Thursday, July 13, 2006

Social climate science

From the government's Department of Climate Change Agitprop website:


As Terence Corcoran demonstrates in today's Financial Post, and supported in another article by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, the claim that "[t]he 20th century has been the warmest globally in the past 1000 years" is false. Yet the taxpayers are funding an official sanction of this and other misleading claims. Why does a government agency feel obliged to disseminate lies? For that matter, why does the government run a climate change website? Is it the proprietor or administrator of climate change? If so, something should be done about that!

Carbon-based climate change and the insistence on its anthropogenic causes is the holy grail of bureaucrats and activists. The regulation of carbon emissions presupposes the regulation of all human activity — what exertion or industry of humanity, primitive or advanced, does not in the beginning, middle or end emit carbon, down to our very exhalations? But in a society that retains at least a vestigial allegiance to the idea that government derives its powers from consent, the charge of prospective regulators is to inculcate the notion of consensus to self-serving nonsense by constant iterating it. So the government website is replete with appeals to "consensus" or "agreement" to support its claims, a familiar but generally overlooked refrain in governmental and non-governmental agency circles as well as the media. But to claim consensus or agreement is to stretch the definition of the words beyond all ordinary bounds or to narrow them to unfamiliar confines. It is no wonder that the imprimatur of consensus is applied so often for political purposes, its definition governed by political advocates while it still retains its suggested authority.

L. Graham Smith:
Contemporary environmentalism is the latest and most visible scientific arena to supplant empiricism and skeptical enquiry with a collective, social theory of science: a theory based on axiomatic constructs and diligent compliance by mutually supportive actors, notably bureaucrats and activists. Rigorous enforcement involves the marginalization of any outside the collective and social intimidation of those who question the prevailing orthodoxy.
See also this article from the invaluable Terence Corcoran.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course the environmentalists want us to think the world is getting warmer. They need jobs after all, what better job than one that cannot be defined or proved as necessary. As the earth is BILLIONS of years old it's impossible to even tell if any climate change is a result of people or the earth’s natural cycle. Furthermore the people who advocate this as fact can't lose. If the earth doesn't continue to follow the trend than they can claim it was due to their influence on the environment, if it continues to get warmer than they can claim that indeed they were correct in their HYPOTHESIS either way the current environmentalists will be long dead before anything can be proven either way.

Anonymous said...

From the gc.ca website propaganda...

"Modern temperature records only go back to about 1860."

So, any claim that this century is the warmest in 1000 years is purely supposition. No amount of carbon testing or counting of tree rings could possibly confirm that!

bonnie abzug said...

"So, any claim that this century is the warmest in 1000 years is purely supposition. No amount of carbon testing or counting of tree rings could possibly confirm that!"

Wrong in the first sentence. Wrong in the second. You're batting 0 for 2!

Now, if you're the "anonymous" of the first post as well, then I will amend this "0-fer" score somewhat given that the statement: "As the earth is BILLIONS of years old it's impossible to even tell if any climate change is a result of people or the earth’s natural cycle" is at least debatable.