Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/23/2025 6:35:03 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
In the 1970s, the fear was global cooling—scientific articles and media coverage warned of an impending ice age. That didn’t happen. Soon, the narrative shifted to global warming. When the planet didn’t burst into flames, the terminology changed again to climate change—a catch-all that could explain any weather event: rain or drought, heat or cold, snow or its absence. Every shift came with new studies, new headlines, and always the same conclusion: We’re to blame.
But the Earth’s climate has always changed. It changed long before humans ever built factories or drove cars. Ice ages came and went. Deserts turned into forests. Continents shifted. It’s arrogant to think we fully understand such a vast, ancient, and complex system with only 150 years of reliable weather data.
So when the experts insist that the current changes are "unprecedented," we should ask: Unprecedented compared to what? A few decades of satellite measurements? A few centuries of thermometer readings? That’s a blink in geological time.
Even if we concede that human activity has some effect on the climate—and many do—the degree of certainty claimed by many in the climate science establishment seems unjustified. Climate models, while useful, are not oracles. They are full of assumptions, estimations, and data interpretations that can shift dramatically based on funding priorities, political pressures, or popular sentiment.
We’ve seen countless predictions—disappearing coastlines, climate refugees, crop failures—that haven’t materialized on schedule. And yet, the more these forecasts fail, the louder the calls become for drastic lifestyle changes from ordinary people.
It raises an uncomfortable question: If we can’t reliably predict the weather two weeks from now, why should we believe predictions for a hundred years from now?
Science today is not a neutral quest for truth. It’s a business. And just like in politics, whoever pays the bills often sets the agenda.
Researchers know where the money comes from—and what kind of findings are more likely to be published, promoted, and rewarded. When governments, global organizations, and powerful institutions fund studies with billions of dollars, is it any surprise that those studies tend to support the funders’ goals?
This isn’t about outright fraud. It’s more subtle than that. It's about incentives, pressures, and career survival. A scientist who presents findings that go against the prevailing narrative risks losing their funding, their platform, and sometimes their career.
We’ve seen this pattern before—nutrition science dominated by corporate sugar interests, eugenics promoted by state-funded "experts," and psychiatric diagnoses influenced by pharmaceutical funding. Science is not immune to corruption. In fact, when it wears the cloak of authority, its power can be especially dangerous.
Even if the science were settled (which it isn’t), the response to climate change reveals a disturbing double standard.
Western nations—who have done more than any others to reduce emissions and improve environmental standards—are being told to give up meat, air conditioning, driving, flying, and even private property. Entire ways of life are being vilified as unsustainable.
Meanwhile, China and India, two of the largest polluters on the planet, continue to industrialize with little serious criticism or restriction. Western leaders fly in private jets to climate conferences where they lecture ordinary people on reducing their carbon footprints.
Worse still, climate rhetoric is now being used to justify radical policies:
This isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about reshaping society—from the top down.
In past centuries, the Church held the authority to declare what was true and to silence dissenters. Today, science fills that role. But when science becomes dogmatic—when it punishes questioning, excommunicates skeptics, and protects its own priesthood—it stops being science. It becomes ideology.
And ideology backed by technology, money, and centralized power? That’s not progress. That’s control.
Climate change may be real. But so is overreach. So is corruption. So is the erosion of personal freedom in the name of collective salvation.
We must not lose the ability to think critically and question authority—even when that authority wears a white lab coat.
In a truly free society, asking hard questions is not a threat. It is the only path to wisdom.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
How can you expect science get the climate correct when they can’t even determine who is a man and who is a woman?
There is an explicit bias towards the climate change narrative. Virtually all article dealing with energy production or improvements in efficiency include the boilerplate comments on climate change.
And if you don’t include it, you’re not likely to get funded in the future.
...ESPECIALLY when that authority wears a white lab coat.
A most excellent comment!
In the audience-based approach to science communication, the transmission of facts is less important than creating resonance with an audience’s everyday world (Nisbet, 2009a)
Science or Control? Neither, really. This scam like nearly all scams is about money. Trillions in wealth “transfers”, with people like Al Gore taking a cut. Lots of beaks have been getting wet over these rigged computer projections, going on thirty years.
One poster on WUWT points out that whenever an alarmist article starts out with “scientists warn…,” it means we are about to leave the world of scientific data behind and sky off into the rarefied atmosphere of extravagant extrapolation.
The statement illuminates the difference between science, which requires measurement and collection of data to test hypotheses, versus modeling, which does not. Model projections are not data, they are hypotheses, which then need to be subjected to scientific scrutiny, tested empirically, and confirmed before being taken seriously.
The public narrative typically stops with the projections as if they are reality. Once loosed from the tether of scientific hypothesis testing, modelers are free to set the media hair on fire with assorted cries of climate apocalypse.
The challenge is to separate reality from the narrative of “catastrophic androgenic global warming” (CAGW) perpetrated by corrupt politicians, sellout scientists, and mendacious media willing to prostitute themselves for the sake of an exciting lede.
It’s climate “scientism”, IOW an “ism”, and it’s adherents are scientologists not scientists.
The most important attribute of a true scientist is skepticism, to constantly question. In climate scientism that is forbidden.
“the transmission of facts”
Their “facts” seem to always make the rich richer and everybody else poorer.
This is a coincidence of course.
The science for profit model evidently had its moment post-covid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.