Call me slow on the uptake or naive but I’d always expected that honesty and fair play would prevail in blogs discussing climate change. That is, as a sceptic, one would be given a fair go to to put forth one’s point of view. After all, modern western civilization is built on the principle of free speech. Aren’t these bloggers, who are themselves enjoying a free, democratic lifestyle, interested in upholding one of the most wonderful freedoms we have? Evidently, no. Where climate science is concerned, sceptics are abused, vilified and even given the title “deniers” in a further attempt to denigrate them by association with Holocaust deniers. Don’t you know the science is closed they shout!
Censorship is alive and well on such blogs. For example, this was the response last night to some well presented comments by us on the “quakerattled” blogsite:-
“I find it quite surprising that you comment on the credibility of the MetOffice and yet you provide as sources for your claims the Daily Mail and WUWT. I will no longer be accepting comments from you unless you provide more reputable sources and I include the MetOffice as a reputable source while the Daily Mail and WUWT are not.”.
Evidently, the MetOffice is considered reliable, but not the Daily Mail nor the well credentialled scientists who contribute to WUWT’s blog. I should add that the true believers are never asked to provide sources for their utterings on this blog site yet we will be banned if we dare to quote from The Daily Mail and WUWT!
” The extension of the ” denier ” tag to group after group is a development that should alarm all liberal minded people. One of the great achievements of the Enlightenment -the liberation of historical and scientific enquiry from dogma- is quietly being reversed.” – Edward Skidelsky.
The theory of dangerous man-made global warming has the support of the world’s leading climate science organisations, led by a political body, The UN IPCC. The IPCC is not objective but strongly biased toward active climate policies. Contrary to public perception, there is a significant difference of opinion on most areas of the science, principally:-
What is causing climate change?, By how much is warming likely to accelerate?, and What level is dangerous?
“The science is settled” is asserted over and over again by our news media, and is now a mantra of our governments, e.g., “The science is settled , and human activity is responsible for global warming”.
But, in fact, science is never settled. Statements professing that the science is settled are efforts to end scientific debate and pursue political ends. Scepticism is inherent in the scientific method. Albert Einstein himself summed it up –
“No amount of experimentation can prove me right ; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”.
The phrase ” science is settled” is propaganda employed to avoid open and honest discussion about the true nature of global warming.
So it is wrong to be denied the right of challenging the settled science on blog sites with shrill charges of ” denier”, ” industry shill” etc. when queries of any part of the science arise.
According to one writer, the term “Denier ” is an unsubtle attempt to insinuate denial in the Freudian sense of refusal to accept a painful or humiliating truth. Sufferers are said to be in “denial”.
Worse it is an attempt to link the accused with ” Holocaust Denial “, with all the undertones of evil associated with denying one of the worst episodes in history. Dr. Roy Spencer has reached the limit of endurance of such a charge by now referring to alarmists who use that tag as ” Climate Nazis.”
In 2010, Professor Phil Jones was asked on the BBC:-
“-when scientists say- the debate on climate change is over, what exactly do they mean, and what don’t they mean?”
Jones replied, “It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. That is not my view….”
Finally, as Professor Richard Feynman has stated in a famous lecture, “Value of Science”-
” Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle : permit us to question -to doubt- to not be sure. I think it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.”
In conclusion, speak out on all areas of the settled science and boycott those people and blog sites that demand conformity. The demand to ignore commentators such as Anthony Watts, Bishop Hill, Jo Nova, and Steve McIntyre is deeply misguided.