In the last post I asked when we will know the climate wars are over. I might change my mind, but I’m beginning to doubt there is any real way of declaring an “end” to this stupid scare. Because how can you measure the return of “common sense”?

So, although winning would be nice, it seems a fruitless ambition. So let’s instead think about what really is important? I think it is to stop the worst aspects, so let’s examine the facets and see which are worst:

Media coverage – is an end to a means and the media are loosing interest but as I argued in the last post it will never die out completely.

Eco Nutters – there will always be eco-nutters.

Wikipedia & other internet garbage – sooner or later they’ve got to realise that those editing Wakopedia have far too much inside knowledge from the team – but does it really matter? Not really to anyone except the few who still believe Wakopedia is immune from the groupthink of the type of people who have the zeal to become editors. There will always be wacky sites and the public are more than used to “reading between the lines” of official statistics that they have a healthy scepticism. One would worry more if we stopped seeing such sights as that would mark the end of healthy public debate.

Climate “change” legislation. Here we must treat differently: general taxation based on “carbon”, the intention to “altar” behaviour based on taxation. And useless spending schemes like wind which suck up public spending.

Carbon taxes: in the sense that government will always need taxation to fund spending and that carbon is so ubiquitous a measure that it is almost as general as VAT, carbon taxes are quite harmless – except that they tend to be a way to increase taxation generally – which is quite another argument and depends on what they spend and your politics. Changing behaviour based on carbon: In some ways e.g. less car use and more active modes of transport, this could be very good for our society. In others like the wholesale destruction of manufacturing in the West and the destruction of the very capability that ensured the allies won WWII, you’d have to be mad to agree with it. In some sense, this is all part of an “engineering” vs. “science” war that has been waged in the West since WWII. Because powerful interests like NASA need to portray the future and “bright new science”, and have had the budget to alter public perception, the “old traditional” (i.e. mainstay of our economy) industries have been actively destroyed by successive governments hoping for the bright new future proclaimed by science (would that bright future be the bright flashes of WWIII!!!). Fortunately resistance to this ridiculous anti-industry stance of “science” is growing (with the notable exception yet again of the BBC). Worthless spending on token projects: The UK are already spending around a billion a year on wind “energy”. Depending on your view of fossil fuels and the utility of intermittent wind, reasonable views of this spending range from “outrageous folly” to “could be useful but done entirely for the wrong reason and with no thought for the huge problems wind poses for the electricity network”. Similarly many of the other token renewables schemes. Personally, I wish we’d spend an awful lot less, that that spending had been targeted in a way that would create UK jobs and that we’d been honest about the pump storage schemes we need to store that electricity. But I’m growing less keen as other oil sources seem to become realistic.

The undermining of the credibility of “science”. As someone with a science degree, it pains me to have to say that “science” really deserves what it got with regard to the global warming scare. It told absolute fibs, totally inconsistent with the stated aims and ethics of science and then even when it was given every chance to mend its ways in the climategate inquiries, it simply dug itself deeper into the hole. And as I said before, the rise of “science” has unfortunately involved the active suppression of engineering. A notable example is the way the: “science and engineering” committee of the commons became: “science and technology”. In a real way scientists have weaselled their way into all the key government advisory groups and created the modern myth of a “bright new scientific future” devoid of the need for anyone to work in dirty engineering …. at least in this country (because we will all be magically financed by debt-borrowing and never have to work again as all the work will be done abroad …. until it all fell apart.)

The modern view of science is only a few decades old. The modern version of science is really only as old as its reorganised after WWII. At first it worked, then it became over confident, then it took over, and now it looks like it is falling flat on its face with “climate change”. From darling to disgrace in 2010-1960 = 50years.

Uncontrolled and Escalating hysteria: the precautionary principle.

Everything so far has been “contained”. The disgrace of science is the consequence of past actions. Carbon taxes are meeting fierce opposition as the airy fairy politics hits the reality of economic ruin. The dollops of money to windpower are ruinous to our present economies, but again, there is growing highprofile resistance.

A real climate crisis?

The biggest danger is that father nature turns on us and we see another episode of natural warming or some other unexplained trend which then gets translated into heightened climate hysteria leading to knee jerk reactions and severe damage to our economies and societies as a consequence: Perhaps even some kind of political instability and war. After all, such hysteria is most likely when there is some kind of crisis due to the weather, and such a crisis will already nurture political instability.

Yet again I have talked myself into a corner

Yet again I see that there is no simple way out of this scepticism. It is not what we can see is being done in the name of the weather gods that we should fear, but what could be done in their name if the occasion arises.

There’s no doubt that this alarmism is going to fade in the next few years, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t all flare up again. And despite the fact that science very much deserves to loose its reputation, perhaps the main defence against such hysteria in the future would be a working (and honest) scientific community which can be trusted. But how can we force them to regain that trust unless or until the climate forces them to acknowledge their mistakes and take actions to stop this hysteria ever being portrayed as science again? But if the climate doesn’t change how can we trust such a disreputable scientific community which so eagerly jumped on the global warming bandwagon, not to add to the climate hysteria if ever we were faced with a real crisis?

I really can’t see how sceptics can win? We can’t honestly give up the struggle because the forces that created this hysteria still run our society, we will never get any thanks and even when we are proved right, we will be ignored.

Somehow those “denialist concentration camps” are starting to look ever so attractive. Great company amongst some of the brightest and best brains the world has to offer, knowing that in the end sooner or later, the climate would turn and we would all be vindicated with a clear and convincing victory.