As a true global warming skeptic that has studied the issue and folowed it closely for some time it is easy for me to forget that most people do not follow the topic very closely. This is understandable, most people are busy living life and have precious few hours to devote to an issue that does not directly affect them-yet
Given that, I want to point to a very important aspect of "climate change" that most people may not grasp . This has to do with the promotion and psychology of the agenda of global warming, not the actual science or the lack there of.
The recent release of e-mails from the Hadley Center are important because it shows that a very elite group of scientist controlling the process by which the scientific community studied and published findings. Putting aside any manipulation or destruction of data that may have occurred, the fact that they were able to make their narrative of the science the only acceptable narrative "the science is settled" had a ripple effect on everything connected to it whether in science, politics, economics or society as a whole.
Let's just look at just the influence on the science aspect of it. Once it became accepted that these scientist's theory on global warming was a reality, all other scientific endeavors fed off that belief. Vasts amounts of time and money were spent to determine the consequences of their assertion that unprecedented warming was and would continue to occur. The key is that they say that what is happening now and what will occur is unprecedented. Once this is accepted it stymies quite a bit of historical investigation. This in turn channels scientific investigation away from the actual theory and focuses attention onto research into what is happening or what will happen because the climate gurus have already stated that everything we are experiencing is new.
Even a cursory examination throws much of this out the window. Why were Vikings buried in Greenland's permafrost? Did they really go to that much trouble to bury their dead or perhaps the ground was not so frozen when they died. Why do receding glacier uncover abandoned mines from the Roman era? Did they really dig through glaciers to get to the silver, or were the glaciers not there when the mines were excavated and the approaching glaciers caused them to abandon them? Of course this is simple logical refutation of the idea that we are in an unprecedented warming. Their are countless others. As the late Reid Bryson put it “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”
So new scientific investigation is not primarily based on how it relates to the historical past, but rather how it will affect the "unprecedented" future. Vast amounts of research is done not on what is but rather on what will be, all based upon the assumptions fed to the world by a few scientist with their hands on the controls of what they find to be acceptable and worthy.
All of this research into the unprecedented future is then fed to the media which promotes disaster as a business model "if it bleeds it leads" and wallah crisis and mayhem are just around the corner. Think I overstate it? I just typed the following phrase into Google search
Climate Change Could
Climate change could boost incidence of civil war in Africa
Climate change could put the heat on California crops -- latimes.com
EERE News: Study Says Climate Change Could Displace 150 Million ...
Climate Change Could Choke Oceans for 100000 Years Wired Science ...
Climate change could kill 250000 children - Telegraph
Climate change 'could reverse malaria patterns' - SciDev.Net
Climate Change Could Drain Great Lakes: Discovery News
IRIN Africa AFRICA: Climate change could worsen displacement ...
Climate change could swamp Venice's flood defence - environment ...
amednews: Climate change could put public's health at risk :: Nov ...
That is the first page, be my guest to check out all 49,100,000 entries. All of this constantly being fed to us in an unending mind numbing beat of apocalyptic dread. But remember all these reports start with the very important qualifier, Climate change "could". If you read any of those articles the chances are you will read more qulifiers, such as :
"...But the new work might hold warning signs for what is to come"
''...Italy's City of Water – could face daily floods, and according to a new study..."
"...as many as 150 million people could be forced from their homes due to climate change impacts"
"Urban communities are more likely to encounter severe flooding and heat waves, rural communities face storm damage and reduced water resources, coastal areas could see an increase in floods, and mountain regions are at risk from melting glaciers and snow."
"Despite recent high-level statements suggesting that climate change could worsen the risk of civil conflict,...
And of course the assumption based upon an assumption inspired by an assumption:
According to a simulation of planetary warming trends, failure to drastically
cut greenhouse gas pollution within the next half century could choke Earth’s
oceans for the next 100,000 years.
It is as if could is now some sort of scientific principle. It is all conjecture, perhaps well thought out and highly researched conjecture, but all conjecture none the less.
Worse, it is conjecture based upon the supposition of the climate scientist who in the their own words admit they do not know what has happened to the global warming they profess is undeniable. The entire climate change industry feeds off the credibility of a very few scientist, most of them having shown themselves to be not only secretive but hyper defensive and sensitive to criticism.
It is my understanding that the way you defend science is with facts, but these guys have done everything they can to hide and muddle the facts and the e-mails and the data released with it proves that.
When you hear, as you still do, "yes some scientist behaved badly but climate change is undeniable." Why, because climate change could ? When you do not compare the present with past, or the past has been distorted, how can you know that what you are observing is unprecedented? If you are told that the future could do this or that but it is all based on science that has no integrity or credibility, why do you believe it?
An absolute foundation principle of the scientific method is skepticism. Yet it has been the very goal of this group of scientist to not only foil any skepticism of their work and theories but to make the very word skeptic anathema to climate science.
Climate Change could do a million things, but one thing it has definitely done, it has tainted the scientific community and unless scientist of integrity speak out, science will be soon held in the same regard as used car salesman-or worse politicians.