The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating

By Dr. David Evans
Joanenova.com.au

[A series of articles reviewing the western climate establishment and the media. The first and second discussed air temperatures, the third was on ocean temperatures, and fourth discussed past temperatures, the fifth compared the alleged cause (human CO2 emissions) with the alleged effect (temperatures) and the sixth canvassed the infamous attempt to “fix” that disconnect, the hockey stick and the seventh pointed out that the Chinese, Russian, and Indian climate establishments (which are financially independent of the western climate establishment) disagree.]

Yes, But It’s Murky

The vast majority of scientists in the western climate establishment believe in the theory of man-made global warming (but not Chinese, Russian, or Indian climate scientists, as noted). But here’s where it gets murky.

The believers basically took over western climate science in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and since then have:

• Fired anyone who expresses disagreement with their theory, or hindered their career (publishing, promotions, funding). Al Gore sacked a few skeptics in his time as Vice-President of the USA.
• Hired into climate science positions only people who agreed with their theory.

Government-funded institutions are the only employers of “climate scientists”, so once the believers were in control of the few bodies that determine funding of government science, it was game over. Believers got all the funding and positions; skeptics were forced out. There are no checks and balances in government funded science, no competition from privately-funded science in the climate area, no auditing as there is in financial matters, no regulation as with food and drugs, and no organized and funded opposition to test the theories and champion alternatives.

Within organizations that receive money for working on global warming, anyone who speaks out against the theory of man-made global warming gets peer pressure to shut up, because it threatens the funding and career prospects of colleagues. Scientists have mortgages and children too, and who else would employ a sacked or shunned climate scientist?

So the takeover is complete, and it’s never going to change. The good ‘ol boys are in charge for the foreseeable future.

The only current “climate scientists” who don’t pay lip service to the theory that global warming is predominately man-made are a few blokes who were appointed before 1990 and refuse to budge (for example Richard Lindzen at MIT, now approaching 70, who wrote a paper on corruption in climate science that names names).

Ever notice that nearly all the climate scientists who speak out against the man-made theory are retired—no longer dependent on government climate money? For example, Joanne Simpson, the first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology and “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years”, worked for NASA but in retirement said:

“ Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. … virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both … But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”

I have received communications indicating that the level of support for the theory in some leading western climate institutions is much lower than the public believes, but they cannot say anything publicly, and urged me to continue criticizing the theory.

A huge number of scientists from other areas have seriously looked into climate science issues, and many (most?) have concluded that something is amiss or seriously amiss. It is obvious to many outsiders that the scientific method is not being observed in the climate sciences (for example, the missing hotspot). Which is why so many prominent skeptics are scientist from other areas.

How Did This Develop?

Climate science is totally funded by government. The system rewards the views it wants with grant money, publications in peer reviewed journals, promotions, even fame—the climate scientists with the right views are the rock stars of science, appearing in the press and in demand as speakers. Other scientists see what gets the desired outcomes, and imitate. Soon all the scientists involved have the same opinions—those rewarded by the system—and it’s mutually reinforcing. Mere evidence is ignored or explained away. Viola—a consensus!

In climate science this process started in the mid to late 1980s. It’s not a conspiracy, just a toxic interaction of science, government funding, and media reporting. Given the system, the result was inevitable.

It has also spawned a huge and diverse gravy train of vested financial interests, from renewables manufacturers to lawyers in carbon trading. Many in the political system are heavily invested in it. It is too big to die. It’s the irresistible force of human affairs. But what happens when it collides with the immovable object of scientific evidence and the inevitable eventual cooling? So far the crucial evidence (next article in the series) has been ignored and fudged, and sufficient cheating and mis-reporting of global temperatures might even keep this new religion alive for centuries. Or will word of the cheating leak out to a public no longer willing to fund the gravy train?

PART I | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5 | PART 6 | PART 7