How Politics Drives Science On Global Warming

Want to know how politics shapes the global warming debate? Well, this article at
Reuters gives you a pretty good rundown of how it works,

“BRUSSELS (Reuters) – skeptics of the seriousness of global warming complained on Wednesday of not being heard by the public or policy makers while warning governments to take a second look at the scientific consensus on climate change.

Scientists who doubt the scope and cause of climate change have trouble getting funding and academic posts unless they conform to an “alarmist scenario,” said Roger Helmer, a British member of the European Parliament, at a panel discussion on appropriate responses to rising global temperatures.

“If global warming is happening, we can then ask: is it accelerating and is it likely to be catastrophic?” he said. “Many people think not.”

… David Henderson, an economist at the Westminster Business School in London and former head of the Economics and Statistics Department at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, said governments had given the IPCC a monopoly on climate advice.

“The very idea of creating a single would-be authoritative fount of wisdom is itself dubious,” he said, urging countries to seek a more balanced approach than the IPCC and to stop pursuing programs to urgently reduce carbon emissions.

“In this area of policy it’s high time for governments to think again,” he said.

…Benny Peiser, a professor at Liverpool John Moores University, questioned the methods used by climate scientists. He said many were recognizing that using computer modeling to predict an “inherently unpredictable future” was illogical.

“Today’s scientific consensus very often turns out to be tomorrow’s redundant theory,” he said. He said that scientific journals refused to take papers from scientists who doubted climate change.

Most scientists say climate change will cause seas to rise, glaciers to melt and storms to intensify, potentially leading to more natural disasters around the world.”

You see how it all works? If you don’t claim that man is the cause of global warming, they won’t fund your research, put you on panels that make decisions about global warming, or post your work in scientific journals.

Then, what do they do? They turn right around and say where’s the research, where are the skeptics of manmade global warming at the UN, and why aren’t these people posting in scientific journals?

In other words, they draw a conclusion, rig the system to come to that conclusion, try to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with the chosen conclusion, and call that “consensus” when it’s really just raw politics masquerading as science.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend