The disaster that is climate science still seems some way from working itself out, the likely consequences still murky and unclear. The key issue lies in the future and it is this: will there ever be a public admission of what has been going on, a public acceptance that climate alarmism is based on fraudulent science?
I don’t know, but I suspect that the damage done will be deep and lasting. Maybe the real goal was always energy security. Well that’s fine, no problems with that as a worthwhile goal, but in that case why invent the CO2 scare in order to promote it? Why lie? Never again will scientists have the same degree of authority in the public mind. It is a disaster, but we deserve no sympathy as the fraudulent nature of climate alarmism was obvious from the beginning.
Scientific institutions such as the Royal Society have been exposed as science clubs, concerned only to further the interests of scientists, not the interests of science as a knowledge culture. The mainstream media, with a few exceptions have been exposed as scientifically illiterate and gullible. The BBC has been exposed as a joke. Prince Charles as been exposed as... but never mind that. What the future holds we may only guess at, but it doesn’t look good.
Over four centuries of scientific progress may well have been flushed down the toilet of political expediency by a bunch of half-witted charlatans. As the phrase goes – you couldn’t make it up. Unfortunately they did.
5 comments:
Scientists once blew up Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Things could be worse.
Hmm - somehow that doesn't cheer me up.
I think the answer to your question is 'no' - those involved will never be able to admit their gullibility/deception.
The CO2 business is interesting because if politicians had simply said that we needed to find alternative means of producing energy or reducing our dependency on imported energy, I believe that few of us would have demurred: no scare was necessary.
This would mean that either our politicians genuinely believed in the CO2 alarmism or there was an ulterior motive. While I have a low opinion of politicians, I don't think they're all stupid - so my money is on the latter.
Quite what that ulterior motive is, I'm not sure. I'm not wholly comfortable with the NWO argument (although I am deeply suspicious of Common Purpose) - so simple greed or some desperate attempt to salvage capitalism perhaps?
Regards
TT
The science establishment and the requirements of commerce and government have led to major distortions. Also, the science of today does not seem to be able to deal with complexity or uncertainty.
TT - I think politicians are easily manipulated by their obsession with staying 'on message'. The trouble is, they only deal with one message per issue.
D - I agree, complexity and uncertainty are huge issues, hopelessly underestimated by second-rate scientists.
Post a Comment