing may simply, quietly… vanish.
