Wrong kind of ‘ists’

Over the past twenty or so years, we have been bombarded by apocryphal tales of the world being brought to an end by corrupt humanity because of small rises in atmospheric trace gas. Kind of “We’re all doomed, and it’s all your fault!” Especially via that paragon of virtues (Guffaw) the British Broadcasting Corporation. Despite a total lack of hard evidence, everything they seem to put out, from Eastenders to the Tellytubbies and the Weather Forecast contains the message that Carbon Dioxide will be the death of us all. Non-believers are ridiculed in BBC comedy programmes, patronised and damned with faint praise elsewhere in said organisations output.

We are informed that this is because the ‘majority of scientists’ agree on this topic. Not so. This is an overt lie. We are told that the BBC acted on the advice of ’28 scientists’ at a specific meeting. Now this assertion can be demonstrated to be an immense lake, a positive ocean, of bovine excretory splatter. These weren’t ‘Scientists’ at all. Although I will happily stand corrected if the BBC’s Head of Comedy of the time had specialist expertise in IR absorption or cloud formation and meteorology. The list, which the Beeb is reputed to have spent 100k of lawyers fees trying to keep secret, is available via this post at Wattsupwiththat. Read. Weep. Laugh. Get angry. This affair makes the allegations about pop star paedo’s look like a mere bagatelle. This is massive scale fraud. A deliberate attempt to mislead and misrepresent the public and so enrich a relatively small clique (Or are these the ‘Green jobs’ said activists tell us their enterprises will bring forth?). A flagrant ‘flipping the bird‘ at the BBC’s founding charter, and by proxy at anyone who has ever reacted to the constant doomsaying with a sceptical raised eyebrow.

Far from being overwhelmingly comprised of ‘scientists’ the list of attendees at this 2006 critical policy meeting appears to consist of Oil and Energy company executives (What! Big Oil! – Never!) and a whole bunch of eco-Activists. Barely three attendees have any credible scientific credentials, and even so these folks appear to have a built in bias. They’re just the wrong sort of ‘ist’.

Not that this should come as any surprise. The ‘science’ of Global Warming / Climate Change / Whatever has always been suspect. As even the most cursory examination of the global warming premise and its repeated failures of prediction will clearly show. It has come to the point where every time someone begins to rattle about this nonsense I automatically think ‘Piltdown Man‘. Yet we have taxes based upon this flawed premise?

About these ads

One thought on “Wrong kind of ‘ists’”

  1. I think the common misconception (by both sides) is that the polling of “scientists” is really what we’re looking for here. Science is a broad field with numerous areas of expertise that migrate away from general/common scientific training. Just because one is a scientist does not mean he/she has a background in the climate to justify themselves as an expert. Physicists, chemists, biologists, meteorologists, geologists, zoologists and astronomers can all be part of the conversation along with the rest of us if they want to be, but they are not the experts of this field. Structural engineers wouldn’t be asked to weigh in on mechanical, electrical or biological engineering problems.

    The comments and study that should be submitted for review are from climatologists who are doing active research on the climate in our biosphere. Everyone else is just an informed (or not) spectator. My understanding is that in the realm of climatology, there is a significant degree of agreement on the topic of climate change.

Comments are closed.