Weather Channel founder and meteorologist John Coleman disputes the idea that there’s conclusive proof for man-made global warming or global climate change.
Check out the video below:
Whatever you think of his conclusions or opinions, Coleman makes a very interesting point. He says that the vast majority of studies supporting the so-called “consensus” on global warming or climate-change are funded by the government.
“Science isn’t about vote,” he stated. “Science is about facts.”
This gets to the heart of the matter. All we hear from the pro-global warming side of the issue is, “Most scientists agree.” But global warming is a politically-charged issue. People promote this issue as a means of justifying government controls on private property, private ownership of energy sources and how much energy individuals may use. It’s a power grab rivaling the socialization of medical care and the virtual takeover of other industries, such as lending and automobile manufacturing.
Government, by its nature, tends to be concerned with votes and power — not with facts. As Coleman points out, the federal government puts out billions of dollars per year for climate research. What happens if you’re a vocal opponent or skeptic about the objectivity of climate-change research? Obviously, you won’t get the money.
So here’s a suggestion. Let’s get the government out of climate research altogether. (While we’re at it, let’s get government funding out of research period.) Once freed from the (implied or explicit) government requirement to come up with particular results, what do you think would happen? If the case for climate change is as decisive and irrefutable as we’re told, then the evidence will speak for itself. If Coleman is wrong or paranoid in his claim, then the non-government-funded research will presumably produce more or less the same results as the billion dollar government research is conveniently generating at present.
Some will reply, “That’s nonsense. The government doesn’t care about anything other than the truth.” If that’s really the case, then there’s nothing to feel threatened about, is there?
It’s not the topic itself so much as the methodology employed that’s at stake here. How do we get to the truth? By objective science, or by politically funded science? Should the same politicians who have an openly stated agenda to pass legislation (e.g., “cap and trade”) which will give them more power be in charge of dispensing billions of dollars for the research? This makes no sense. People can be incredibly naive. If a study were funded solely by an oil company, they wouldn’t trust the study because — quite reasonably — they’d wonder about the objectivity of the study. But why do we automatically assume the government has no interests of its own? Why is big business always and automatically wrong, and dishonest, while big government doesn’t even get challenged?
When the government does anything, it’s automatically considered rational and objective, without any agendas. But government is a monopoly. While we need a monopoly on the use of force (so we can have police and armies to defend and protect individual rights), it doesn’t follow there should ever be a monopoly on science, or any other human activity. Yet that’s what we’re doing with research on global warming, along with so many other things that are federally funded. How is this justified, and why is it never questioned?
Proponents of climate change have won the war for public opinion. Most of the non-scientific population assumes that global warming and climate change are as self-evident as the sun or the moon themselves. However, these same political operatives haven’t yet gained the “cap and trade” or similar legislation which will seek to regulate even more of the private economy than we already have under the yoke of political bureaucrats and power-seekers.
If global warming were really their concern, they’d fight even more strenuously for privatized science and for-profit development. Nothing in the government sector will ever provide the inventive solutions required to make life on earth habitable, tolerable and safe. That’s really what’s at the root of this whole debate about climate change. It’s not really about science, so much as how much more government control and nationalization we should be required to accept in the name of “the common good.”
Fear is the oldest manipulative weapon in the book of psychological history. There’s nothing new, enlightened or scientific about it.
Be sure to “friend” Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1