Georges Clemenceau, the prime minister of France during WWI, famously remarked after yet another military disaster that war is too important to be left to the generals. In an analogous fashion, when a branch of science is being used to justify the complete restructuring of the global economy, it’s no longer a scientific issue but a political one.
More importantly, it’s the ordinary person who’s being asked to finance initiatives, which will lower their standard of living and significantly increase their tax burden for the coming decades. If you’re the one actually doing the paying, you very definitely want a say, even if you’re not a rocket scientist. He who pays the piper, gets to call the tune.
So, if global warming is too important to be left to the scientists, how can the ordinary person arrive at a reasonable judgement as to its validity? We all have our own way of getting to understand something and personally being a from first principles type of person, asking basic questions about it has always been mine. When it comes to people, meaning the climate scientists in this particular instance, I find the most revealing questions to ask usually begin with why, so let’s take that approach. The seemingly simple but difficult trick is to ask the blindingly obvious questions.
Why is it that every one of the cockups and blunders we uncover in their papers always err towards a warmer global climate?
Why do they persistently withhold the data on which their conclusions are based?
Why do they, in their own words, hide behind Freedom of Information laws, as a reason to keep such data hidden?
Why do they, in their own words again, hide behind Non-disclosure Agreements, as a reason to keep the data hidden?
Why are they so vague about the exact methods used on the data to derive their results?
Why do all their computer climate models run hot?
Why have they consistently overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2?
Why don’t they ever design experiments attempting to disprove their theories?
Why do the Climategate emails reveal their deep private doubts about the science, which they’ve publically reassured everyone was settled?
If the science was so solid, why’d one of their number feel they had to resort to identity theft to discredit the opposition?
Why are they telling each other to delete emails to circumvent Freedom of Information requests?
Why do they feel they’ve got to “redefine the peer review process” to prevent dissenting science papers being published?
Why do they need to get science journal editors removed from their jobs because they dared to publish a dissenting paper?
Why, after being the beneficiary of billions of dollars of research funding in the last two decades, haven’t they by now proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt?
Why is anyone who simply questions the science being equated with a holocaust denier?
The list goes on and on and on.
Global warming is a massive fraud orchestrated by crony profiteers like Al Gore and One-World Government Marxists like -- well, his name rhymes with Robama.
Global warming is a massive fraud designed to redistribute wealth from you to them.
Global warming is a massive fraud, the scale of which has never before been seen on Earth.
Hat tip: James Delingpole.
2 comments:
Global warming is a massive fraud designed to redistribute wealth from you to them.
You mean, yet another massive fraud designed to redistribute wealth from you to them.
Why, when apparently compelled to provide the data, do they say "The dog at my global warming"?
Post a Comment