Periodically, I like to make sure we are talking about the correct thing and on the same page. Climate change is real. Global warming is real. There has been warming since the mid-1800’s. The question as posed by most Skeptics is not on whether there has been warming, it is on the causation. Warmists say it is mostly/solely caused by the action of Mankind, particularly “carbon pollution”. They can barely even admit that nature plays any part. Except where a Pause is concerned, then they say that nature is masking the symptoms. Hence, we refer to it as AGW, anthropogenic global warming, anthropogenic climate change, and ‘climate change’, among others. When they say global warming and climate change, they mean man caused. Which leads to
A few decades back, an upstanding member of the global warming alarmist community said that if the public was going to take the threat of man-caused climate change seriously, the alarmists were going to have to exaggerate the evidence.
It was in 1989 that Stephen Schneider wrote in Discover magazine that in order “to capture the public’s imagination . . . we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Let’s not forget that the late climatologist was first a believer in global cooling in the 1970s. He was worried that a new ice age was coming.
Of course the alarmist community has followed Schneider’s script. It’s spent much of the last three decades trying to spook the public into a panic.
Which, of course, led to ClimateGate, ClimateGate 2.0, and many other issues, including the current one being mostly embargoed by the media, as scientist John Bates has accused NOAA of failing to follow science and ruled in publishing the Karl paper, which was designed to make the climate look worse as they headed to Paris for the UN IPCC conference.
Please don’t be surprised. Government-paid researchers are desperate to perpetuate the climate shock. They know that if there is no warming as they have predicted, the generous public funds that support their work will eventually dry up.
It is in their financial interest to keep the public tied up in knots of anxiety and to dupe politicians, who are eager to assume the posture of caring guardians of the environment so they’ll to continue to hand them money
And it fits right in with the other evidence problems that undermine the global warming narrative, such as the hopelessly flawed temperature record, the unreliable models that can’t even predict the past, and the possibility that as many half of the alarmist research papers could be wrong.
I, and many others, have said it before and I’ll say it again: if the science is so sound, why the need to adjust the data, smooth the data, manipulate the data, manufacture the data? Why does the data not stand on its own? Why the need for doomy prognostications? Why are publicly funded “scientists” advocating for Big Government policies that will harm the lower and middle classes, while increasing the power of government? Why are they acting more like an advocacy group than scientists?