Climate Change Dogma Trumps Science

climate change dogma

Climate change dogma trumps science.

Climate Change Dogma

Communism generated the hype about climate change. Its intent was to pave the way for a global government and destroy scientific ethics.

Climatology is a young subject with only a few decades of history. Yet, the hypotheses about global warming are taken as fact. The media kept global warming in the headlines and covered up the underlying inaccuracies. Governments poured funds into research while marginalizing other findings. The media and politicians labeled the prediction of catastrophic climate change as “scientifically proven.” They spread it as a sacred doctrine. As a result, the general public accepted climate change as fact.

The next natural step is to set up a global government to save the planet from a fabricated crisis. Destroying nation-states is the strategy of communism.

Persecution

Once a scientist expresses doubt about the climate change dogma, they face tremendous pressure to affirm the consensus. Some believe that climate change skeptics should be prosecuted. Those who lived in a communist society had similar experiences when questioning the party dogma.

David Bellamy, a well-known British botanist, stated that he did not believe in global warming’s consensus dogma. The Wildlife Trusts responded by ousting him from the Trust. Environmentalists, who previously showed him respect, publicly doubted his mental capacity.

William Gray, a renowned professor, was a pioneer of American hurricane research. After he criticized the consensus dogma, he lost his funding.

In Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know, Patrick J. Michaels listed numerous examples of environmentalists suppressing scientific research. When Michaels said that climate changes would not necessarily lead to disaster, Virginia’s governor censured him as a state climatologist. Michaels resigned.

Politics

The mayor of Seattle stated that “the average snowpack in the [Cascade Mountains] declined 50 percent since 1950.” Mark Albright, a state climatologist, produced evidence that the Cascades’ snowpack grew, rather than declined, since the 1970s. Albright’s boss demanded that he submit all his communications for vetting before sending them. When Albright refused, he was terminated.

In communist countries, political interference in Science is usual. In Western countries, the politics of environmentalism interferes with academic freedom. Research that doubts the consensus dogma is never published. This began in the 1990s. In the 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy, Michaels asked an editor why his article was not published. The editor said that his work did not meet their scientific standards. Although Michaels’s research showed a different outcome, his work was heretical. Since the consensus was set, everyone had to get on board.

In March 2008, scientists who doubted the consensus dogma held a private academic event in New York. Many of them encountered obstacles when trying to publish their research in academic journals. Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo noted that some of his colleagues dared not attend the meeting for fear that it might affect their employment. He believed that a silent majority of scientists do not endorse the climate change dogma.

Tenure Threatened

Climatologist Judith Curry testified in 2015 that a NASA scientist sent her an email. He said: “I was at a meeting with NASA scientists. The top manager said we should not publish papers contrary to the current global warming claims because the boss would have a headache countering the ‘undesirable’ publicity.”

Curry further said in her testimony:

The UN characterized me as a ‘climate heretic’ who turned against my colleagues. There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists and advocates. Reinforcing this consensus are vital monetary, reputational, and authority interests.

In January 2017, Curry chose to retire early from her tenured position. She said she “no longer [knew] what to say to students navigating the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.” Curry said: “Once you understand the scientific uncertainties, the current policy doesn’t make sense. I tried to open the dialogue and provoke people into thinking.”

Roger Pielke said Curry’s experience shows that “a tenured position isn’t a guarantee of academic freedom.” Pielke was previously a fellow at his university. Although he agreed with the “consensus” conclusions, he experienced similar pressures. He pointed out that the data does not support that extreme weather increased due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Joanne Simpson did not declare her skepticism of the “consensus” until after retirement. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak frankly,” she said. “As a scientist, I remain skeptical. The main basis that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of warming is based entirely on climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”

Climate Change Dogma Propaganda and Intimidation

In the book The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists, Roy Spencer listed fifteen propaganda techniques used by environmentalists. They include causing panic, appealing to authority, encouraging a herd mentality, resorting to personal attacks, stereotyping, sensationalizing, and falsifying records.

Climate Change Skeptics Become Criminals

A British diplomat publicly stated that those who doubt climate change should be treated as terrorists. One environmental group warned the media not to broadcast the views of climate-change skeptics because “allowing such misinformation to spread would cause harm.”

Some environmentalists tried to suspend freedom of speech to extinguish opponents’ voices. In Australia, an environmentalist proposed depriving climate change skeptics of their citizenship. One idea was to re-examine Australian citizens and reissue citizenship only to those who have verified they are “environment-climate friendly.” [60] In 2015, twenty academics sent a letter to the US president and the attorney general. They requested that the attorney general prosecute “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” They said that these organizations’ “misdeeds” must be “stopped as soon as possible.”

Climate Skeptics Stigmatized

Those skeptical of the theory of climate change have been labeled “deniers.” The potency of the “denier” label is considerable. Charles Jones, a retired English professor, said that the term places skeptics on the same level of moral depravity as Holocaust deniers. According to O’Neill, those who do not accept the climate change dogma face persecution. Climate change skeptics become accomplices in a coming eco-Holocaust and should face Nuremberg-style trials. He quoted a green columnist. He wondered “what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who are partially responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine, and disease. I put [their climate-change denial] in the same category as Holocaust denial — except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.”

Conclusion

In his article, O’Neill commented: “It is usually only in authoritarian states that thoughts are equated with crimes. Dictators talk about ‘thought crimes’ and their threat to the fabric of society. It’s a short step from demonizing a group of people, and describing their arguments as toxic and dangerous, to demanding more and harsher censorship.” Restricting the right to think is one way communism divorces people from a concept of good and evil based on universal values.

Leave a Reply