“The world is coming to an end, and the climate is the reason.”
Code Red for Humanity
Ask almost anyone, and they will tell you the above statement is accurate. It must be true. There is, after all, an “overwhelming scientific consensus.” Children learn about it in school as they have for at least two decades. The news media take every possible opportunity to parrot this message. President Biden announces oncoming doom, as in this speech from July 2022.
“I come here today with a message: As President, I have a responsibility to act with urgency and resolve when our nation faces clear and present danger. And that’s what climate change is about. It is literally, not figuratively, a clear and present danger.”
Then, he applied one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book—the appeal to an absent authority.
“The U.N.’s leading international climate scientists called the latest climate report nothing less than, quote, ‘code red for humanity.’ Let me say it again: ‘Code red for humanity.’ It’s not a group of political officials—elected officials. These are the scientists.”
“All the Scientists Say…”
President Biden would have you believe that all scientists agree with the sentence at the beginning of this article. The message is clear. The scientists know more than you do. Therefore, you should listen to them and give the politicians the power to deal with the crisis.
That power includes telling you how much electricity and water you can use, what kind of car you can drive and if you can continue to live in your home. In comparison to the incredible risk, individual freedoms count for nothing.
“I said last week, and I’ll say it again loud and clear: As President, I’ll use my executive powers to combat climate—the climate crisis in the absence of congressional actions, notwithstanding their incredible action.”
Apparently, the traditional separation of powers counts for nothing.
A Nobel Prizewinner
What President Biden, the news media and the sixth-grade teachers don’t tell you is that there are scientists who disagree. There are lots of these scientists, and some are very knowledgeable.
Spreading Scientific Disinformation
Dr. Clauser begins with a fundamental scientific truth: “Good science is always based upon good experiments.” On the other hand, poorly done experiments lead in the wrong direction and “provide scientific disinformation.”
Once produced, that disinformation can be misused. “Its promotion by a commercial enterprise is called marketing…. When promotion is done by government or political groups, it’s called spin or propaganda.”
Then, the physicist aims at one of the most potent sources of politico-scientific propaganda.
“[I]n my opinion, the IPCC [the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change] is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation.”
Then he provides his conclusion.
“I believe that climate change is not a crisis.”
No Tolerance for Dissenting Opinions
The academic establishment will not tolerate such opinions regardless of a scientist’s qualifications. According to Zero Hedge’s financial news site, he was scheduled to speak to the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) “Independent Evaluation Office.” His topic sounds intriguing, “Let’s talk—How much can we trust IPCC climate predictions?”
“The IMF works to achieve sustainable growth and prosperity for all of this 190 member countries. It does so by supporting economic policies that promote financial stability and monetary cooperation, which are essential to increase productivity, job creation, and economic well-being.”
Indeed, so important a group would want to know if the risks presented by climate change are real or phony, wouldn’t it?
Apparently not. The IMF canceled Dr. Clauser’s talk.
Dr. Clauser is not the IPCC’s only critic. Another is climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was quoted by American Insider. According to Dr. Curry, the U.N. agenda was “manufactured.” Furthermore, its motivation was the socialist mentality prevalent throughout the organization.
The Roots of Climate Change “Science”
If anything, Dr. Curry’s background is even more applicable to this issue than Dr. Clauser’s. She has been a fellow of the American Meteorological Society since 1995 and a fellow of the American Geophysical Union since 2004. She co-authored Kinetics and Thermodynamics of Clouds and Precipitation and Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans.
“‘The origins go back to the U.N. environmental program,’ says Curry. U.N. officials were motivated by ‘anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.’”
“‘The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change.’”
If you are looking for a way to end free market economics, climate change absolutism would be an excellent way to do it. The only way that reasonable people, in the absence of other constraints, will give up their natural, God-provided rights is in the face of some overwhelming threat. So the IPCC, aided by Marxist university administrators, set out to create such a threat.
The process was relatively simple. “Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review.” Then, ensure that budding scientists knew that acquiescence was the price of success. “If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.”
World Climate Declaration
Fortunately, some scientists are willing to resist the prevailing sentiment. In 2019, the “Global Climate Intelligence Group” (CLINTEL) authored a “World Climate Declaration” that now claims over 1,609 signatories. Dr. Clauser added his signature in August 2023.
The Declaration makes six significant points:
- Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
- Warming is far slower than predicted.
- Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
- CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth.
- Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
- Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
There is little doubt that some of the 1,609 signatories are more qualified than others. Even with that caveat, however, that number alone should serve to make one point loudly and clearly. No matter what the climate absolutists say, there is no “overwhelming scientific consensus.”
Photo Credit: © Leonid Tit – stock.adobe.com