A study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters found that out of 1,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate change, 97% endorsed the consensus view that humans are causing global warming. I want to explore how such an outcome becomes possible and why it reflects authoritarian control over our climate science industry.
Last summer, the International Monetary Fund canceled a speech by John Clauser, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, who publicly disagrees with the current climate change narrative. The head of the nonprofit with which Clauser is affiliated, the CO2 Coalition, has said he and other members have been delisted from LinkedIn for their dissident views. A prestigious academic journal retracted peer-reviewed research doubting a climate emergency after negative media coverage. Roger Pielke Jr. was then blocked on Twitter (now X) for pointing out “one of the most egregious failures of scientific publishing that I have seen”. A month later, 1,600+ scientists, including Clauser and Ivar Giaever of Norway, formally declared there is no climate emergency, pointing out how climate advocacy has devolved into mass hysteria. If this is what settled science looks like, I’m scared; the cultural zeitgeist demands the complete transformation of our society based on a narrative built upon silencing legitimate dissent, and without a real debate. Our current goal is to halve U.S. carbon emissions by 2035 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 to stave off a man-made existential threat to our existence.
Logical Fallacies and Ancient Echoes
The push to silence climate skeptics is rife with logical fallacies. The most glaring is the appeal to authority, where the opinions of supposed experts are used to shut down debate rather than foster understanding. This tactic mirrors the behavior of the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, who claimed bad weather was a reflection of angry gods to control their populace. Today, the so-called climate crisis is wielded in much the same way – as an unquestionable truth used to justify sweeping changes without proper scrutiny.
Ad hominem attacks are another common tactic, as seen in the treatment of scientists like Clauser and Pielke. Rather than engaging with their arguments, climate advocates seek to discredit them personally, suggesting that any dissent must be rooted in ulterior motives rather than genuine scientific inquiry. This mirrors the ancient practice of labeling dissenters as heretics or blasphemers, unworthy of serious consideration.
Questioning the Narrative
Many of these climate skeptics reject the optimistic scenarios of economic prosperity promised by advocates of a net-zero world order. They say the global emissions-reduction targets are not achievable on such an accelerated timetable without lowering living standards and unleashing worldwide political unrest.
“What advocates of climate action are trying to do is scare the bejesus out of the public so they’ll think we need to [act] fast,” said Steven Koonin, author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”
“You have to balance the certainties and uncertainties of the changing climate – the risks and hazards – against many other factors,” he adds.
These dissenters don’t all agree on all scientific questions and do not speak in a single voice. Clauser, for example, is a self-styled “climate denialist” who believes climate is regulated by clouds, while Pielke, a political scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Bjørn Lomborg, the former director of the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute, acknowledge humans are affecting the climate but say there is sufficient time to adapt. The dissenters do, however, agree that the public and government officials are getting a one-sided, apocalyptic account that stokes fear, politicizes science, misuses climate modeling, and shuts down debate.
They also say it is a troubling sign for scientific integrity that they are systematically sidelined and diminished by government funding agencies, foundation grant-makers, academic journals, and much of the media. Delving into their claims, RealClearInvestigations reviewed a sampling of their books, articles, and podcast interviews. This loose coalition of writers and thinkers acknowledges that the climate is warming, but they typically ascribe as much, if not more, influence to natural cycles and climate variability than to human activities, such as burning fossil fuel.
Fallacious Arguments in Climate Advocacy
- Appeal to Fear (Ad Metum): The narrative of an impending climate catastrophe is driven by fear, urging immediate action without sufficient debate or consideration of alternative perspectives. This fallacy aims to evoke an emotional response rather than a rational one, reminiscent of ancient leaders who invoked fear of divine retribution to maintain control.
- False Dichotomy: The presentation of the issue as a stark choice between immediate, radical action and global disaster ignores the possibility of more measured, gradual approaches. This binary thinking stifles constructive dialogue and exploration of viable solutions.
- Cherry-Picking Data: Climate activists often highlight extreme weather events and worst-case scenarios while ignoring data that might suggest a more nuanced reality. This selective use of evidence undermines the credibility of the climate narrative and prevents a balanced understanding of the issue.
- Bandwagon Fallacy: The insistence that a consensus among scientists equates to unquestionable truth pressures individuals to conform to the majority view, stifling independent thought and critical analysis.
The Broader Implications
Killing the fossil fuel industry in an effort to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, as advocated by the United Nations and promoted domestically by the Biden administration, will destroy the nation’s economy, resulting in depression and political instability. Developing regions will pay the highest price, while our geopolitical adversaries will simply ignore the mandate. There is no evidence supporting the causality of a gradually warming planet to the frequency or intensity of weather events. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself has expressed low confidence such weather events can be linked to human activities. There has been no increase in deaths from extreme weather events over the past century. In fact, deaths are more often caused by cold weather (eight times the deaths from hot weather). Overall weather-related mortality has fallen by about 99% since the beginning of the 21st century. The fear-mongering is so severe that one would think extreme weather is a greater threat than ever in our history, yet as a populace, we “are safer from climate-related disasters than ever before” – statistician and author Bjørn Lomborg.
Climate Science: A Field Hijacked by Politics
Climate science has become a tool of the lobby class, resulting in a culture of self-censorship that’s so fascistic in nature that Koonin likens it in principle to the Mafia’s omerta. In “Climate Uncertainty and Risk,” climatologist Judith Curry asks: “How many skeptical papers were not published by activist editorial boards? How many published papers have buried results in order to avoid highlighting findings that conflict with preferred narratives? I am aware of anecdotal examples of each of these actions, but the total number is unknowable.” “Follow the science” and “scientific consensus” are platitudes used to control the narrative. Of the many goals debated, such as the urgency to cease and desist burning fossil fuels, or the accuracy of computer modeling predictions of future global temperatures, a consensus has yet to be reached. The imminent disaster narrative is weaved through peer pressure, intimidation, and research funding priorities, based on this idea that humanity must be saved from itself. Pielke predicts that “One day PhD dissertations will be written about our current moment of apocalyptic panic,” but I worry he is an optimist and that the growing desire of corporate interest to pay for outcomes rather than studies will intersect with declining socioeconomic conditions, resulting in further entrenchment of the exact problem we’ve been discussing in this article.
Reclaiming Scientific Integrity and Rational Discourse
In an era where climate science has become a battleground for ideological dominance, the suppression of dissenting voices mirrors ancient authoritarian tactics that stifled debate and controlled the populace through fear and dogma. The cases of John Clauser and Roger Pielke Jr. highlight a troubling trend: genuine scientific inquiry and diverse perspectives are being sidelined in favor of a homogenized, fear-driven narrative. This approach, steeped in logical fallacies like the appeal to authority and ad hominem attacks, undermines the integrity of scientific discourse and risks leading us into policy decisions that are not only economically disastrous but also scientifically unsound.
By reclaiming the principles of scientific integrity and rational discourse, we can move beyond the current climate hysteria and develop policies that are informed by a comprehensive understanding of both human and natural influences on our environment. This balanced approach will better serve humanity, ensuring that efforts to mitigate climate change are both scientifically valid and socioeconomically sustainable.
Leave a Reply