jump to navigation

Selling climate doom March 19, 2011

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Selling climate doom

by Garth Paltridge
Quadrant Online, March 16, 2011

Professor Garnaut seems completely sold on the idea that only scientists directly within the global-warming research community can give authoritative advice on climate change. He believes that true science can be found only in the peer-reviewed literature. He accepts the modern attitude within the research establishment that it is entirely reasonable to publicly denigrate climate sceptics. He is particularly enamoured of the idea that climate scientists should spend much of their time selling the message of climatic doom so as to counter the distorted truths peddled by the sceptics and amateurs of the web.

All of these beliefs sound sensible when said quickly enough. Virtually all of them are nonsense when viewed in the broad context of general scientific reputation in the modern world.

More to the point, they are patently self-serving.

In many ways the situation is reminiscent of religion in the Middle Ages. The priests of that time were actively against translation of the scriptures from Latin into the local languages – this on the basis, so they said, that it would be highly dangerous to allow non-trained people to have direct access to the word of God because the chances were high that they would get it wrong. And the priests of the time were not exactly backward in imposing their peculiarly nasty forms of denigration on those who thought otherwise.

Despite the strength of their position (there was no internet at the time!) they ultimately lost both the battle and much of their public support.

The problem with climate science is that, as with any religion, there are diametrically opposed beliefs, each of which has its followers, and each of which vociferously claims to represent the truth. Research is moving away from active questioning of the science toward manipulation of public opinion. Playing the game of politics is much more fun than continuing with what is turning out to be fairly mundane research. Running ever-bigger computer models of an inherently uncertain climate system is not as intellectually rewarding as it was.

Read the rest here

Garth W. Paltridge is the author of The Climate Caper published by Connor Court.


About these ads

Comments»

1. Oliver K. Manuel - March 19, 2011

Thanks for posting the information.

Official western government science agencies have given the public misinformation over the past four or five decades on:

a.) The Sun’s origin,
b.) The Sun’s composition,
c.) The Sun’s source of energy, and
d.) The Sun’s influence on Earth’s changing climate.

Climategate exposed corruption in the last item (d.).

A paper in press gives a brief summary of key experimental observations ignored to perpetuate misinformation about items (a.-c.) ["Neutron Repulsion," The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011) 19 pages]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

Thus, the climate scandal is only the visible tip of an unclean government iceberg that grew, out of sight, almost since the time former President Eisenhower warned of the dangers of a federally-funded “scientific-technological elite” in his farewell address on 17 Jan 1961:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

This video shows the section of Eisenhower’s address that concerns the dangers of a federally-funded “scientific-technological elite.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts

2. Mervyn Sullivan - March 19, 2011

People like Ross Garnaut don’t understand that the IPCC’s mantra is not based on science…

… it’s based on model-based predictions (now proven to be overly exaggerated and wrong)

… it’s based on the supposition that the greenhouse effect is real (yet the greenhouse effect is not a real theory, and is contradicts the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics)

… it’s based on computer ‘garbage in garbage out’ (yet real-world observational data is ignored)

Yes… this is the pseudo science that people like Professor Garnaut are so proud of… and have great faith in. It is the basis on which they believe, somehow, that the 3% of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere each year from human activity is so very dangerous that we must regulate it, tax it or trade it, all to stop catastrophic global warming, yet the overwhelming 97% of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere each year from natural sources is not dangerous at all.

How stupid is that?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: