I often wonder the impact that the global warming scare will have on the history of the western world. In the end, I think that common sense will prevail and the world will take a deep breath. The worst possible outcome would be that when the earth’s temperature falls as after however many years, the propagandaists will claim that our belated action had spared us from doom and the economic suffering we would no doubt have entered into would have been worth it. I think that common sense would make this eventuallity unlikely, but nonetheless it is a scary proposition.
The obvious outcome of the end of the hysteria will be the damage caused to people and institutions.
Politicians who pushed the suicidal policies that would have hurt so many. Obama who said “denial is no longer an option” and Gillard who arrogantly led us to the edge of the cliff like lemmings, with the stupid carbon tax. Rudd who claimed it was “the greatest moral challenge of our time”. Sure they will claim that the science pointed to the need for action but that won’t be good enough. The sole fact is out there, one that trumps any melting ice or natural disaster. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have a negligible impact on the climate. These so-called leaders will not or cannot acknowledge this and astoundingly advocate dangerous policies in spite of the real inconvenient truth. I hope history will condemn them, as the truth is out there even now and they refuse to see it.
One of the biggest victims of global warming will be science and after the scare-mongers have been shown to be the naive pawns and despicable liars that make up thier numbers, I fear that the public may lose its faith in science. Global warming has seen climate science corrupted by funding from governments on the premise that a problem exists. The peer review process has become a joke, manipultated by those with unscientiffic agendas. The most crucial link in the theory is also the poorest researched. No empirical evidence exists that our emissions are making the world significantly warmer. Most the research goes into modelling based on unfounded assumptions and the effects of global warming, in other words scare-mongering. How could the public again trust a profession which overlooked the most critical aspect of a problem that required unwavering commitment from the developed world. After the scare, science will have to restore the public’s faith in its processes.
The environmental cause will also suffer. It was a movement that started out as common sense and governments came to understand this; don’t crap where you eat, more or less. I worry that real environmental issues will be ignored as people realise the central aspect of the green crusade was the greatest deception of our time.
We often hear the phase ‘learning from history,’ and this will be crucial with the greenhouse scare. The attitudes of some of the believers will serve as a lesson to the dangers of intolerance towards those with contadictory opinions. One of the first scientists to endorse global warming was James Hansen, a friend of Al Gore’s. He called for ‘deniers’ to be jailed for putting future generations at risk. Another scientist, Andy Pitman said skeptics should be held to account for the same reason. Al Gore said “the debate is over” and Barack Obama has since endorsed this view. I hope the way in which future generations will see global warming will be an example of how ignorance of opposing positions and disdain for those who hold them can lead to real science being oppressed and governments taking terrifying paths as a result. I hope it will be compared to the Spanish inquisition and the oppression of dissidents by dictators, scenes we are currently witnessing across the Arab world.
I have no doubt that the world will open its eyes, the sooner the better. Hopefully soon enough so that we can preserve our way of life and our quality of life so that future generations can appreciate it as we do. If one good comes of the climate scare, it should be the lessons learnt from the medieval approach to those who hold a different point of view.