As we were told throughout the EU referendum campaign, experts know best. Experts, clever and knowledgeable experts, weigh up all the pros and cons and come to a disinterested, impartial decision about what is in your best interest. Aren’t they lovely to do our thinking for us? Wouldn’t you be a fool not to do what they tell you?

Just as 90% of economists agreed voting to leave the EU would cause huge damage to our economy, so we are told that 97% of climate scientists think catastrophic man-made climate change is happening.

If the experts agree on climate change, how dare the little people question them? It’s not like those economic experts we heard so much about during the EU referendum were self-selecting, with vested interests in remaining in the EU, or that their scaremongering views excluded any positives to Brexit (such as global free trade) and were instead based on lies and improbable scenarios, like losing access to the Single Market…

Whenever I hear that “97% of scientists”, it always makes me think of adverts for the latest age-defying face cream or miracle shampoo. They also use quasi-scientific language to sell snake oil, and when you look at the small print you always find that what the advert claims as “Most women agree our product is amazing” actually translates as “53% of 237 women said they saw an improvement”.

So 97% of a small self-selecting group of climate scientists agree man is changing the climate. But then, they would, wouldn’t they? The story of the Emperor’s new clothes could have been written for climate science. Many scientists know the whole thing is junk science, at best. Many have, at the very least, reasonable questions about the theory and the dubious data and models it is based on (some of which can be found in part one of this article). Few voice these doubts, as to do so would wreck their careers. They would be instantly cast out into the cold by their naked green Emperor.

Follow the money. If a scientist wants desperately to research depression in sheep, funding is going to be difficult to come by. If that same scientist decides instead to research the effects of climate change on depression in sheep, funding is much easier to come by. I have personally seen this first hand (although not with sheep harbouring a secret sorrow). This being the case, any scientist who questions the climate change theory is not only saying that the emperor has no clothes, they are also threatening the goose that laid the golden egg. They will not only not get funding for their own work, they will be ostracised by their colleagues.

Perhaps the biggest question about the “97% of scientists agree” consensus is also the simplest. There is only one set of data on global temperatures. Every climate scientist’s research is based on that same set of data. What if that data is wrong?

There is no such thing as a global temperature record. We do have satellites that can accurately measure temperatures anywhere on Earth, but climate “science” doesn’t use those, because they show no global warming. Instead the data comes from land-based thermometers. The coverage of these is necessarily sketchy; there are no thermometers across the oceans, few across Africa, China, South America. Even where we have good coverage, such as in the US, only 10% of the data recorded meets the required standard. Where we have no data, temperatures are made up. Where there are inconveniently low temperatures, these are dropped out. The data is adjusted in this way to “prove” the theory, rather than the theory changing according to the data.

At best what is happening here is confirmation bias; those adjusting the temperature data are looking for warming and so find warming. At worst it’s the biggest, most expensive fraud in human history. Yet even with all this, the adjusted data shows a minuscule rise in temperature. Something like 0.7 degrees rise over the past century. Nothing remotely catastrophic.

None of this makes any sense, until you understand that the global warming scare has nothing to do with the environment. Environmentalism is being used as a vehicle for something else, a vehicle shaped like a large, wooden, horse.

Global warming is about politics, not the planet. The UN is the fountainhead of this stream of alarmism, and, if anyone bothered to listen, has been quite open that the aim is not to save the planet but to govern it. Global warming is a tool that supranational organisations such as the UN can use to drive through their agenda without having to worry about annoying things like popular support or democracy. It is no coincidence that the EU is at the forefront of climate alarmism. It is no coincidence that the same people and organisations who religiously support the EU, open borders, mass migration also support climate change. They are all branches of the same tree; globalism.

Climate change is one of several orthodoxies approved by the globalist elite. Question any of these orthodoxies and you are singled out and targeted, undermined, smeared, mocked and abused. We have seen the same process with any critic of the EU or of mass immigration.

Anything that has the enthusiastic support of 99% of the world’s politicians should, to say the least, ring alarm bells. One of the biggest problems in politics today is that the “experts” have become overly politicised to the point of becoming activists, while our politicians have become hollowed out automatons increasingly dependent on “experts” to know what to think.

Any scientist who does not question the global warming theory is not worthy of the name. They are an activist, not a scientist. They are the true “climate deniers” because they deny that climate change is a natural process. Future generations will look back at our obsession with carbon dioxide and climate change and laugh. But not too loudly, as they’ll still be paying for it.

 

 

 

Part One of The Inconvenient Truth About Climate Change

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email