Climate Change is a Political Battle, Not a Scientific One

quote-there-are-no-morals-in-politics-there-is-only-expedience-a-scoundrel-may-be-of-use-to-us-just-vladimir-lenin-110531Real climate scientists have been arguing against the climate alarmists for years, and they have done a great and helpful job. With basically zero resources, they have been able to at least fight the extremely well-funded climate alarmists to a stand still. With the recent election of President Trump, the balance has definitely tilted towards the climate realists. Unfortunately, that is only a temporary victory, and sooner or later, another president favorable to the alarmist’s position will get elected, and the cycle will start all over again.

To truly defeat the climate alarmists, and to send the climate change/global warming hysteria to the history books to join “The Coming Ice Age,” real climate scientists and climate realists must fight a two-front battle, and broaden their approach. The unfortunate reality is that climate change/global warming has, and never will be a scientific issue, it is a political issue. Real science simply isn’t involved. The minimum of any real science is the ability to model/define what is being observed. The climate models themselves reject the hypothesis of man-made climate change, and that is all the climate alarmists really have to go by. There are no experiments to support their claims, only sophistry.

To make my case, one only needs to read the reviews of the recent House Hearings on Climate Change. This quote is from an article titled:  A newcomer’s first opinion of Michael Mann in the context of science discourse.

I listened to the entire hearing yesterday, and while I don’t have any individual experience with any of the people on the panel, I can now understand why Dr. Mann is not liked, and globally not liked at that. For a scientist he speaks very well, very little equivocation that one would normally associate with having personal or professional doubts about the subject…He seemed to have no problem veering off into innuendo and personal attacks and weaved them into the threads of his testimony. And of course there was the preening megalomania of him reciting his CV … I heard all the science words and phrases but the one thing I did not hear from him was uncertainty, about anything, as though reading from a well-memorized script and the only thing he had to worry about was the presentation style. And then going off on Pielke and Curry repeatedly, right out in the open in one of the halls of Congress, while still portraying himself as the victim.

b6c6b01cf5d222b2616df5d59106f0b9Michael Mann’s behavior is the antithesis of a real scientist, but he doesn’t care, his objectives are political, not scientific. That is what the other real scientists don’t seem to understand. They aren’t debating in front of a professional science organization, seeking to reach the truth, they are testifying before congress. While Michael Mann is testifying to gain sound bits and greater funding, the real scientists are there trying to convince a divided congress that 50% of them are wrong. That is an insurmountable task. 50% of congress gets elected by constituents that expect them not to look behind the curtain and expose the fraud. Michael Mann’s objective is simply to throw red meat to his constituency. This part of the above quote is worth highlighting for emphasis.

I heard all the science words and phrases but the one thing I did not hear from him was uncertainty, about anything, as though reading from a well-memorized script and the only thing he had to worry about was the presentation style.

Michael Mann has a focus group tested presentation that is so well known that I could recite it in my sleep. It is pure nonsense, but he knows that all his supporters have bought into it, and that is what they expect. Those recited comments mean votes for the people that vote for climate change legislation. Facts and science have absolutely nothing to do with it.

The problem conservatives have arguing this issue is that we are conservatives. We look at the facts. We look for the truth. When the NYT or ex-President Obama makes a series to erroneous statements, we respond with rebuttals. The NYT and ex-President Obama reaches millions with their nonsense, conservatives reach very few with their rebuttals. Liberals are propagandists, conservatives are seeking the truth. Conservatives are only winning this battle because 50% of America leans right and their views are influenced by politics, not science.

a0a55a6d380a1c59ba7ab5ff45490c43From another article about the House Hearing on Climate Change, this was written.

Democratic members of the Committee did everything they could to remain alarmist and keep the Republicans confused.

Michael Mann repeated all the expected lies, … It appeared to me that questions the Democrats on the Committee asked Mann and the answers he gave had been scripted.

My impressions from the hearing were not positive. Mann spoke for almost half of the time and boldly asserted the most extreme alarmist positions and factoids (quoting from my own notes): “devoted his life to science [about himself]”, “few individuals who represent tiny minority [about other three witnesses]”, “scientists continuously challenge each other [implying he is a scientist]”, “extremely broad agreement on the basic facts,” 97%, “climate change is real, human-caused, and has heavy impact”, “fingerprints of human-caused climate change on extreme events”, “anti-science forces launched a series of attack on scientists”, “time for republicans to put away doubts and focus on solutions”, “discourage investigations of climate scientists,” and “support by multiple national academic societies.”

The last statement is true, unfortunately. He also mentioned recent example of silencing of Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. by the Center for American Progress and Tom Steyer as another victory for his “climate science.”

Without acting even half as forceful as Mann had, the other three witnesses firmly rejected alarmist conclusions and revealed the subversion of the scientific method in the climate debate. Democrats easily extracted from Dr. Curry an admission that they deal with an extremely complex problem, and from Dr. Pielke Jr. that there are fundamental risks. If it had been my first time hearing about this subject I would have concluded that the climate alarmists were right.

The last line is worth highlighting and is especially important because it is being written by a skeptic.

If it had been my first time hearing about this subject I would have concluded that the climate alarmists were right.

6a6krzctxfsv-6g78foiflpmcczp8ahlzog_up41bfcThe climate alarmists are fighting a political fight, the real scientists are debating a scientific issue. The real scientists brought a pencil and ruler to a political gun fight. They simply didn’t have the correct armor for the battle. Dr. Ball seems to share my opinion.

Mann took it very seriously, was well prepared and exploited it for every political opportunity – he dominated the entire proceedings. He had the advantage of not caring or having to care about the truth. His performance was designed for most of the public who have no idea about what is true. He knows this works because that assumption has driven the juggernaut from the start.

Mann also understood the political and manipulative nature of Congressional hearings. They are charades supposedly seeking the truth, but are really designed to make the politicians look good.

In no way do I want any of my comments to be construed as being negative or critical of the good work done by Dr. Curry, Spencer and/or Pielke Jr.. Their work is critical, and as mentioned above, with very limited resources they have at least fought this battle to a stand- still. The purpose of this article is to survey the landscape, identify and define the enemy, recon and detail the battlefield, identify strengths and weaknesses, and construct a two-front battle plan what will lead to victory. A battle plan to win on both the science and political front. This is the first of a series to develop a political battle plan to assist those testifying before congress and the public.

Because this isn’t a real scientific debate, the old rules don’t apply. The scientific method doesn’t apply. Getting to the “truth” isn’t the goal of this “scientific” debate, getting income redistributed to your cause is the goal. The “truth” has absolutely nothing to do with it. The real climate battle isn’t being fought in our labs, free universities, debate/science clubs/organizations, the real battle is being fought in congress, elections and the courts



9 thoughts on “Climate Change is a Political Battle, Not a Scientific One”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s