Are climatologists liars?

source

As we enter the umpteenth year with no global warming the short answer is a rather obvious YES if scientific theories are still falsifiable by physical evidence. Uppercase indicates shouting by the way.

In this UK election year, catastrophe-driven climatology seems more and more like political number-waving than traditional experimental science. A science of paid middle class advocates where political exigencies have placed a block on falsification and the advocate scientists couldn't care less because it's a noble cause. As are all their causes no doubt.

As the years slip by it has become painfully clear that the catastrophic narrative cannot be falsified under any but changed political circumstances such as an embarrassing number of frozen pensioners. Trashing the science may be fun, but it doesn't achieve much.

We see the issue most clearly in the abject failure of hugely expensive climate models to predict global temperature trends. The science and the scientists have failed miserably but the policies continue. Falsification is not allowed and never will be unless the political situation changes. It's like finding the school bully during a game of hide and seek. Really there is no point - better leave him hidden. Or indeed her.

  

There are other failures too, such as the failure polar sea ice to melt on cue and the untimely health of polar bear populations, but these are secondary to the primary failure - the lack of a any detectable temperature rise caused by troposphere CO₂ concentrations.

If we class climatology as advocacy rather than traditional science then these failures are easily explicable in terms of politics, money and human behaviour - particularly middle class behaviour. The nonsense morphs into yet another dishonesty of daily life.

For example, one of the most problematic aspects of climatology has been the willingness of climatologists to lie by omission – to cherry-pick. Lying by omission may be common enough in normal discourse and compulsory in politics, but in years gone by one did not expect to find it in science. Tweed jackets yes - lying no.

Yet in climatology, lying by omission is very common indeed. It seems to function as a kind of Masonic handshake for climate initiates. Without it there would be no catastrophe narrative and therefore no rationale for political intervention. Political intervention being the whole point – obviously.

However if climatology is merely advocacy, then lying by omission is explained as a commonplace tool of international politics. The climate is poorly understood and unpredictable, but orthodox climatology must continue to suggest otherwise - so it does.

Catastrophe-based climatology is not a science and its practitioners are not scientists in any worthwhile sense. They are merely paid advocates and what is advocated is best viewed in that light. Orthodox climatology provides security, middle class status, a good income and a good pension. What is that worth? A human soul is what it’s worth.

Many would-be immigrants risk their lives for much less.