The global warming alarmist community firmly believes it has science on its side. The science is settled, its members repeat incessantly to show how “sciency” they are, despite the fact that they are wrong. And 97% of scientists believe man’s carbon dioxide emissions are causing climate change, they say with great conviction, even though it’s simply not true.
Among its many efforts show it’s a coalition of the enlightened, the Democratic Party works hard to convince the public that it’s the “party of science.” At the same time, it labors just as aggressively to portray the Republican Party as the “anti-science party,” and it enthusiastically tags doubters as unthinking hicks.
Given these facts, what are the alarmist community and the Democrats, whose platform hysterically calls climate change “an urgent threat,” to do about research that has found that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue”?
If this is indeed the case, then half of all global warming papers might also be untrue.
According to the foreword of “Peer Review: Why Skepticism Is Essential,” written by Donna Laframboise for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “a significant part of the references in the fourth assessment” of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report were made “to ‘gray literature.’ “
“That is, press releases, ‘reports’ from pressure groups and the like, which are not remotely the normal peer-reviewed scientific literature.” In other words, IPCC-referenced propaganda.
For the moment, let’s imagine that from here on out, every piece of literature used by the IPCC to further the narrative is published by ostensibly reliable researchers. That still leaves much room for doubt. The Global Warming Policy Foundation report says that “even if all the citations used by the IPCC were peer-reviewed, this would not mean they were infallible.”
Laframboise says science is plagued with an “reproducibility crisis,” meaning that published findings cannot be independently verified. She believes that “there is no reason to believe that the politically charged arena of climate science is exempt from” the problems found in other scientific research, “or that it doesn’t share the alarming rates of irreproducibility observed in medicine, economics and psychology.”
“Currently, climate research is not subjected to meaningful due diligence prior to the IPCC presenting it as sound in its reports,” Laframboise writes.
“Until key climate findings meet a higher standard than mere peer review, we cannot claim that our climate policies are evidence-based.”
But the alarmist community isn’t interested in evidence. It is consumed with fueling panic and creating a climate of fear, and goes out of its way to bully those who don’t agree with its narrative. Rather than provide real evidence — it simply can’t — it traffics in condemnations, character assassination, reprisals and marginalization. Its members act more like a high-school clique than responsible and open-minded adults. Those holding a different opinion are treated as “others.”