The last ditch stand for the climate propagandists - that means you, too
Dear Editor,
You’re pretty entrenched in the “catastrophic human-induced global warming” fraud, aren’t you?
What would it take to cause you to actually behave like an investigative institution?
Michael Mann, who you have just given a platform to peddle “last-ditch-stand” propaganda, should have lost all his credibility long ago, when he and his colleagues were outed for their disgraceful data manipulation; and conspiracy to “hide the decline”, the manipulation of scientific research publication processes, and such like.
It is them and the IPCC who are the modern day equivalents of “deniers” and propagandists in 20th century history.
What they are “denying” (and the people they call “deniers” are not) is that climate has always “changed”, perfectly naturally.
Notice that they started out by calling it “global warming” and now want us to believe that it is “climate change”. If they’re such clever scientists who know so much about climate in the future, why did they not call it “climate change” right from the start and avoid losing credibility 20 years down the track?
Mann claims there has been a record-warm spring in parts of the USA. So what?
At any time in history, there has been a spot somewhere on the planet experiencing its record something-or-other; especially if one is considering a “record” for “this particular time of year”. It might be temperature (high or low), it might be rainfall, it might be snowfall, it might be the strength of wind or a storm.
A hypothesis that is simply not falsifiable is simply not science. This is a principle that is a foundation of science itself.
I do not believe any longer that Mann, or Jones, or Hansen, or Gore, or Pachauri, or their colleagues, even believe in what they themselves are saying; they are deliberately abusing their own credentials and authority as a means to an end for a political agenda.
Like all political utopians, the “means” are always rationalised by them as justified, regardless of the consequences for science or truth or reason. We could at any time have listened to the sceptical scientists who are actually in the overwhelming majority (witness the 31,000-signature OISM Petition); the whole global warming scam has been run from day one on the principle that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to establish it. The “consensus” is a lie, the “overwhelming majority of scientists believe humans are warming the planet” is a lie, the “peer reviewed” nature of the IPCC Reports is a lie. Any fool can find this out in 5 minutes in this information age. The media is supposed to be “society’s watchdog”; perhaps we need some kind of Hippocratic Oath to apply to journalists, which when breached, gets them banned from practising journalism?
Yours faithfully
Philip G. Hayward
