It seems that every day, politicians, pundits, and activists find a dozen or so new phenomena to blame on “climate change.” Everyone from MSNBC commentators to the President of the United States has gotten in on the climate change act, and climate change non-believers are deemed Neanderthalic simpletons, incapable of understanding a basic truth.
“Scientific consensus” is the line that is routinely thrown out to justify any manner of policies based on climate change, and this begs the question: just how valuable is “consensus” when it comes to science?
- For decades, there was a “scientific consensus” that Pluto was a planet. For decades, children were taught in school that Pluto was the tenth planet in our solar system…and yet, in 2006 it was decided that Pluto didn’t meet the definition of a “planet” after all.
- For decades, there was a “scientific consensus” that our universe was born out of a “Big Bang.” It was taught in our schools, and even spawned a major TV sitcom. And yet, just earlier this year, physicists were able to prove that the Big Bang never happened.
- The longstanding “scientific consensus” about vitamins used to be “more is better,” yet recent studies have shown that taking too many vitamin supplements can increase the risk of cancer.
That’s the thing about science: even the truest of scientific truths are open to tests and questioning. Science is evaluated by evidence, not assumptions.
And the problem for Climate Change alarmists is that the evidence increasingly doesn’t fit their narrative.
In fact, not only does the evidence not fit the narrative, but proponents of the man-caused climate change hypothesis have been caught multiple times committing scientific fraud – changing the data to fit their presuppositions. There was the East Anglia scandal, where hacked emails revealed that researchers were changing data when it didn’t fit with their models. Recently, several reports were found to have included revisions of past data, basically re-writing history to support a global warming narrative. Recently, headlines proclaimed that “2014 was the hottest year on record,” yet it only took a quick look at the evidence to see how this had been spun – they only took data from terrestrial sensors, which had largely been replaced by more reliable data collected by satellites.
This is the crowd that calls those who disagree “deniers.” “Climate change denier” is meant to invoke thoughts of Holocaust deniers – though if you look at how the Left tends to treat the leadership of Iran, who truly are Holocaust deniers, you will see that they favor Holocaust deniers over those who don’t believe in man-made climate change.
They also call us “anti-science,” even as they take a stance that is itself anti-science. Science involves forming conclusions based on evidence, yet no matter how much evidence you show them, they will refuse to budge from their dogma. Point out that multiple weather events directly contradict their position, and you’ll hear all about how “weather is not climate.” But the minute there’s a freak storm, or any other extraordinary weather event, and it’s the fault of “climate change.”
But perhaps the most notable indicator of just how much Climate Change’s scientific consensus is really worth is this: whether they’re arguing that we’ll all die from Global Cooling, Global Warming, or some nebulous definition of “Climate Change,” there is one thing that never changes: the big-government socialist agenda, wherein the masses are subjugated to a life without electricity, or cars, or any other modern convenience, while the elite get to live it up because their hearts are in the right place.
Because in the end, that’s what Climate Change is all about. It isn’t about science, it isn’t about health, it isn’t even about climate. It is all about control.