“You can fool some of the people….”
For years since the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports,’ advocating a theory that manmade carbon dioxide emissions cause excessive earthly temperature increases, we skeptics have been labeled “deniers” and told to shut up because this theory is “settled science.”
Many of us educated in non-agenda natural sciences—and others with ability to reason and objectively evaluate controversial issues—are puzzled why so many people seem to accept the “scientific consensus” claim. Science is not opinion reached by a group. No theory is acceptable without evidence of its probability or while credible sources can challenge it.
Especially suspect are long-range predictions of unusually catastrophic weather events based on computer models. Even more suspicious: predicted dire consequences, projected out one hundred years, if we don’t spend huge amounts of public money and virtually regulate out-of-business our traditional energy production.
Finally, even people with limited knowledge of science, but having common sense, should question why we are told that no more debate will be tolerated on this presumably critical issue; that we must immediately take drastic action to alter the earth’s climate. Believers say we are morally obligated to change our way of life to supposedly correct an unprecedented presumed problem of Biblical proportions–or it will disrupt and even destroy earthly life as we know it—not likely.
Even the most literalistic people probably are skeptical of the Biblical story of God’s prediction about a world flood that would destroy all life on earth and his mandate to Noah about building an ark and gathering pairs of animals to save them from annihilation—a tale closely parallel to what modern warmers want us to believe.
There is an underlying human trait that explains some of this—not readily apparent to those who don’t understand what motivates the warmers—frantically pushing for government policies to keep earthly climate in some assumed static state (think how foolish that is).
So what’s behind this frenzy to have us accept proposed solutions to this apocryphal hypothesis?
Appropriately, the explanation comes from an economic principle called, “enlightened self-interest”: all humans make decisions based on self-interest. Dr. Gary North explains it in his answer to a question: “Why has Keynesianism prevailed?”
The theory of Keynesian economics (named for British economist John M. Keynes) in decades past has been debunked by many people, including writer Henry Hazlett in his 1959 book “The Failure of the ‘New Economics,’” with “irrefutable arguments.” Keynes’ “The General Theory,” is refuted by classic Austrian economists such as F. A. Hayek and not read by economics students. They learn, in what North calls “academic guilds,” from what is written in textbooks. (link)
In the case of economics, students go through an initial “screening process” studying Keynesian economics from Paul Samuelson’s “Economics” textbook version—“a completely different form from the way in which Keynes presented the theory.”
Samuelson’s textbook is “the most widely read” one ever published—the only accepted economics textbook in America since 1948, according to North. Other “free market” books on economics are available, but none of them “had any impact academically.”
There is no way that “a college textbook that is openly anti-Keynesian will be accepted by any major university today,” says North. Thus, few economics students learn opposing views published by other credible economic writers. The result: students become indoctrinated into Keynesianism, and other statist views of economics, such as monetarism, deficit spending and central banking.
You may ask, “What’s all this got to do with climate change theory, Smith? “
Well, education “guilds” also control other subjects including journalism and “environmental science.” Faculty, administrators and researchers preserve and spread the accepted “religion” of manmade climate. It’s in their self-interest to do so. They personally risk much by challenging this politically promoted theory. As Dr. North has written, there are well-paid careers, low career risks, “peace” and fame “for those who defend the present order.”
Education guilds dominantly control climate and related research. They are heavily subsidized with taxpayer funds that bring millions of dollars into the universities. This loot gives bragging rights and the prestige to attract more grants for facilities and Ph.Ds.’ Journeymen on this comfortable, wealthy boat do not want to rock it.
Many independent-minded climate researchers express skepticism about manmade warming theory. Some have evidence that questions “consensus.” Unfortunately, their work has been suppressed by the powerful association of warmers formed to protect their mutual interests—and ignored by the press.
Thus, the principle of self-interest hides behind the curtain of manmade climate theory and largely controls this agenda.