Reduced to desperate measures, proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have resorted to formally identifying those who are skeptical of the global warming science as conservative white males.
One inherent shortfall of the study is that it inadvertently celebrates the intelligence of conservative white males and denigrates every other race, gender and political background (including my own).
Recently, mainstream media began the slow, tacit admission that global warming hasn’t manifested in the way it was so definitively predicted 10 years ago. This admission was presented last month through a recent study suggesting that Çhina’s sulfur emissions were to blame for the lack of global warming. Blaming China wasn’t enough, so scientists scrambled to present the following two additional excuses for the foiled predictions of the past 10 years:
Ironically, the aerosols article also blames the burning of fossil fuels for offsetting the effect of global warming. Fossil fuels were initially blamed for global warming.
To understand how a group pushing human induced climate change could be reduced to conducting such a bizarre survey involving the socio-economic class of those who question the science of AGW, one has to look at the way they handle adverse information.
On a local level, anyone can make this discovery for themselves. For example, If you have a group of environmentalists in your area that refer to global warming as one of the reasons for great ideas like localization, cleaning up the eco-sphere or reducing automobile exhaust, introduce some of the contradictory information involving climate change and see how they react to you. Pay close attention to the way they try to dismiss you or shape the argument away from what you present in support of recent conventional climate research. See if they actually answer your questions or address the specific points you present. Turning over this rock may involve an ugly discovery underneath.
An article describing this study indicates a comparison between conservative white males and the rest of the population. Race, gender and political affiliation aside, the survey comes up with 39% “denying there’s a scientific consensus”. White male conservatives boast a portion that is as high as 59%. Not only does the scientific consensus of global warming have nothing to do with the science of global warming, the AGW movement is notorious for suppressing skeptical scientists. The question should be, “Who is aware of the skeptical scientists being suppressed?”
The AGW climate scientists’ tendency to suppress alternate views was revealed earlier through the hacked emails of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). Suppression was one red flag in addition to suggestions for “hiding the decline” of global temperatures and refusing requests to see the original data.
Since this incident occurred in November of 2009, East Anglia’s CRU hired a PR firm to help with their public image after the email scandal. This is an unusual move by a research department because the science is expected to hold up to public scrutiny on its own.
In what is commonly called the “third party technique” among PR professionals, panels were put together on three occasions to examine the hacked emails. The idea was to reassure the public that the inquiry was indeed independent and trustworthy. All three “blue ribbon panels” exonerated East Anglia’s CRU by downplaying the erroneous activity and declaring that none of the relevant data was affected. Unfortunately for East Anglia, it appears that their PR department had a hand in this process.
Common sense would have the AGW movement take its blows, distance itself from the scientists involved with East Anglia, and allow newer cleaner research to emerge. Instead, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seemed hell bent on protecting the research called into question with the hacked emails.
For some reason, the AGW movement thought that the best tactics were to further corrupt the peer review process, ‘conspiracy bait’ those who question the severity of CO2’s warming effects and chime together with the mantra of “scientific consensus”. In the short run, this strategy seemed to work, especially when the establishment joins in with the motivation of another market bubble – carbon derivative scams. Banks love human-driven climate change. Anthropogenic global warming enjoys the privilege of mainstream acceptance. When contradictory information slips by, the story is typically interspersed with statements reaffirming “the reality of anthropogenic global warming”. Sometimes, the information is revealed in such a vague manner, one begins to wonder what the initial purpose of the story was supposed to be.
But the recent avalanche of contradictory information and discrediting scandals seem to be overwhelming the self aggrandizing orthodoxy that is AGW.
As stated earlier, the scramble to find a culprit to blame for the lack of a significant warming trend appears desperate. Blame China, blame volcanoes, blame aerosols, blame fossil fuels. Worse, it appears that the AGW movement overstepped the bounds of good PR by becoming directly involved with censorship at the BBC.
In addition, Outside Organization, the PR firm hired by East Anglia’s CRU is directly involved with Ruppert Murdoch’s email hacking scandal, which involved the arrest of Outside Organization’s managing director, Neil Wallis.
Some of the effects of the PR have real consequences. Recently, the Interior Department was hoodwinked into listing polar bears under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. This was the direct result of studies and observations by a wildlife biologist named Charles Monnett, who has been placed on administrative leave and is currently being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of claims of drowning polar bears.
Contradictory information seems to be appearing more frequently and are less likely to fit the description of “propaganda from shills for the oil industry”. Here are a few recent examples:
The tendency of the AGW crowd is to dismiss these articles (sources included) as propaganda on behalf of the “status quo” or the “oil industry”. Apparently, they are also making the assumption that only white male conservatives take these articles seriously.
Why the refusal to address public scrutiny or encourage peer review of contradictory studies? How could the level of willful ignorance within the AGW crowd be reduced to using racism in an attempt to discredit those who question the science?
It seems to be about a race of another kind. The disdain for scientific discourse seems to be about a race to implement policies to reduce CO2 emissions. Remember how we keep hearing the absurd statement that the “debate is over” on anthropogenic global warming? Scientists confident in their work should always welcome scrutiny but, in this case, chastise those for refusing to hang their hat on AGW conclusions regardless of the contradictory data.
While the AGW crowd has acknowledged to some extent the difference between actual temperatures in the last 10 years and those temperatures predicted 10 years ago, there is still this McCarthy-esque ridicule for those who question the validity of anthropogenic global warming. Why?
Perhaps they know that the earth is cooling and they realize that they had better implement their proposed CO2 curbing policies if they are to make any claim of saving the earth.
How does CO2 influence climate change? What level is influenced by human activity?
Wouldn’t we like to know. Unfortunately, not much will come from a bunch of folks beating their chests and definitively assuring us that AGW is not something that needs to be questioned.