The truth about that inconvenient truth
Delighted to see that Roy Spencer’s e-book, “An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy,” is trouncing Gore’s own book “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” on the Amazon e-book rankings – despite the fact that Gore’s book has been accompanied by the razzmatazz of a movie and promotional tour, and Spencer’s book only appeared on Amazon last week.
Spencer’s book has two main themes: that most of Gore’s claims about weather disasters, melting ice sheets and rising sea levels are either untrue or the result of natural rather than human activity; and second, that mandating wind and solar power to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will make people poorer and more vulnerable to real environmental threats.
Gore has done a huge amount of damage in cementing into the public imagination the lie that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory – that mankind’s activities are causing an apocalyptic heating of the atmosphere which threatens the existence of life on earth – is true. He has denied the really inconvenient truth – that AGW theory is a scam from start to finish. Founded upon the anti-human doctrine of population control, it has given rise to a towering pyramid of distorted evidence, selective reporting, outright fakery and intellectual fraud, the confusion of supposition with proof, the denial of scientific history, a suspension of rational thinking and a grant-financed intellectual protection racket.
This doctrine and its Soviet-style propaganda and merciless punishment of all who dare dissent is not only both cause and effect of the cultural totalitarianism of our times. It has also dealt a near-fatal blow to the reputation of science itself. Embodying as it does a fundamental corruption of science from within, it has been promulgated by people trained as scientists but who are too stupid, ideologically twisted or cynically venal to do anything but intone the mantra that AGW theory is supported by the vast majority of the scientific community.
Not only is this untrue – many of the best scientific minds know the theory is untrue and say so – but the mantra itself is fundamentally anti-science. A consensus means nothing in science, which is never settled. Those who state that AGW theory is a settled consensus and so the argument is over merely display their own scientific illiteracy.
Will science itself ever recover from this corruption? Will we ever again be able to use science as a proxy for reason itself? Does this mortal sickness afflicting science spell the end of the age of reason itself – the evidence for which is now revealing itself in so many different aspects of western society every single day?
