Francis enlightens us as to just why you can’t trust the government’s line on climate change, and a host of other ostensibly scientific issues. For a long time, I’ve questioned the very scientific basis of man-made climate change. Science is a method, a very specific method at that, not some buzzword that describes the entire body of human knowledge.

I often point out the example of Roman concrete, which was actually better than most modern formulations until very recently. The Pantheon, after all, is still the largest non-reinforced concrete dome, and it’s been standing for nearly 2,000 years. The Romans didn’t used the modern scientific method. Though the origins of Roman concrete are lost to us, I imagine the discovery probably happened by accident, or through trial-and-error. Being consummate engineers, the Romans then quickly realized the utility of the substance and became prolific builders. In other words, they didn’t formulate a hypothesis, test it through experimentation and observation, and so on and so forth. They had little to no idea of the underlying principles as to why concrete worked, they only knew that it did.

The reverse must be noted with climate change. The average temperature of the Earth is not a static, fixed thing. It will change on its own without the interference of man. So the very name of climate change is misleading. Of course the climate is changing. Any idiot can figure that out for himself. But the climate change community is making very specific allegations. Namely that man is primarily responsible for the change, that the change is invariably bad, and that the change can only be mitigated sufficiently through government action that limits individual liberty.

Remarkably convenient, isn’t it?

But that’s neither here nor there. The key takeaway is that climate change “science” isn’t actually science in the strictest sense. How can they conduct a repeatable experiment with the whole Earth? How can they accurately measure all of it? How can they ensure that correlation is causation? There’s a great meme floating around demonstrating the climate change is linked to the proliferation of piracy.


Clearly more pirates are needed. Some hockey stick, right?

None of this is to say that I am certain they are wrong either. I’m not. I’m no climate researcher either. I simply don’t trust them, primarily because they are claiming this is science, when it demonstrably is not science, and because they’ve been caught falsifying data in the past. That, and they’ve a history of attempting to repress the voices of climate skeptics, calling them deniers in the manner of Holocaust deniers. Bill Nye famously explained that skeptics should be silenced, presumably by government fiat. Governments of the world clearly benefit from climate change being deemed a great problem, because it justifies control of pretty much anything they desire. Everything from business, to how much you water your lawn, can be tied into this. They could use it to justify micromanaging every aspect of your lives.

In truth, I’m sure humans have some effect on the climate. How can we not? We are part of the ecosystem. Whether that effect is great or small, positive or negative, I cannot say. Perhaps if I had more faith in the climate researchers, I could put more stock in their conclusions.

Francis quoted another article on this matter:

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Francis finished with a brilliant summation of the affair:

Scientists whose livelihoods and researches depend upon the blessing of the State are beholden to that State. They can be coerced into supporting the State’s agenda more easily than any other species of creature. Therefore, their pronouncements cannot be trusted until entirely private researchers provide peer review and confirmation of their results.

We would be far better off had the notion of government funded science never been conceived. It should have been treated as a hybrid between propaganda and witchcraft. The trap it provides for potentially honest, potentially productive scientists is attractive beyond belief. Worse yet, it snares the beliefs and attitudes of non-scientists with its veneer of “scientific authority” – yet another internally contradictory idea – more effectively with every passing year.

It’s one of the most lethal weapons in the arsenal of the State. It must be brought to a halt before it destroys everything we hold dear.

And there were have it. If entirely private researchers (not, I should note, university researchers — they get their money primarily through government channels) were concurring with the climate change researchers, and if the government-paid researchers hadn’t been caught in so many lies, I’d be more inclined to believe them. As it stands, I can’t trust any of the researchers on this issue, and that’s a real shame. Because, after all, if they are actually right, and it is a problem, they’ve cried wolf too many times for us to believe them.

%d bloggers like this: