Click to get your own widget

Tuesday, April 20, 2010


Recently I reported on how I had, since December, had a Google News alert for the terms "scientific consensus" in the media round the world checking for media claims on catastrophic global warming. Where allowed I put up comments, about 3 per day, pointing out that virtually no scientists not funded by government were part of this alleged consensus. This proves the claims of consensus are untrue & very strongly suggests the entire thing is a scam funded by government. My sample comment is here. .
I would like to take issue with the idea that there ever was a "scientific consensus" on global warming.

I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the tens of thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.

There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.
I am now very pleased to report that it has been an entire week since Google reported any alarmist media as making the "scientific consensus" claim. There have been a few uses of the term by articles rubbishing it & a couple using it to describe alleged consensii on other points.

I can hardly take even the majority of credit for this. I have been very much swimming with the current on this since the the CRU emails had surfaced shortly before & now even the BBC' s favoured warming alarmists are now appearing there pushing a freezing alarm.

On almost all my other campaigns I have been swimming against the current & have been less successful, though in most cases public opinion, if not politician's actions, have moderated slightly. This result suggests some general success. Slowing the race to the precipice may be more important than increasing the speed of march away from it though the effects are less evident. It also shows what 1 person, with a Google news search, an overwhelming case & the knowledge & ability to put it can do.

The "scientific consensus" claim was not bad just for the fight against warming alarmist parasites but it was also important that it be won for the credibility of science. Had the claim that we were experiencing catastrophic warming been discredited before the claim that there was a "scientific consensus" for it that would have lowered respect for science, in an era in which know nothing barbarism needs no help. This should not be seen as unconditional support of scientists though it is unconditional support of the scientific method. The alarmists are overwhelmingly "cargo cult scientist" as Richard Feynman characterised it - wearing white coats & pretending to be scientists without actually using the method. To blame Jones, Mann, Hansen, David King & co for being frauds is to miss the point - that is their nature. But there are also many good & decent scientists who found it easier to do & say nothing than to denounce the charlatans. As Burke has been attributed as saying "for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing" & for cargo cult science to replace the real thing it is necessary for those who understand the scientific method only to say nothing.
somebody else contemptuous of alarmists

And now back to the barricades & the News alerts against those who use the lie that low level radiation is harmful in their Luddite fight against nuclear power, medicines & spaceships.

Labels: , ,

For me, the "death question" is how much CO2 does all human activity (except breathing) pump out as a percentage of the total world CO2 output. The department of the environment reckon it's about 3%. So if we reduce this by 50% it's more or less irrelevant.

Similarly, ask the greens if windmills can ever be part of the "base load" (or course they can't as by their very nature they are inconsistent) and this the whole nonsense falls away.
I did once see the boss of Scottish renewables state that windmills couldn't be part of baseload. It was in a Scotaman letter beside one of mine & he was preemptively defeding windmills from any responsibility when the lights go out. I may dig it out sometime.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.