More scientists answering the common question ‘why is climate science so politicized?’ Well, policy is political; leading climate science voices have for years openly promoted policy as much as they have tried, without success, to make their substantive case. Theirs is an approach that — particularly with the language they often employ — betrays an ideology, a worldview and reasonable cause to question what drives them and their pronouncements at odds with the evidence (as I’ve detailed, to the puzzlement of ‘social scientists’).
From that Telegraph piece:
In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.
You remember the Tyndall Centre, of ‘planned recession’-memo fame?
‘It won’t cost anything!’ ‘Solutions are on the shelf!’ ‘When will the rationing start already?! Er…’
Meanwhile, the UN further politicizes its own efforts to maintain the fiction of setteld science, barring journalist Phelim McAleer from attending the Cancun talks. He got too much attention last year in Copenhagen asking the questions apparently prohibited by the media’s omerta. Who knows, he might ask about recent candid admissions like those cited in the Telegraph, or here.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.
The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $79.99.