Climate Change: Science or Politics? 

Climate Change: Science or Politics?   By DP

Recently, Paul Burgess has been producing a series of videos on climate change. These are an excellent resource, presenting information on this subject in a way that all of us can understand. As the subject of ‘man-made climate change’ has been a preoccupation of mine for years, I’d like to take up the discussion started by Paul and expand upon some of the themes here in a series of articles. It’s important to say that I am not a scientist, and these articles will be very much in layman’s terms.

First, why have this discussion here?

The simple answer to the question of why we need to have this discussion and get informed about climate change is that it is a political issue, not some abstract scientific theory. As well as all the changes that have already taken place in terms of government policy, investment in renewables and our paying for this (check the breakdown of your fuel bills), and proposed Green taxes, its proponents are demanding structural changes that would impact on the everyday lives of each of us. The narrative on climate change has infiltrated every area of life, including education. And because it is political, it is everybody’s business.

Science or propaganda? Some giveaway signs…

Once you start to look at the subject of climate change with an open mind, the signs that it is about politics, not science, hit you like a ton of bricks. You start to notice that something is wrong, that you’re being played. Let’s consider some of the clues.

A dead giveaway is that mainstream coverage of the subject is almost entirely one-sided. We are only ever fed disaster stories about the climate, and about how things will only get worse. We are panicked half to death by headlines declaring ‘the hottest ever…’ this or a ‘record-breaking’ that – horror stories of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, climate-related fires and disappearing polar bears (that one really rankles with me; I love animals, and couldn’t believe it when I found out there are record numbers of the bears and that they are thriving like never before! All that worry for nothing!). Paul discusses this much better than I could, but my point here is that we are drip fed bad news on the climate, continuously, and with no context or perspective – and little or no actual science to back up the claims. Notice, too, the language used by the media, politicians and activists. They don’t talk of ‘carbon dioxide’, for instance, but of ‘carbon pollution’ (implanting the idea of a nasty, dirty substance rather than an odourless gas, and one, of course, upon which all plant life on this planet depends).

Striking, too, is the way the issue is presented as a closed case. We’ve all heard the sweeping repetitive statements: ‘The debate is closed’, and ‘the science is clear’. These, straight off, should sound alarm bells. In science, the debate is never closed; it can’t be. Science, after all, is about evolving knowledge and discovery, where the door is always open to unfolding understandings. Most pernicious of all is the reference, over and over, to ‘the consensus’ – the notion that the world’s scientists are all in agreement that human beings are driving dangerous climate change. (This fallacy will be the subject of a future article.) These statements are meant to lull you into acceptance and away from inquiry.

Worse of all, perhaps, is the sinister linking of sceptics with evil-doers. The damning phrase ‘climate denier’ is meant to echo ‘Holocaust denier’. Scepticism should be welcomed in science, not condemned, and this defensiveness is a dead giveaway. The consequences for scientists who refuse to tow the line can be devastating, however – the science parallel of celebrities like Laurence Fox or JK Rowling being ‘cancelled’ because of saying something the woke brigade doesn’t endorse. The penalties can include ostracism, loss of funding, or an end to one’s career and livelihood. Conforming scientists, the media and politicians conspire to push this singular narrative and to suppress dissenting voices. Obama went so far as to name and shame sceptical American scientists on his personal website.

But why?

The most obvious question in all of this, though, is ‘why?’ Why, in effect, would there be a global conspiracy to convince us the Earth is warming and that it’s all our fault? In particular, why would scientists be complicit in this? Science, of course, should be immune to political pressure – but history has shown it’s not. A generation of scientists in Nazi Germany supported the notion of eugenics, because it was expedient to do so. I’m not drawing any comparisons, but it shows how science can be subverted – especially when grants/funding/livelihoods are concerned. It is evident that overwhelming effort has gone into convincing the world of man-made climate change and suppressing any contradictory evidence or voices. But why?

A friend of mine often says, ‘When in doubt, follow the money’. Al Gore, who popularised the idea through his contacts at the US Congress, has become a billionaire off climate change. The renewables industry is vastly lucrative, and the recipient of government grants around the world. It provides an excuse for Green taxes and the ‘Green New Deal’. This isn’t an area I know much about, but it’s not difficult to see why governments would warm (excuse the pun) to the idea of climate change. The UN is positively evangelical about it. Aside from taxation, the climate change narrative also gives a good ‘reason’ for further globalisation and control by global bodies, given the need to tackle the ‘challenge’ collectively.

For years I resisted looking at climate change from a sceptical standpoint. I’ve always been very environmentally minded and was completely convinced that the greatest threat facing mankind was climate change. It didn’t even cross my mind, in fact, to question it – after all, how could all those scientists be wrong? It just seemed so improbable – like a ridiculous conspiracy theory. When I finally did delve in, however, I was astonished, and dismayed, to find that the evidence of a planet-sized hoax is there for all to see, if you dare look.