In his column on March 2, Dr. Larry Mulkerin wrote, “I accept the consensus opinion that climate change is a probable threat to the planet and future generations.”
Consensus. That word keeps popping up.
I agree that changing climate could be a threat, however, the issue was never about that. The issue is about what causes it. And — if human CO2 emissions do — could it be stopped by throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at it (that could have been better spent fighting real problems like poverty, AIDS, cancer and malaria)?
Michael Crichton mentioned scientific consensus in his Jan. 17, 2003, Caltech Michelin lecture. He said, “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear; the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” He then gave some historic examples.
I believe many people such as Dr. Mulkerin are honest men who are merely mistaken. However, there are many scientists and political activists who are lying to us about it for political and/or financial reasons.
In his recent State of the Union speech, President Obama scowled and declared, “Climate change is real!” Secretary of State Kerry exclaimed, “Climate change is the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction!” Last week Al Gore terrified his believers with a 90-minute presentation claiming floods, wildfires, torrential rains, droughts, dust storms, rising seas and increasing temperatures are “evidence” our CO2 is destroying the planet.
The reason I believe these superrich politicians are lying is because they have the resources to determine the truth — that the science is not settled. Problem is, that truth doesn’t fit their political and financial agendas.
If they were honest enough to question the “consensus,” perhaps they could begin by reading Global Warming — Myth or Reality (The Erring Ways of Climatology) by Professor Marcel Leroux.