AGW, Melanie Phillips explains
Here at this blog Richard North is greatly admired. It's been a long term plan to try to add a little more to the great global warming debate, or lack thereof. But there have been problems. North, with Christopher Booker of the Telegraph, are so good at this subject that there's not much left over. They have taken on all comers without fear: Dr Pachuri, Al Gore, even George Monbiot. All have been damaged in the process, taken down a peg-or-two.
In life today few things are quite what they seem. What we once called global warming, then climate change and now anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is no exception. Changing the names of things so as to confuse is a trick straight out of the Stalinists hand book on governance. In this case it's a form of camouflage. The term global warming was soon realised to be problematic. What if some evidence shows cooling? But climate change was also weak, nature is, naturally, dynamic. Change alone, without honest analysis, signifies nothing. So play the trump card, introduce a long techno-sounding word. That's how anthropogenic got a turn on the world stage. It means man made. This is another trick from the Stalinists book on governance. Blame shift and victimology are more vital tools in controlling the masses. Man made, that means it's your fault.
You may protest about this and say you have warmed nothing in your entire life, nor have you, unlike Tony Blair and George W Bush, invaded a foreign country or started a war. How could you possibly be responsible for this AGW thing? All you have is a house with a small garden, you even walk to the shops. Recycling? Yours is a life of saving things for later, not throwing them away and always has been, and repairing items when ever possible comes naturally to you. Would Peter Mandelson repair the front door lock on Nat Rothchild's ocean yacht? You did such a repair on your own front door only last month. Not good enough. Further on in the Stalinist book on governance is the section that shows how anyone who wants to debate, would like to question a principle, is to be labelled a denier. This puts you just one step away from the gulag.
As said before, few things are quite what they seem. You might have thought that with AGW the most important part was the science. It would be central and by chance surrounding it would be the spin, hype and hysteria. Wrong again! The latter, the surrounding material, is now dominant. We turn again to the Stalinist book on governance and see that this is a classic diversionary tactic. However, unfortunately for the AGW protagonists their tactical skills aren't up to much. It's turning out to be a classic case of another sort, the tail wagging the dog. The general public find this the most interesting part too. And they do so for all the wrong reasons, they're looking for the entertainment rather than the illumination. This is fitting for, as we saw from the shenanigans at the University of East Anglia, the scientists are also dazzled by peripheral stuff too.
It was the intention, at this point, to join in and ignore the science and write about the supporting issues. However, another writer we admire, Melanie Phillips, has done a far better job and one we would struggle to match. She says -
The leaked emails showed how these scientists had been discussing with each other how to conceal the date on which they had based their conclusions; how they were trying to manipulate the data to give the impression of increased warming and to conceal the inconvenient truth that warming was not in fact happening; and how they tried further to conceal all this by attempting to get their critics barred from scientific journals.
This rank betrayal of science, truth and open academic debate was available for all to see from the emails that were leaked. And yet the inquiry gave these scientists an almost totally clean bill of health.
It's an excellent article, I urge you to read it.