by Thomas Richard
Let's take a trip back to 1980. Ronald Reagan was just elected President, Democrats were still shell-shocked an actor had won, and Republicans loomed large in the media and could hold their heads high. This was the start of the Dynasty decade, one of consumption, credit card binges, parties, and finding out who shot J.R.
Unbeknownst to the American people, the media, and most of the world, a crisis was lurking. A crisis of pandemic proportions that on December 1, 1981, was beginning to rear its ugly head. Few scientists understood it, and those that did spoke up every chance they could to warn the public that this was only the tip of the iceberg.
Those few scientists hung tough, continued to study the problem and, in 1983, were vindicated: a virus was likely causing AIDS, but no one knew how.
Then it happened. The medical community applied all its efforts into studying this newly identified virus. Each new breakthrough was discussed, studied, tested, and retested. Annual conferences were held where scientists in all medical fields were invited to share and to learn. No theory was too preposterous, no study dismissed outright. It was only after the virus was discovered that several groups working together proved that HIV was the cause of acquired human immunodeficiency.
Each successive conference built on the work of these individuals and groups. Papers were published. Medications were entering the FDA pipeline. Some were even fast-tracked for humane purposes. All avenues of discourse were discussed, debated, argued over, but ultimately respected. If one theory on its mutagenic properties was proven false, five researchers were there to pick up the trail and go in five new directions. Eventually, each path circled back, dead-ended, or brought about a new medication.
All of this began with the theory that a person's immune system was being decimated by a virus.
Now we have another theory: Global warming. As James Hansen will proudly tell anyone listening, he's been trying to prove it for decades, but where the AIDs conundrum led to discoveries, cooperation, and life-saving drugs, this theory has led to something quite unwholesome.
Yes, conferences are being held, but if a participant offered an opposing theory or other contributing factors, they were promptly crossed off the invite list. If they tried to apply existing or new knowledge to the problem, they were labeled a “skeptic” or even “a denier.”
Science journals went along with the global warming theory, fearful of upsetting readers and losing subscriptions, so they became a party to the dubious theory.
Opponents turned to the Internet to share their doubts, along with their expertise. They created blogs, online journals, or study guides for other experts in the field. Some created lay person's guides.
The difficulty for the public in general was that, try as they might, the mainstream media put so much manpower and energy into supporting the global warming theory, many concluded the issues and the science is already settled. Those pesky skeptic voices are just the lone cries of a contentious researcher, they rationalized.
Scientific theories, however, must be debated with others, must prove their hypotheses, but for many who doubted the assertions of global warming, the wall was so high and thick they were afraid they’d never get over it.
Those that challenged the theory were greeted by both the welcoming arms of inquisitive scientists and, alternatively, arrogant rants from those within their field of study.
It doesn't take much hindsight to see what would have happened if HIV research had become a politicized organism. As it stands, every time research sheds new light on HIV, scientists around the world cheer on their colleagues. When new medication becomes available based on how the virus mutates, the media showers praise on this great accomplishment.
The opposite exists for global warming. If any new analysis shows that climate change might be influenced by other factors, that it may be completely natural, cyclical, that it might not be as catastrophic as we've been told, hold onto your hats.
Like a roiling teakettle, those invested in the current CO2 theory don't praise, support, or congratulate their fellow colleagues. They don't bother to review the work or check the data. The new study and its author are attacked with screeching vehemence. Oddly and often enough, the attacks are non-specific and predominantly based on the study's 'abstract,' which is nothing more than a snapshot of what's inside.
Imagine for a moment the world's scientists all contributing to a theory like global warming. Imagine a situation in which no opinion, study, research, idea, or argument is discounted until it's been vetted, debated, and discussed; where disagreements with another researcher are based on data and not on how many divorces they've had.
Imagine a world where each discovery is met with admiration even if it might prove the global warming theory was incorrect or incorporated unsound statistics.
Don't confuse the highly politicized United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with the statement above. Formed to bring together the brightest minds in fields like climatology to investigate questions about global warming, it has now become a collection of radical environmentalists who actively re-write reports and ignore their own scientists. Many scientists have resigned from the IPCC, yet their names still appear on its roster of contributors.
The IPCC claims that even
dissenting voices have contributed. That may be true, but you won't find their views in any public reports, graphs, or charts the IPCC has used to confuse and manipulate the masses.
The media, which has never been a bastion of scientific thinking, has infused this uncertainty with the patina of factual evidence. What started off as a scientific community of investigators looking for climate change answers has now become a political institution intent on proving man-made CO2 is the root cause.
Finally, keep a few things in mind the next time you read a breathless story about global warming:
Telling other scientists, researchers, and laypeople the 'debate is over' is akin to book burning.
Ad hominem attacks serve no other purpose than to show other people how witty you think you are.
When you hear that a new climate 'record' was broken, it generally means 'in the last 50 years.'
There is no place for politics in science. And vice-versa.
If you are a scientist, the only place your politics matter is in the voting booth.
Man-made global warming is a theory and research showing otherwise does not get funded.
And lastly, a cold winter's night does not an ice age make. A decade of cooling along with a Sun that is devoid of sunspots are known indicators that a new cooling cycle for the Earth has begun.
Thomas Richard runs the non-profit, non-partisan site Climate Change Fraud which gives voice to the other side of the global warming debate. For 15 years he has freelanced as a web design consultant when he’s not debunking the common misconceptions of climate change.
