Further confirmation emerged this week of the sceptical position many reputable scientists take towards the more extreme predictions of the climate change industry. Alex Berezow is Senior Fellow of Biomedical Science at the American Council on Science and Health. He was writing about his experience speaking to a group of microbiologists about fake news. He polled the room with regard to what they thought was the world's number one threat. Surely a group of microbiologists would know that it has to be climate change ? Wouldn't they ? I mean, Kevin Hague of the New Zealand Green Party says it's the biggest threat to our health, and why isn't the government doing more about it ? (Surprise, surprise). Don't they know that Leonardo de Caprio and Pharrell Williams are convinced climate change is the most urgent threat facing our species ?
Well, no actually. They obviously haven't been keeping up with the key issues influencing New Zealand politics and the latest celebrity gossip (prerequisites of maintaining credibility in the world of climate science, of course). Because this group of microbiologists thought pandemic disease and antibiotic resistance were more serious threats to the world currently. Berezow was making a couple of important points. One was that it is natural for those studying a particular phenomenon to attach greater significance to its' importance than other concerns. So, economists worry about catastrophic financial collapse, geologists fear earthquakes, etc. The second point is perhaps the more important though. That is that you can't have a rational disagreement with climate warriors like you can with other intelligent people. Berezow believes that poverty is the biggest threat to the world. He disagreed with the others in the room, but they were able to discuss this in an intelligent way and understand one another's points of view. The mainstream media won't allow you to deviate from climate orthodoxy. Even if you're happy to acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change is real (as Berezow does), you're not allowed to disagree about the appropriate political response.
Using the example of Bret Stephens, a reporter who moved from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times and wrote his first piece on his concerns about how complete certainty in anything, particularly science, is a worry. He pointed out that what scientists had actually been learning about climate change over the past thirty years was rather different to what the climate change industry fanatics and accompanying political bandwagon would have us believe. Stephens was castigated in the liberal media, Vox even referring to him as a 'bullshitter' in their headline.
What will happen over the next five to ten years if reality continues to debunk their most alarmist predictions ? Will the narrative be quietly adapted and deflected to soften the fall for the self appointed climate doom merchants ? Or will the thought control and censorship intensify ? Click here for Alex Berezow's full article.