MELANIE PHILLIPS ON THE ROYAL DHIMMIWIT CHARLES
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6755/pub_detail.asp
Prince Charles: Frankly, More Sense Is Spoken by his Plants
Melanie Phillips
Frankly, more sense is spoken by his plants
I had to rub my eyes very hard indeed this morning at the outburst by Prince Charles about anthropogenic global warming sceptics. The Guardian reports:
In a speech to world business leaders at a climate change seminar, Charles criticised such sceptics for apparently intimidating people from ‘adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse’.
Charles, speaking yesterday at the event staged by the Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership at St James’s palace, did not mention any sceptics by name but said: ‘People have heard the climate sceptics and attempted to listen to the kind of pseudo science they are peddling … I have endlessly been accused of peddling pseudo science, in one way or another, for most of my life – just think about the strange irony.’
Intimidation by the sceptics? What on earth is he talking about? It is those who promote anthropogenic global warming theory who intimidate and persecute anyone who disagrees with them. Here’s some of what I have written in my latest book, The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power about the ‘cultural totalitarianism’ practised by AGW proponents:
In any event, any ‘consensus’ – such as it is – has been created through intimidating any challengers. Dissident scientists report they don’t get grant funding unless their research supports AGW theory. Having crisply observed that most scientists are unaware that doubling or even tripling CO2 would have only a marginal impact on global temperature, the eminent meteorologist Professor Richard Lindzen explained at a conference in 2009 why so many have gone along with the man-made global warming scam.
Most funding that goes to global warming, he said, would not be provided were it not for the climate scare. It has therefore become standard to include in any research proposal the effect of presumed AGW on the topic, quite irrespective of whether it has any real relevance or not. Scientific logic was being silenced in turn by an abuse of power. The global warming movement had skilfully co-opted sources of authority, such as the IPCC and various scientific academies, and the alarmist statements issued by various professional societies expressed the views of only the activist few, who often controlled the IPCC’s governing Council.
One such example is the Royal Society, the very heart of Britain’s scientific establishment which has claimed there is a ‘consensus’ on climate change. In 2006, it tried to intimidate Exxon Mobil into withdrawing support for dozens of groups that it claimed had ‘misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”.
More arrestingly still Lindzen, himself an IPCC reviewer, had previously described conditions under which climate scientists working in the IPCC process were forced to tell lies:
‘Throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC “co-ordinators†would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that “motherhood†statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed co-authors forced to assert their ‘green’ credentials in defense of their statements’.
In the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen testified further to the intimidation of scientists who did not toe the AGW line: the reason more didn’t do so, he said, was that they had been ‘cowed not merely by money but by fear’:
‘In 1992, [Al Gore] ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists–a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
‘Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.’
Another IPCC expert reviewer, Dutch economist Hans LeBohm, described the pressure in the Netherlands: ‘One director of the Dutch Royal Meteorological Institute [Hans Tennekes] was sacked, partly because of the fact that he was a non-believer. My own departure at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations was also connected with my high public profile as a climate sceptic. Young researchers keep their mouth shut, because of the fear for repercussions for their careers if they come out in favour of climate scepticism. So far climate sceptics have not been able to get one single piece published in the meteorological journal of this country’.
Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee, has said his colleagues described ‘absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-“consensusâ€views.’ Briggs described such behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.â€
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, asserted in December 2007 that sceptics had a much harder time publishing in peer-reviewed literature.
‘Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their scepticism in the scientific or public media,’ Paldor wrote.
Those who try to tell the truth about climate change to the general public are subjected to extreme bullying tactics to intimidate them into silence. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, wrote in an email to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
‘It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.’
Even TV weather forecasters swapped their galoshes for hobnailed boots. The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist Heidi Cullen advocated that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they expressed scepticism about catastrophic man-made global warming.
… ‘When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hurting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimise the damage, we should have our war crimes for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg,’ said David Roberts of Gristmill magazine.
In 2008 prominent Canadian geneticist David Suzuki twice suggested that political leaders be thrown into jail for the ‘intergenerational crime’ of denying man-made global warming.
As under Stalinism, it was asserted that dissenters were mentally ill or not human at all. German psychologist Andreas Ernst theorised that people who failed to reduce their CO2 emissions were similar psychologically to rats. And Professor of Psychiatry Steven Moffic proposed the use of aversion therapy involving ‘distressing images of the projected ravages of global warming’ to encourage correct environmental behaviour.
There were even threats of murder. Canada’s first PhD in climatology, Dr Tim Ball, who branded Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth ‘an error-filled propaganda piece’ received death threats for his apostasy. And George Monbiot raved: ‘…every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned’.
Next, Prince Charles accuses sceptics of peddling ‘pseudo science’. Let’s look at just a few of the hundreds of ‘pseudo-scientific’ sceptics who have in effect denounced AGW theory as an unscientific sham and fraud:
Dr Christopher Landsea, a former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones and an IPCC author, who discovered that the IPCC was telling lies about the relationship between climate change and hurricanes.
Dr Richard Lindzen, a much garlanded professor of meteorology at MIT and another IPCC author, who says that the IPCC’s politicised summary of its defining 2001 report created the false impression that climate models were reliable when the report itself indicated precisely the opposite, with numerous problems with the models including those arising from the effects of clouds and water vapour.
Zbigniew Jaworowski, former chairman of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, who says the IPCC’s ice-core research is wrong and that therefore it has ‘based its global warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false’.
Dr Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and another IPCC reviewer, who says that ‘most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible’, and that climate change scientists have launched ‘a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil-fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction’.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters who has written: ‘I believe that global warming is the biggest scientific scam ever. There is no evidence to prove that the current climate variations are not a natural cycle.’
Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, who with Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner co-authored a devastating paper in 2007 entitled ‘Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics’. This stated that there was no scientific basis to anthropogenic global warming theory whatsoever. The authors concluded:
‘The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting Pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo- explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training…The derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science’.
Question: who is more likely to be the scientific pseud – Prince Charles or any of the above? Frankly, more sense is spoken by his plants.
So how can one explain this bizarre inversion of just who is victimising whom in the AGW debate? In my book, I also wrote about the phenomenon of ‘psychological projection’. When people don’t want to admit certain unpleasant things about themselves, they project these unbearable characteristics onto other people instead.
This is such a notable characteristic of the fanatics who promote AGW theory and a host of other ‘closed thought’ ideologies. Proponents of AGW, for example, regularly claim that climate-change sceptics are ‘flat-earthers’ who deny the evidence of science. But it is the warmists themselves whose claims fly in the face of scientific principles and demonstrable evidence, while real science and objectivity are on the sceptics’ side.
What is surely so intolerable for the proponents of global warming and other ideologies is a particular form of knowledge or reasoning that at some level they know to be true but which is lethal to their worldview. Because that worldview is a closed thought system that can admit to no flaw, any reasoning that challenges it must be denied and opposed so as to prevent their whole moral and intellectual identity from being destroyed. This process sets up a pattern of thinking that turns truth and lies inside out.
Perhaps the most mind-twisting example of psychological projection is the claim that the people you victimise are actually victimising you – even while it is you who dominate and receive an uncritical reception on media talk shows, who get grant-funding to subsidise your professional career and whose books are prominently displayed in bookshops, while your opponents are kept off or are given a hard time on the talk-shows, receive precious little grant funding and can hardly get their books published. But as soon as those opponents finally make their voices heard to point out that you are in error, you start screaming that you are being victimised.
The fact is that the proponents of AGW have been rumbled as having perpetrated one of the biggest pseudo-scientific frauds of all time – and they know it. Hence the Royal scream. It’s over, Your Royal Highness — and you were on the wrong side.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Melanie Phillips is the author of the powerful and frightening “Londonistan” which can be purchased here and she blogs at The Spectator.
Comments are closed.
