Who cares about climate change consensus? The Guardian got it all wrong. The climate community destroyed its credibility. No one believes.
Just look at all of the dishonesty and deceit in the climatology business. From the get-go government scientists changed the rules and played fast and loose with the language to better sell their message of doom. Nature did not agree either and answered with the long global warming hiatus we can no longer ignore.
Do you want to be a part of the climate change ‘consensus,’ which was never more than a made-up idea to make government experts look impressive? Who could disagree? No one disagrees who wishes to align themselves with crooked marketers and Leftist politicians. All scientists rightly ought to be more skeptical than credulous by now.
So, it was refreshing to hear: A piece of wood brought Christian Schlüchter Bernese geologists in conflict with climate research (see, the Christian Schlüchter interview in Der Bund last week, translated by Bing). Schlüchter learned that Hannibal didn’t cross the icy Alps: his army crossed a forest. Meanwhile, we all learned that glaciers come and go on a lot faster Earthly timetable than we realized (i.e., they were gone both 2,000 and 4,000 years ago not just 10,000 years ago) and, the reason for their demise obviously had nothing to do with us moderns injecting our CO2 into the atmosphere
Schlüchter has awakened to more than the fact that the Timberline, back then, was much higher than it is today. Schlüchter is now convinced: Our society is fundamentally dishonest. For example, Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ showing a flat average global temperature until warming in the 20th century was a big double-cross:
In the northern hemisphere we are now in a period of cooling trends. Nevertheless, the glaciers have receded. Many are convinced that man is responsible. For me personally, this is not the central issue. Our society is fundamentally dishonest. One speaks of the “hockey stick”, which indicates a long period of constant temperatures with an exponential warming in the last 100 years. (Ibid.)
“Today,” says Schlüchter, “many scientist are servants of politicians and are not concerned with knowledge and data.” Schlüchter worries that scientists have essentially invented a new devil for mankind to fear. In the process the global warming fear mongers are making a lot of money but in, “a complex and spoiled society like today’s,” they also may be triggering a situation similar to that which, “brought the Roman Empire to collapse.”
Christian Schlüchter understands what makes the glaciers fluctuate. The solar activity is the lever of change. In addition, tectonic movements and the shifting of the seasons in the northern hemisphere play a role. Even volcanoes can be a trigger. Schlüchter is more worried about the corruption in science history and also in economics: There are many examples of the failure of science in history because courage was lacking. The same also applies to other disciplines, currently, for example, for the economy.
What is happening in the sciences demonstrates the kind of people who become academics. There is accountability in a capitalist economy: there is a reckoning; bad ideas go away; and, in the business world, when good money is spent after bad it’s not a problem because it’s not your money that has been wasted without your consent.
Objectively speaking, reality has been saying for last 17 years that global warming does not exist but the government refuses to hear what nature has to say. Most probably don’t realize the glee with which academia roots for America’s economic suicide.