The whole ‘Global Warming’ – under whatever name one chooses – issue is a mess. Unmitigated, tangled up and muddled mess.
So, how can a person make sense of it all?
Frankly, I don’t know. What I do know, however, is that we are actively being presented with only a very small part of the story through the main stream media (MSM). And I also know that reasonable points raised by bonafide scientists from the field of climate change are being shouted down or smeared before their ideas are even listened to.
That is not how scientific debate occurs. It is anathema to science itself! In true scientific community, people are willing to listen to dissenting points of view – provided these are scientific and testable hypothesies (using the term in the narrow, scientific sense). Why? The reason for this is very simple: sometimes, even what appear to be ‘crackpot’ ideas may indeed turn out to be better models of reality than the original theories.
Scientists are only human. Yes, as much as this is contrary to some opinions, they are only human. Many times in the past, the ‘current scientific consensus’ was just silly in rejecting even the consideration of ‘things’ that we now regard as integral tools of science:
“… my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope.”
– Galileo Galilei
Today, most scientists are careful to not have the ‘obstinacy of a glutted adder’, and tend to seriously examine ideas which run contrary to mainstream opinions. How far are they prepared to go? Well, consider the case of Dr. Peter Duesberg: he came out with not just one, but two controversial theories.
In the first one, he proposed that while there is a co-occurrence of the HIV virus and AIDS, he thought the causality had not been established with sufficient scientific rigour. (I am not particularly versed in his theory – if I am misrepresenting it, I apologize. The point is not his theory as such, but the scientific community’s reaction to it.)
The reaction?
Scientists actually went and checked his data, looked over his studies, and found where he had made mistakes. Even so, his views are often referred to in scientific publications on HIV/AIDS, in order to ensure that the scientific basis for refuting them is easily available.
Long after this, he proposed another very controversial scientific hypothesis: this time on the nature of cancer. Even though he was one of the researchers to have identified one of the ‘cancer genes’, he now proposed that cancer may be more due to chromosomal abnormalities than to problems within individual genes. Again, the details of his hypothesis are less important than the reaction it received.
Even though his first hypothesis has been flatly rejected, scientists listened when he proposed this one. In May 2007, Scientific American published his controversial theory in an article called ‘Chromosomal Chaos and Cancer’. Earlier in the same issue, the editor’s page was titled ‘When Pariahs Have Good Ideas’, where the editors explain that even though Dr. Duesberg’s ideas on HIV/AIDS have been discredited, he might have a good point here and that scientific ideas ought to be judged on thier merit.
So, what was my point in bringing up Dr. Duesberg?
To show how scientists tend to evaluate ideas, even from scientists who have been proven wrong in the past: they tests them, then – right or wrong – they reference them. One thing they certainly do not do is try to shut each other up. That would be unscientific!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
– Galileo Galilei
Sadly, this is not happening in the field of Climate….
Scientists who do not subscribe to the ‘bad humans making Earth too hot and this will be a disaster’ point of view have systematically been insulted, bullied, their reputations smeared and jobs threatened, and more than one has received threats of bodily harm. As Dickens might say: “What the Sheakespeare is going on here?!?!?!?’
Oh, but I have made some general accusations here: I had better support them!
Here is one article from the Wall Street Journal by Richard Lindzen, a scientist who had been threatened, and who has seen others under similar pressure. In this April 2006 article, he also charges scientific publications ‘Science’ and ‘Nature’ with bias and underhanded tactics. He also names several other scientists who have faced threats.
If the Wall Street Journal is not your cup of tea, here is an article from ‘Telegraph’ from the UK about the death threats received by scientists who publicly question the ‘global warming catastrophy’ dogma. But this is only a small sample of a large body of scientists who are speaking up.
Sadly, most people don’t realy get to hear what these scientists have to say. Their views are not often published. Why? I don’t know. However, here is an article from ‘The Australian’ about how journalists at ‘The Age’ (an Australian publication) had been ordered to not write anything negative about the ‘Earth Hour’ earlier this month:
“Reporters were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.”
All right, ‘Earth Hour’ is just fluff – what about real climate stories?
It seems that we may not be getting the true story there, either. Earlier this month, BBC (yes, THE BBC) had done a big ‘no-no’: they totally changed the story, without noting it!!!
When a story is edited or changed, this is supposed to be noted. However, BBC ran a story on the topic of climate, was bullied by a ‘climate activist’, and changed the whole meaning of the story WITHOUT NOTING THE CHANGE!!! That is not very nice at all.
Thankfully, wee have access to the full email exchange of the activist’s bullying and the BBC reporter giving in. It is a little long, but here is a telling phrase the activist used:
“I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.”
EMERGING TRUTH???
What about ‘documented truth’?
And ‘PSYCHOLOGICALLY MANIPULATED’?
I cannot help but feel that we, the ‘unwashed masses’, are being manipulated here… It seems certain that we are not getting an accurate picture of what scientists are truly finding out about these processes which might significantly impact us all.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 