There’s no climate consensus

no speak George Orwell’s epic book, “1984,” a nightmarish future is depicted in which government, largely through what’s known as “Big Brother,” engages in “doublespeak” to manipulate and deceive citizens. “Lies are Truth,” and, “War is Peace.” The government even manufactures an imaginary war as propaganda to justify misery inflicted upon citizens.

Orwell’s parallels to modern global warming hysteria are self-evident.

Last month, I wrote about Marxist influences by providing actual quotes from world leaders boasting “climate science” provides their most powerful tool in their fight against free-market capitalism.

As expected, climateers shrilly responded with religious fervor, insisting man-made global warming is serious and there is a “scientific consensus.”

There’s no consensus.

Following are highlights paraphrased from Jay Richards’ discussion of 12 reasons to doubt claims of a scientific consensus originally written for the American Enterprise Institute.

Reason No. 1 to doubt claims of a so-called scientific consensus: When personal attacks are targeted against dissenters. There’s a saying: When the facts are on your side, argue the facts; when the law is on your side, argue the law; when you have neither facts nor law on your side, attack your opponent.

Reason 2 to doubt claims of a scientific consensus: Richards argues, “When scientists are pressured to toe the party line in order to go along to get along. Tenure, job promotions, government grants … and vanity can do what gulags do, only more subtly. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of the power of the majority in American society to erect ‘formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.’ He could have been writing about climate science.”

Reason 3: When peer review becomes cliquish.The peer-review process is meant to provide checks and balances. Unfortunately, when the same few people review and approve one another’s work, the desire to go along to get along threatens objectivity.

Reason 4: Richards asserts, “when dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence … but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent.” The “peer review” process in climate science has, in some cases, been deliberately subverted to prevent dissenting views from being published. Climategate provided proof of this and provides a tangible reason to doubt claims of consensus.

Reason 5: When claims of a consensus are declared before it exists. In 1992 Al Gore claimed, “The time for debate is over.” Yet a Gallup poll reported 53 percent of scientists did not believe man-made global warming had occurred. Finally, in 2009, the Climategate scandal exposed the fact that government-funded scientists were trying to suppress data that discredited their premature theories.

Reason 6: When claims are made to justify dramatic political or economic policies in favor of greater government control over our lives. Richards says, “Imagine hundreds of … United Nations functionaries gathered … in which ‘the future of the world is being decided.’ These officials seem to agree that … ‘global governance’ need[s] to be established to reorder the world economy. … Large numbers of them applaud wildly when socialist dictators denounce capitalism.”

Reason 7 to doubt claims of consensus: When government tells us over and over again “there is a scientific consensus.” A consensus is not evidence. Nobody claims, “consensus” to argue water consists of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. Nobody runs around at dawn yelling, “consensus … the sun is rising.” The fact government keeps repeating “consensus” is reason to justify suspicion. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency repeated its climate change rhetoric twice in their same news release. Who were they trying to convince — themselves?

Meanwhile the U.S. Senate Minority report on Climate Change contains names and writings of 700 scientists that refute claims of man-made catastrophic climate change.

Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn ridiculed the idea that the International Panel on Climate Change summary was written by 2,500 of the world’s “leading scientists” and said it was written primarily by people in government and should be called “The IPCC Report by appointees of many governments … many who may have little or no expertise… .”

Orwell would be horrified to see that 21st-century reality has become stranger than fiction.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (1)

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    This is an important column in pursuit of balance and truth. I think [i]reason 6[/i] should be listed first because it is the source of this entire scam:

    [i]Reason 6: When claims are made to justify dramatic political or economic policies in favor of greater government control over our lives. Richards says, “Imagine hundreds of … United Nations functionaries gathered … in which ‘the future of the world is being decided.’ These officials seem to agree that … ‘global governance’ need[s] to be established to reorder the world economy. … Large numbers of them applaud wildly when socialist dictators denounce capitalism.”[/i]

    Regarding science consensus, the late Dr. Michael Crichton called this one early:

    [i]“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. [b]Consensus is the business of politics.[/b] Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. [b]The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.[/b]

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”[/i]

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.