Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?

Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?  That is the question asked in a Forbes Posting.  The author, Paul Roderick Gregory, cites the prevailing warmist’s narrative that says all but a tiny minority of scientist believes that global warming is man- made.  Gregory likens this to Stalin telling Trotsky (the dissident) it is what the poliburo says it is regardless if it is true or not.

Gregory  writes: The “warmist” consensus view of “climate science” is represented at a popular level by advocates like Al Gore and at the scientific and technical level by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as supported by researchers at East Anglia (Phil Jones) and Penn State (Michael Mann). This panoply of people and organizations is the equivalent of the Central Committee in my Stalin dialog above.   “Skeptics” (the equivalent of Trotsky above) are individual scientists and advocates who stake out positions at odds with the IPCC-Central Committee orthodoxy.

Gregory says that three recent events make him think of this Stalin analogy:

First, Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society over his disagreement with its statement that “the evidence (on warming alarmism) is incontrovertible.”

Gregory adds: The Giaever story starkly disputes warmist claims of “inconvertible evidence.   Despite the press’s notable silence on such matters, there are a large number of prominent scientists with solid scholarly credentials who disagree with the IPCC-Central Committee. Those who claim “proven science” and “consensus” conveniently ignore such scientists.

Second, the editor of Remote Sensing resigned and disassociated himself from a skeptical paper co-authored  by University of Alabama Climate Scientist Roy Spencer after an avalanche of criticism by “warmists.

The author believes that the Remote Sensing editor’s action was bizarre and unprofessional. He adds : In all fields of scientific inquiry, journal editors base their publication decisions on reports of referees, who are supposed to be experts in the area. Presumably, in the case of the Spencer paper, referees supported its publication.  Even if there had been a negative report, good editors often publish controversial papers to open a scholarly dialog. (Can anyone think of a topic that is more controversial and more in need of open scholarly dialog than global warming

Third, the New York Times and other major media are ridiculing Texas Governor Rick Perry for saying that global warming is “not proven.” Their message: Anyone who does not sign on to global warming alarmism is an ignorant hayseed and clearly not presidential material.

Regarding the criticism of Rick Perry he says: The media is tarring  and feathering  Rick Perry, we now see,  for agreeing with Nobel laureate Giaever and a host of other prominent scientists.  I guess if Perry is a know-nothing Texas hick (or worse, a pawn of  Big Oil) so is every other scientist who dares to disagree with the IPCC Central Committee. Such intimidation  chillingly makes politicians, public figures, and scientists fearful of deviating one inch from orthodoxy.

He summarizes this situation saying: False claims of consensus and inconvertible truth reveal a political or ideological agenda wrapped in the guise of science.  The incontrovertible bad behavior of the warmists has led skeptics to suspect base motives, and who could blame them.

And I will add that this is why the skeptics suspect the base motives  of the warmist’s allies —- the mainstream media.

Read this Gregory’s full post by clicking here

cbdakota