Global warming science is settled. Right?
The trouble with that statement is that the real life got in the way. However, Charles Krauthammer points out PC speech is in full swing and anyone who disagrees is called a heretic.
Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Post, demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy.
The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.
The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.
Sometimes the word comes from on high, as when the president of the United States declares the science of global warming to be “settled.” Anyone who disagrees is then branded “anti-science.” And better still, a “denier” — a brilliantly chosen calumny meant to impute to the climate skeptic the opprobrium normally reserved for the hatemongers and crackpots who deny the Holocaust.
Then last week, another outbreak. The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.
To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.
Yep. But when it comes to global warming the science is anything but settled. Some of us are old enough to remember Ted Danson saying back in 1988 that the oceans would be dead in ten years or Al Gore claiming the ice would be melted by now.
Nothing close to this has happened. Yet the scientists who pushed the science that prompted Gore and Danson to make the stupid statements are still considered experts in the field. If they were mechanics, we’d never let them touch our cars again! But controlling our total way of life. Sure, why not?
Freeman Dyson, eighty-five years old and frankly past giving a hoot what others think, explains how this happens and during the explanation exposes the corruption. Here is part of his argument. He isn’t arguing all the science is wrong or that he is an expert, what he says is the corruption has infiltrated the science. It is garbage now that no one trusts.
Thirty years ago, there was a sort of a political split between the Oak Ridge community, which included biology, and people who were doing these fluid dynamics models, which don’t include biology. They got the lion’s share of money and attention. And since then, this group of pure modeling experts has become dominant.
I got out of the field then. I didn’t like the way it was going. It left me with a bad taste.
Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.
Yet policies, taxes, laws, regulations ARE enacted based on what might happen in ten years. Ten years pass and the predictions are wrong and nobody takes a look around and goes “hmm…. Maybe Holdren and crew aren’t so special after all!” I mean Holdren was screaming warnings about a new ice age in the seventies and the world melting in the nineties. To me, he’s just shilling for a paycheck now. Nothing more than a top hat wearing man on a horse drawn wagon selling snake oil.
Here is the cover from the Time magazine circa 1970′s. The link to the website has a nice short video from that same time period.
Why? Money. Money for private entities (think Soros and carbon credit markets), money for government in the form of carbon taxes. Scientists get grants and trips to five star motels hosting climate conferences IF they are on the right side of the argument. Not right about the argument, just on the “right side” as Krauthamer points out.
Sometimes it isn’t about the money, but it is simple stubborn pride.
Dyson: Well, both. I mean it’s a fact that they don’t know how to model it. And the question is, how does it happen that they end up believing their models? But I have seen that happen in many fields. You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real. It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it’s the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is.
Fear. The great motivator. And it is used every day to separate you from your money, your freedom, your energy sources and your future. And nobody is stopping them.
So when some eco-nut starts blabbing about how the science is settled, share these comments with the person. Maybe, if they are intelligent and not part of the Spanish Inquisition, they may think about it for a second.