With the recognition that the climate is always changing and has since the formation of Earth’s atmosphere, I call bullsh*t …
(1) Science funded by a single sponsor (the government) with a known agenda (use science to justify draconian public policies that advance a political agenda) introduces a bias toward funding those institutions, scientists, and projects that are likely to produce results favorable to the single sponsor. Funds to research contrary beliefs and hypotheses, or to falsify fashionable research conducted by noted institutions and individuals is less forthcoming.
(2) Unfortunately, the fix was in on the day that the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) global framework specified that research was to be conducted on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming and not so much the natural drivers of climate change such as the Sun’s energy output in all spectral bands, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, cosmic rays affecting cloud formation, the rotational and precessional dynamics of the Earth, the Earth’s vulcanology and plate tectonics, deep ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas, water vapor (clouds).
To be noted, the IPCC is a body comprised of politicians and bureaucrats who write reports using cherry-picked peer-reviewed scientific papers to present its apparently pre-ordained (and reason for the IPCC’s existence) conclusion that it is man that affects the climate to the point of creating a planetary emergency which demands greater political control over economies and individuals. The road is headed to a one-world totalitarian approach to governance. Also to be noted, the peer-review process is a publishing process to insure that what is being published adheres to the journal's guidelines, is clear and unambiguous as possible, and is not a crackpot theory. The reviewers do not review the methodology, the findings, and express no opinion on the research. We have seen corruption in the peer-review process where a small number of reviewers, with a particular viewpoint, review each other’[s work.
(3) In fact, it appears that man’s climate contribution signal is lost among the noise of climate’s natural variability. And, to avoid considering the long time frames (thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands) of climate cycles, most temperature readings are measured as anomalies – deviations from a man-selected 30-year baseline – that can be highly manipulated by statistical procedures that introduce error through the process of homogenization. Considering that the terrestrial datasets have been corrupted beyond repair (the original raw data lost over time), the only true dataset is a relatively short term satellite record that differs greatly from the computer models used to assert a case for global warming. Not to mention the scarcity of correctly sited and monitored recording station that cannot be used to develop global projections. Similar to sampling polar bears in a small, accessible region by air and making estimates of the global polar bear populations of a million square miles.
(4) Scientists do not vote on whether or not something is a physical reality. Therefore, a consensus is a political process that merely reinforces the fashionable science of the day – much like the consensus that determined that the Sun rotated around the Earth. In fact, if we look closely at the actual scientific papers that are used to create this so-called consensus, they are filled with qualifications and uncertainties; and not one contains public policy recommendations to deal with the ongoing phenomenon of climate changes.
(5) For those pursuing a political agenda, one attacks the source of information rather than the information itself. One mark of intellectual dishonesty is an ad hominem attack on the research author rather than refuting the research on a scientific basis.
(6) Here we have a video based on a research paper written by someone who studies climate change communications which appear to be a polite way of saying advertising research to sell the public on ceding control to the politicians using specious science.
How very intellectual – another nonsensical argument supporting consensus as science …
How to Recognize ‘Science Denial’
What does Dr. Cook’s institution really do and are they an unbiased observer?
George Mason University -- Center for Climate Change Communication
As a result of human activity – primarily the burning of fossil fuels – the earth’s climate is becoming dangerously disrupted and destabilized.
Our mission is to develop and apply social science insights to help society make informed decisions that will stabilize the earth’s life-sustaining climate, and prevent further harm from climate change.
To achieve this goal, our center engages in three broad activities: we conduct unbiased communication research; we help government agencies, civic organizations, professional associations, and companies apply social science research to improve their public engagement initiatives; and we train students and professionals with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve public engagement with climate change. <Source>
In their own words, they are a propaganda mill or bullsh*t factory
Bottom line …
The clearest indication of a bullsh*t artist and propagandist is the near certitude in which they state an unproven scientific hypothesis with a near degree of certitude and then challenge those who do not believe as they believe.
Another article to add weight to the “big lie” of climate change. Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon that is beyond man’s power to effect. It is not a planetary emergency. And there is no rational need to surrender our system of government, our economy, our culture, and our freedoms to the so-called experts who have made a mess of such places as China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea with their wrong-headed ideas. If the author is lucky, he will be cited in proving the weight on pro-articles is greater than the weight of anti-articles as if that were somehow science and worthy of driving public opinion.
We are so screwed.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius