Category Archives: Climate change

Silencing the Scientists: Dissent, Censorship, and the New Technocracy

Article by Mark Keenan.

Excerpts (my emphases):

Critics argue that by severing science from broader philosophical or spiritual questions, modern institutions emphasize data while overlooking deeper questions of meaning and truth. In this view, a kind of technocracy has emerged—one in which scientific institutions can appear less like explorers of reality and more like gatekeepers defending established doctrine. Real science seeks understanding; fake science seeks obedience.

If we are to restore genuine inquiry, we must recover not only intellectual freedom but moral and spiritual humility — the recognition that truth cannot be owned by the state, the market, or the algorithm.

[. . .]

When Truth Becomes Treason

The moralization of science has turned dissent into sin. A climate skeptic is not “wrong” — he is a “denier.” A doctor questioning mandates is not “debating” — he is “spreading misinformation.” This is the language of religion, not reason. Science without dissent is not science at all; it is propaganda. But the cost of silence in the present is immense: an entire generation is being taught that conformity equals integrity.

Restoring Scientific Freedom

The answer is not to reject science, but to depoliticize it. That begins with transparency: open data, open debate, and open funding. Research should not be filtered through bureaucratic agendas or corporate interests. Independent journals, decentralized platforms, and citizen-led inquiry offer a path forward — if the public demands it. Science belongs to everyone, not to the technocrats who manage its narrative. True environmental and medical progress will never come from censorship, but from curiosity — the very trait that built civilization itself.

A New Age of Technocratic Faith

We are entering an era where “belief in science” has replaced belief in God — but without humility or grace. Many worry that a small number of technology platforms now have extraordinary power to shape what information is visible—effectively influencing via algorithms which viewpoints are elevated or ignored.

Unless we restore the freedom to question — whether about carbon, Covid, or any future crisis — we will find ourselves living not in a knowledge economy, but in an information prison. To critics, parts of institutional science now function almost like a new secular authority—one that emphasizes compliance and control. And its heretics are, once again, the last defenders of reason.

My (PwG) thoughts on this:

“If the public demands it”, the author writes, we will get the necessary structures to return to honest science: “Independent journals, decentralized platforms, and citizen-led inquiry”.

He correctly recognises that we are in a crisis “not only [of] intellectual freedom but moral and spiritual humility”.

So, the only way to get the public to “demand” a return to proper science is to first restore “moral and spiritual humility”.

This is the task of the century for Christian churches worldwide. Unfortunately, it appears that about 99% of them don’t recognise it, at least not to its full extent.

Has wind power REALLY saved the UK £104 billion?

In a word, no.

Article by Kit Knightly.

Excerpts:

I’m sure it seems the height of egotism to quote myself perpetually, but I’m going to do it anyway:

“The Science” is a self-sustaining industry of academics who need jobs and owe favours.

An ongoing quid pro quo relationship between the researchers – who want honors and knighthoods and tenure and book deals and research grants and to be the popular talking head explaining complex ideas to the multitudes on television – and the corporations, governments and “charitable foundations” who have all of those things in their gift.

This system doesn’t produce research intended to be read, it creates headlines for celebrities to tweet, links for “journalists” to embed, sources for other researchers to cite.

An illusion of solid substantiation that comes apart the moment you actually read the words, examine the methodology or analyse the data.

Self-reporting surveys, manipulated data, “modelling studies” that spit-out pre-ordained results. Affiliated-authors paid by the state or corporate interests to provide “evidence” that supports highly profitable or politically convenient assumptions.

…Interlacing layers of nothing designed to create the impression of something.

This pro-mask “study” is why you should NEVER “Trust the Science”

So, is the claim true? It doesn’t matter. That is entirely beside the point. The paper has already done its job by generating headlines like this, [. . .]

This study is just a single tile in mosaic of bullshit. It helps create an image and sell a story.

In this case, the hope is that enough dodgy studies in conflict with observable reality will override people’s awareness that their energy bills are getting bigger and their bank balances smaller.

Good luck with that.

Research Continues to Undermine Unusual, Catastrophic Nature of Present Climate Change

Article by H. Sterling Burnett.

Excerpts:

It is on the third testable claim or tenet of the theory of human-caused climate change, that the climate changes we are presently experiencing or soon will be experiencing are catastrophic or represent an existential threat to humanity, where the theory is weakest and the consensus completely breaks down. Most of the claims of disaster are based on inadequate, not fit for purpose, computer models. Their projections are regularly provably false, yet the so-called consensus community clings to them with undying faith, in a fashion not like science but a religion.

What the research does prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, however, is that there is still much unknown about the causes and consequences of the present iteration of climate change, the debate is still open. In addition, what the papers that I write about strongly indicate is that there is no firm evidence that present climate change has been harmful to humans, human societies, or the environment, and may have even produced net beneficial effects. What they also suggest is that the present climate change is not historically unusual, meaning it’s hard to identify a human fingerprint against the background changes nature has made throughout history.

The “Climate Change” Danger

Review of the book “Fossil Future: Why Global Human Florishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas – Not Less”, by Lew Rockwell.

Quote:

Epstein thinks that the danger from global warming has been exaggerated, but though he presents extensive evidence in support of this, his main contribution lies elsewhere. He argues that modern civilization depends on fossil fuels and that far from curtailing their use, we need to spread them to the impoverished parts of the world. So great are the benefits from using the fuels that only a true “end of the world” nightmare caused by CO2 emission could require that we shift to other energy sources, and despite the alarmists’ caterwauling, this nightmare is most unlikely to occur. Moreover, Epstein holds that the benefits of fossil fuels are so obvious that only a defect in thinking could have induced people to ignore them. He is a philosopher as well as an energy economist, and he expertly identifies the false thought pattern that has led to our current confusions.

Epstein says, “Whenever we hear about what the ‘experts’ think, we need to keep in mind that most of us have no direct access to what most expert researchers in the field think. We are being told what experts think through a system of institutions and people…. Understanding how this system, which I call our ‘knowledge system,’ works and how it can go wrong is the key to being able to spot when what we’re told the ‘experts’ think is very wrong—about fossil fuels or anything else.”

‘Settled Science’ Is Getting Unsettled as Government Support Wanes

Article (referring to the US government) by H. Sterling Burnett.

Extract:

For the first time in more than a decade, climate alarmists must seriously engage with climate realists on climate science questions. Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) release of “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” by a group of prominent scientists including John Christy, Ph.D.; Judith Curry, Ph.D.; Steven Koonin, Ph.D.; Ross McKitrick, Ph.D.; and Roy Spencer, Ph.D., has forced alarmists to address realists’ longstanding questions, concerns, and critiques of the argument that humans are causing dangerous climate change, rather than dismissing them out of hand because the “science is settled.”

The DOE report, among other things, debunks claims that climate change is causing worsening extreme weather events, discusses why rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have a decreasing influence over global temperatures, and how the same increase in CO2 is causing a beneficial global greening, and it examines the myriad currently poorly understood natural factors that complicate attributing rising temperatures and changes in climate to human energy use.