The Truth about Global Warming Alarmism

[Magnus]

In an interview with the Weekly Standard, MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen said that global warming is occurring, and that mankind is contributing to it, but concludes that the degree of change is probably very small.

 

The problem isn't the science. It's the fact that all vestiges of scientific uncertainty are typically filtered out of the "policy recommendation" section of the scientific reports.

 

http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html

 

But that's not the part that caught my attention. The startling part is his honesty in explaining the root cause of the distortion:

 

"If Lindzen is right about this and global warming is nothing to worry about, why do so many climate scientists, many with résumés just as impressive as his, preach imminent doom? He says it mostly comes down to the money—to the incentive structure of academic research funded by government grants. Almost all funding for climate research comes from the government, which, he says, makes scientists essentially vassals of the state. And generating fear, Lindzen contends, is now the best way to ensure that policymakers keep the spigot open."

 

Not even the right wing Weekly Standard is usually willing to print comments like "vassals of the state." Right wingers are more likely to accuse academia of being overwhelmingly liberal, a veritable Commie breeding ground, which they are.

 

But you don't usually see the right wing willing to print such a non-partisan anti-statist opinion so prominently.

[Alan C.]

Climate change is a lucrative industry, but it's also a way for the State and its lackeys to undermine private property and ruin lives.

 

It's like the civil rights industry which sells the idea that there is a racist bogeyman around every corner.

[TheRobin]

According to the reasearch done by Donna Laframboise, a big number of scientists that work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are also enverinmentalist activists and affiliated with Greenpeace, WWF and such organisations.So they already held the conlcusion that human beings should "exploit the earth" less, and seemed to use the Climate Change as an possible way to facilitate change. So even aside from monetary issues, there seems to be an ideological bias of a good number of the people who are paid to evaluate the science on Climate Change.

[Magnus]

According to the reasearch done by Donna Laframboise, a big number of scientists that work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are also enverinmentalist activists and affiliated with Greenpeace, WWF and such organisations.So they already held the conlcusion that human beings should "exploit the earth" less, and seemed to use the Climate Change as an possible way to facilitate change. So even aside from monetary issues, there seems to be an ideological bias of a good number of the people who are paid to evaluate the science on Climate Change.

 

It's more than bias.  It's a well-funded, well-orchestrated propaganda campaign being implemented at a very high level, on a par with the PR campaigns for various wars, and the enactment of central banking legislation.  These "climate science" report organizations are sort of like professional wrestling--they're not just rigged, they're scripted. 

 

You just don't see people who point that sort of thing out get much air-time in the media. 

[AccuTron]

Thanks Magnus for starting this, and the rest of you for showing clear thinking.  It is welcome medicine, living in an egotistically liberal town.

I just found this here topic.  I was looking for an earlier topic, so in case anyone here didn't catch the first one, it has plenty of hard info about fraud and data manipulation, plus plenty of easy to read graphs showing the original fraud, plus the real science for convenient rebuttal.  Start partway down where the pretty orange flower is, and after a looong but easy read, you'll know better how to read the first part of the thread.  Keep it bookmarked for parties (heh, heh)...

Global Warming Pause never true? - Current Events - Freedomain Radio Message Board

[Daniel Unplugged]

I find it amusing, and frustrating, when it is stated that 98% of climate scientists believe in climate change, and that this is somehow evidence that climate change is real.

 

What percentage of astrologers believe in astrology?

What percentage of priests believe in God?

What percentage of voodoo masters believe in voodoo?

 

Of course 98% of climate scientists believe in climate change. Anybody who rejects it as damn near total crap, is unlikely to ever become a climate scientist.

 

Using that argument is as fallacious as saying that since 98% of priests believe in God, God must exist. It is a circular argument. People use circular arguments when they don't have valid arguments.

[AccuTron]

Nice one Daniel.  

 

I happen to somewhat know one of the so-called climate scientists that all agree with each other.  It's very clear that he has no real scientific mind (and is basing his own research paper on Mann's fraudulent data).  The little chance I had to ask him a thing or two revealed that he had no idea that the Copenhagen Diagnosis had a clearly bogus solar graph, or that the Wegman Report even existed.  Two nuggets out of so many, chosen as test questions for a brief opportunity.  

 

He was educated at a Canadian university and is now teaching at a US university.  My impression of personality profile is that he, and many others, were moved by heartfelt urge to save the planet.  (More accurately: various lifeforms on the planet, which are under assault from quite a range of things, real things.)   But not a scientific mind of inquiry, a mind with critical thinking skills.   They are very easy to dupe, and indeed, who would otherwise expect the range of fraud, altered data, illegal math, etc?  It's so huge, who would think?  Which is the problem, he clearly didn't look at all.  They likely also have group emotional bonding, warriors for justice in their minds, fighting evil Big Oil.  

 

(There is also a real climate scientist who wrote a letter to the local paper, using the words "scandal" and "not science" about the alarmist fraudsters.  So some climate scientists are good guys, check their work, it's sometimes clear in seconds if they're legit or not.)