A lot of people just look at data and say, “Well, this is the data” and that is what they believe. Although, data in the modern age is a leaky vessel. There is such competition to produce innovative and provocative research, that scientists are manipulating their data so they can get funding, prestige, peer approval, and career advancement. That is the irony of the “Information Age”. We are awash in information, but we are drowning in lies.
For example, NASA reported 2014 as “the hottest year on record”. This “fact” was repeated for years. Except, once you dig through the actual data it turns out that NASA is only about 35 percent confident of this declaration. In fact, NASA has developed a proclivity for calling each new year “the hottest year on record”. Buried in the assessments (and mostly non-reported) is that NASA has less than 50 percent confidence in their dire reports on world climate.
So, why does NASA make such misleading statements? It would seem that scientists seeking fame, fortune, and social status are pushing the data to say what the people who provide them funding want it to say. Nobody seems to notice that even if these ominous assessments were correct, the difference between one hot year and another is so tiny, as to be insignificant and within the margin of error.
It begs the question; If scientists and scientific agencies are misrepresenting the quality of the data and/or misleading the implications of the data, who are we to trust?
Science is supposed to be self-correcting. A part of that process is called, “peer review”. The belief was that scientists reviewed the work of their peers and provided a skeptical check on the quality of the work. But peer review stopped working many years ago. At best, it is now called, “pal-review”.
In the peer review process of today’s papers that suggest the consensus is wrong, get rejected. Whereas, the papers that support the supposed consensus get accepted. But as all scientists should know, consensus is not science. Consensus typically becomes a tool that is used to suppress opposition. This is nothing new; ask Galileo.
In our modern “information age”, we are told that there is a 97 percent consensus that man’s activities are causing the climate to change. It is assumed or in many cases proclaimed that this change is dreadful and that the consequences will be catastrophic. Such proclamations are unscientific propaganda. There is no shortage of attention-seeking scientists who believe that humans are dangerously altering the climate, but belief is not evidence nor is it science.
The public is abused by a never-ending stream of research papers that predict terrible outcomes of a changing climate. In recent years, the term has morphed into a “rapidly changing climate” to, juice the alarmism. However, these papers suspiciously avoid the crucial distinction of man’s role in the changing climate from natural climate cycles. This distinction is avoided because there is no way to separate the two. Can humans even cause catastrophic global warming? The assumption is made, but the data is absent. Unfortunately, scientists invested in the alarmist narrative know full well (or should know) that man’s role is likely to be small and insignificant. Yet, they spend their time trying to find what whole number with dispensable zeros after the decimal point might be impactful. As irrelevant as that small number is, the alarmists use it as a hole in the fence to drive a truck through it.
The 97 percent myth has been perpetuated through the law of repetition; say it, keep saying it, and shout down anyone who disagrees. Mainstream media and Big Tech hype the threat and censor opposing views because it fits their ideology as well as their business model. In truth, nowhere near 97% of scientists say man is causing catastrophic global warming. But no matter, the narrative has been set, further amplified by celebrities and politicians (the super scientific smart people who have no personal or professional agendas). The overwhelming momentum of the narrative is persuasive to the non-critical thinking public that doesn’t have the time or the interest to work through the smokescreen.
DENIAL:
Climate change is being positioned as an either-or proposition. Either you deny climate change, or you believe there is catastrophic climate change caused by humans. These are the only two sides you can land on. The alarmists have strategically removed the middle ground. If you do not believe in catastrophic climate change, then you are a denier. When you call someone a denier, you are saying his or her position is so ridiculous and so despicable—their equivalence is to that of a Holocaust Denier. Does this sound like a scientific position to you? Shall we demonize the opposing view by comparing them to those who have views that are clearly wrong and abhorrent? The label “denier” is just a tool intended to intimidate, shame people, and to shut down legitimate debate. Any scientist who would use such a term exposes him or herself as a biased propagandist.
Legitimate investigators such as Bjorn Lomborg (author, False Alarm), Michael Shellenberger (author, Apocalypse Never), and Mark Mathis (filmmaker, Fractured) don’t deny there may be a human impact on the climate or that the greenhouse effect occurs. They make the case that if humans are altering the climate, the effect is likely to be small and at the very least manageable. This is the middle ground that the alarmists deliberately ignore and censor.
One of the ways you know you are being manipulated by a narrative is that the alarmists focus completely on negatives and ignore positives. For example, the addition of more carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels has a positive impact on the growth of plant life, the fertilizer effect. More CO2 acts as fertilizer that helps plants to grow more quickly. In fact, in the past several decades the earth has greened significantly in tandem with higher concentrations of CO2. Drought tolerance is also enhanced. In a thorough examination of the positives and negatives of higher CO2 concentrations, these positive effects would be part of the discussion. Yet, few people have been exposed to these facts.
Climate alarmists insist that we must stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible or we are all doomed. This is the ultimate expression of denial. The modern world cannot function without fossil fuels. Coal, oil, and natural gas are the foundational resources used in the creation of everything we use—everything. And that includes wind turbines and solar panels. Without fossil fuels, we don’t have: buildings, cars, planes, food, water, electricity, clothing, etc. The reality is that there are no viable replacements for fossil fuels and there may never be. Telling people that we must do the impossible or we are doomed is irrational and unscientific. We are told this on a daily basis.
Here’s another denial of reality; the developing world is going to continue to develop. China, India, Malaysia, Africa, and other rising nations are going to continue to grow and use the power of fossil fuels to do it. They will make grand proclamations about becoming “carbon neutral” by some future date, but these are just words. The future rise of atmospheric CO2 will come from these developing nations and there is no stopping it. But the alarmists prattle on about “eliminating fossil fuels” because of the looming catastrophe that is just around the corner. Even if the apocalypse was imminent (it’s not), all we could do is adapt to the changes that would be coming. You know you are dealing with unscientific people when these realities are ignored in favor of an impossible “solution”.
We are awash in information, but we are drowning in lies.
Portions of this essay were excerpted from a transcript of the movie FRACTURED with permission of its producer, Mark Mathis. The movie is available at ClearEnergyAlliance.com. It could prove to be the most enlightening 90 minutes you could spend in front of a computer screen.