What if governments poured billions of monopolistic funding into one theory but hardly anything into the alternatives: a theory that suited personal ambitions, profits of major players, careers of scientists, and the aims of naïve greens?
How would you know?
What if governments sacked and bullied scientists who disagreed? If officials used slander and libel in order to suppress scientific opinions? What if public agencies hid their data, refused to supply it, or even lost it; if baseless graphs were publicized and not corrected? Who informs the public and who enforces the rules of science, of science journals, of Aristotle?
What if thousands of scientists rose up in protest, but it went unreported?
What if multinational financial houses quietly set themselves up to make billions?
The world is considering a new financial market larger than any commodity market. We’re told it’s all “based on science”, but if you ask for evidence you are called names — “denier”!
Famous graphs show the exact reverse of what a celebrity ex-politician said, but instead of being shamed, he gets a Nobel. “Rock Star” scientists break basic rules of logic, but science-writers think that’s ok. PR web sites are funded specifically to smear researchers, and David Suzuki, supposedly a scientist, lauds the smear sites, and the UN gives them official passes. Wall St has moved in on the biggest power grab in history. But really, banks want to save the environment. Didn’t you know?
Welcome to the barking mad tree called climate change.
If you are on the team which has soaked up billions you might call the unfunded volunteers “oil shills”, while you and 10,000 friends fly on two week exotic junkets every year. You could kick up a stink about $23 million dollars that didn’t come your way, while the $79 billion dollars that did, goes unnoticed. You call yourself “suppressed” after doing your 1400th televised interview, while ground breaking research is locked out of journals. Meanwhile a university puts thermometers six feet above pavements, (lucky hot air doesn’t rise off concrete eh?) and a $4 billion dollar agency gets compliance audits by a team of hundreds of volunteers. Somehow, the media doesn’t think the public would like to know.
In the head-spinning cosmos of climate change, everyday hundreds of people claim there are “thousands of papers” in support of a theory, yet no one can actually name one single paper with empirical evidence that shows carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of global warming. Sincere investigative prize-winning journalists don’t seem to notice.
The gravy train hit full speed before the experiments were done, and when the results “turned 180”, the train ran off the tracks.
Hold onto your hat. Strap yourself in. Nothing is as it seems.
[skeptic: person indisposed to accept popularity or authority as proving the truth of opinions.]
TURN THE PAGES (Links will become active as pages are published). You are on the page in the Red Square.
|1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8 + 9||10||11||12||13||14||15||16||17||18||19||20|
This is page 2 of The Skeptics Handbook II, a 20 page PDF.