Now that the global warming consensus is falling apart, or rather, it is becoming increasingly public knowledge that it never was a consensus at all, we are getting more and more clues to how this massive snowjob has been perpetrated.
There was a broad, perhaps unspoken, gentlemen’s agreement between alarmist scientists and their collaborators, the press, and other media. The scientists would often qualify their concerns about the potentially dangerous effects of global warming in their peer-reviewed journal papers. But whenever those same papers got reported to the public, the qualifications disappeared, to be replaced by expressions of the certainty of impending doom. Thereafter, those “quoted” scientists stayed mum about the exaggerations of their scientific findings and predictions, thus maintaining deniability about any role they played in essentially fraudulent propaganda being used to sway an often gullible public, and the politicians, government bureaucrats, and environmentalist advocacy groups seeking more power to impose their demands.
I had gradually been noticing this pattern, but it came to my full awareness just recently with the various exposures of false claims in the IPCC AR4 report (the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and the subsequent reactions of the original scientists involved.
For instance, in a recent email interview, Michael Mann, creator of the infamous hockey-stick version of the history of “warming,” claimed that his original 1998 paper stressed the uncertainties involved in reconstructing past temperatures. However, that didn’t stop the IPCC from including it in their reports, and it didn’t lead them to warn readers of their Report for Policymakers about how uncertain their case was, and it certainly didn’t make it into news reports that the hockey stick was anything other than a certainty represent- ing our future. And no IPCC scientist ever took the trouble to disabuse news reporters of their error.
The desired objective was achieved, scaring the public into willingness to accept the blame and disrupt their lives in order to prevent the coming tragedy. The scientists could remain blame-free since their technical papers contained appropriate reservations and qualifiers. The media reporters, generally liberal and environmental alarmists, could claim they were reporting indisputable science, and only a few deniers, ignored by the media, would argue the point.
