If you abandon the scientific method, introduce the subjective element into scientific practice, apply your culture and rely on instinct then perhaps – for you – AGW (human-induced global warming) really exists…
It wouldn’t be very scientific to claim humanity is causing the present global cooling trend. The Western mania about global warming also is not ‘scientific.’ Claims that there is a consensus of opinion among scientists about the hypothesis that climate change is human-induced is genuine snake oil: humanity’s impact is local not global, to wit:
“The globe has many serious environmental problems. Most of these problems are regional or local in nature, not global. Forced global reductions in human-produced greenhouse gases will not offer much benefit for the globe’s serious regional and local environmental problems. We should, of course, make all reasonable reductions in greenhouse gases to the extent that we do not pay too high an economic price. We need a prosperous economy to have sufficient resources to further adapt and expand energy production. ~Wm Gray
Saying humanity has caused global warming is a p0litical statement: the latest Gallup poll shows that global warming believers are mostly Democrats. While not scientific it is good politics to defame scientists like William Gray who are skeptical of human-induced global warming (the AGW hypothesis) and call them, deniers.
“The attacks were ferocious and nasty, which has become a measure of proximity to the truth. ~Dr. Tim Ball
The Left’s political propaganda campaign against deniers, skeptics and unbelievers of AGW has been more than intellectually dishonest. To re-label fear of global warming to fear if ‘climate change’ was deceptive but it also was ineffective: as a political means to raise taxes and control the masses it has been a social engineering failure because everyone knows climate changes whether or not Eurocommunists approve.
Is it really any wonder an insider at CRU (the Climate Research Center) back in 2009 decided to blow the whistle on the global warming alarmists? The CRUgate whistleblower obviously did not feel he was working with real scientists. Honest scientists don’t use fudge-factors to generate politically-correct results that are scientifically baseless. (See e.g., The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam Jan 29, 2009)
“…one ugly manifestation of absolute certainty in near-theological movements is their approach to dissidents. Dissidents in these absolutist groups are outlawed, condescended to, pressured, bullied, lied about, trashed, slandered, and distorted out of any recognition. (See, The Economist: To exact vengeance on individuals whose views you disagree with is dogmatism.)
Can we trust a system that awards PhDs to those who believe their mathematical climate models are reliable providers of accurate, global temperature information 50 to 100 years into the future? Sure, sure it was innovative of Michael Mann to create ‘hockey sticks’ out of white noise but it wasn’t hard. People like Al Gore and the climatists of Western academia have only proven they have no shame.
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. ~Klaus Eckert Puls
CO2 was given a bad rap, like coffee, alcohol, chocolate. People know better — remember when the food Nazis said eggs were bad for you? Global warming is the new cholesterol! The time has come for the people to embrace pragmatism and admit humanity needs less government-funded AGW research and a lot more energy.
“A reconsideration of what equitable energy access means for human development and the environment is needed. As this paper demonstrates, a massive expansion of energy systems, primarily carried out in the rapidly urbanizing global South, in combination with the rapid acceleration of clean energy innovation, is a more pragmatic, just, and morally acceptable framework for thinking about energy access. The time has come to embrace a high-energy planet. (See, Our High Energy Planet — A Climate Pragmatism Project)
To all the religious fervor of global warming alarmists, add Leftist politics and a pinch of government science and you have the makings of a not so benign despotism.