Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Who are the Contrarians?

The "contrarians" or "climate science deniers" or "faux skeptics" are a loud vocal minority. They include some practicing scientists, who however with rare exceptions are not professional practicing climatologists.
What is the Contrarian Agenda?
The general agenda of contrarians is to derail meaningful discussion and action on global warming by sowing confusion and influencing public opinion. Some contrarians do not have an overt political agenda but rather have an incomplete understanding of the relevant science.

[Taken from http://climate.uu-uno.org/view/article/148487/]

That, in a nutshell, is the official definition of the large majority of people, including myself, who question the received wisdom of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) theory.

Are they right? Are we a bunch of scientifically ignorant and dishonorable malcontents plotting to derail political and scientific progress aimed at mitigating the worst effects of an imminent climate catastrophe? Are we, essentially, misanthropists bent on pursuing our mischievous and irresponsible agenda for personal and/or political gain? Or are we just normal, rational people who see in the entire 'consensus settled science' of global warming evidence of bad science, collusion and the widespread operation of vested interests?

The 'cure' being rolled out to prevent this potentially world-destroying global warming is proving to be very much more destructive and costly in both economic and environmental terms than the supposed 'disease'. In point of fact, the main symptom of this 'disease', i.e. Earth running an increasingly high temperature, has, for the last 15 years, ceased to be a problem. it's even looking like Earth's temperature is starting to dip slightly and Her shiny white icecaps, imperilled so grievously for decades by man-made global warming, look set to be making a remarkable recovery.

So you tell me, who are the mischief-makers, the cons, the liars, the cheats, the misanthropists hell bent on causing human misery? Is it us, the climate contrarians, voicing scepticism at the increasingly bizarre and scientifically suspect claims of climate alarmists, or is it the climate alarmists themselves, the generously funded research climate scientists, the politicians hanging on their every word and the greens piggy-backing on the loaded debate having long sensed a golden opportunity to push forward their ideological dream of decarbonising industry in favour of 'clean, green' wind and solar energy?

I have an agenda. It is to expose what is rotten. To stop the worm which is gnawing at the very heart of science in this country, and indeed elsewhere across the Western world. If we let the politicians control the scientific debate on climate change, as they have effectively done for some 25 years and continue to attempt to do so, even in the face of mounting evidence against the theory that man's activities are predominantly to blame for climate change, then catastrophe will ensue; economic, social and environmental.

We are at a critical juncture of the human vs. predominantly natural argument about climate change. The odds are stacking up in favour of those who suggest that man has little or no influence on climate and that natural forces are mainly responsible for driving the changes we are witnessing. But CAGW theorists, whose influence reaches far into politics, the media and science institutions, who command vast financial resources (contrary to their accusation that it is the sceptics who are funded by the oil industry), are coming out guns blazing, intent on winning the debate by any means at their disposal. The latest ploy seems to be, sensing that they are losing scientific credibility because the planet's atmosphere and oceans are just not behaving in the way their models predict, to steer the debate away from science, claiming that policy is pre-eminent in matters of climate. I give you a prime example of this in the Guardian today:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/climate-sceptics-scientific-method