The New York Times 1992:
“With the cold war over, many scientists are converting both their professional skills and their activist convictions from national security and nuclear weapons to other issues, particularly the environment. This intellectual shift is driven variously by principle, by a growing interest in the environment among younger scientists, by the hunger for new challenges and – not least – by the search for new sources of financial support.”
As a famous scientist once said, ‘Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.’ … It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.
Anyone who has ever taken a serious look into it, will find
that the Earth goes through alternate cycles of warming and cooling that last thousands of years, and shorter cycles of warming and cooling within the longer cycles.
The global warming/climate change advocates (warmists) believe human activity since the onset of the Industrial Age is producing rising global temperatures. Skeptics point to other reasons for the increase, such as normal cyclical change and changes in Sun activity, among other reasons, and note that for the last several years there has actually been a cooling trend.
Warmists, however, behave as if the question is finally and unquestionably resolved, claiming there is a “consensus” and saying that it is “settled science.”
GreenFacts.org’s glossary says this about consensus:
“The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field. Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:
• all scientist[s] are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress,
• the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.
Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of ‘Certain Truth.’"
NASA’s Home Page informs us that:
"It may surprise many people that science -- the de facto source of dependable knowledge about the natural world -- cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change.”
The certainty with which warmists dismiss skeptical views of their pet theory seems to run counter to the spirit of scientific investigation. Some prominent warmists’ attitude toward and treatment of skeptics are clearly non-scientific. They include ridicule, intimidation of skeptical colleagues, personal destruction and calls for legal prosecution, all because they disagree on a scientific theory. And on top of that, in an effort to perpetuate their alarmist scenarios, some warmists have resorted to deceit and outright fraud at Penn State University and England’s University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU).
After a hacker broke into computers at the CRU, releasing 61 megabytes of confidential emails and documents onto the Internet, the UK Telegraph reported:
“perhaps the most damaging revelations … are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.”
Knowing what these documents and emails contain, it is clear why the CRU scientists are upset that their duplicity has become public, a scandal some believe could be the greatest in modern science.
Read more on these emails in my previous post Here.
We can then rightly ask; If man’s activities truly cause the Earth to warm, why do they need to deceive the public? What do they fear from being honest? As the science of global warming crumbles, the reaction of warmists to the revelations is interesting. The scientists say these revelations are a petty issue, while the policymakers go merrily on as if man-caused warming is settled science and everything is just hunky-dory.
All of this supports the idea that “saving the Earth from humans” is more about an ideology turned into a religion than about a real threat to the environment. And it has become very lucrative for some people!
_______________________________
