The Consensed and the Realists

"...and never the twain shall meet."

The consensed climate science community has participated in the creation of a climate narrative which portrays climate change as a “crisis”, and “existential threat” and an “emergency” which has been caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). The narrative proclaims that “the science is settled” and is beyond question. The narrative stresses mitigation, the need to rapidly end the use of fossil fuels and achieve Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050. The narrative is promoted by the UN and numerous national political leaders, with the support of the media. The consensed climate science community has “flooded the zone” with nearly worthless research intended to produce “scary scenarios” to build public acquiescence.

Climate realists, frequently referred to as climate deniers, or climate change deniers, or “anti-science” or skeptics accept that the climate is changing, as it has throughout the history of earth we have been able to study, and that it will continue to change in the future. Realists acknowledge that anthropogenic emissions have likely contributed to climate change since the Industrial Revolution, but that the natural mechanisms which caused climate change in the past continue to contribute to current climate change. Realists reject the narrative claims that the science is settled and reject the assessment of current climate change as a “crisis”, “existential threat” or “emergency”. Realists stress adaptation as the appropriate approach to dealing with current climate change.

The consensed climate science community and its allies in politics and media reject the realist position and have used numerous approaches to suppressing climate realism. Government agencies have provided meager funding for research which questions the narrative. The IPCC has ignored or rejected scientific results which deviate from the narrative. The consensed climate science community has pressured the primary scientific journals not to publish research results which do not support the narrative. Consensed scientists have refused to participate in peer review of the work of skeptical scientists or have provided reviews intended to prevent the publication of their research results. Renowned realist scientists have been forced to seek publication in foreign technical journals, or to expose their research to “crowd review” on the web.

The Climategate scandal exposed the efforts of members of the consensed climate science community to restrict access to their data and the analytical procedures used to analyze it, even to the point of suggesting that data be destroyed rather than shared to become the subject of replication studies. It also revealed efforts to have skeptical scientists fired from their positions or have their Doctorates revoked. Climate realists have also been subjected to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) to deter specific criticisms and caution others against public criticism of consensed scientists and their work.

US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently “flipped the script” on the consensed climate science community. He organized a Climate Working Group (CWG) of distinguished realist scientists and commissioned a study of the current state of climate science, with a strong focus on what is known and what is unknown about earth’s climate and its operation. The study concluded that climate science is far from settled. This study has raised a furor in the consensed climate science community, since its origin at US DOE has made it impossible to ignore and suppress. The community is outraged that the study was conducted in secret and that they were not involved and thus had no opportunity to influence its conclusions.

The consensed climate science community is organizing a response to the study by authors whose works were cited in the CWG study who are willing to claim that their research was either misinterpreted or misapplied by the CWG scientists. The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Environmental Defense Fund sued to have the report “disappeared” because of a procedural error and DOE has withdrawn the report.

Originally published here.