Global Warming or Mind Control?
Mark Twain was absolutely correct when he said that "statistics" can be just another way for someone to tell a lie. A recent USA Today Daily Briefing e-mail called attention to a study – published several months ago in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – showing that "97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is 'very likely' caused mainly by human activity."
The study was conducted – according to the study itself – because global-warming proponents are upset that so many of us Americans do not accept what the science establishment is telling us. Since this is unacceptable to them, USA Today must have felt it only right to remind its readers that man-made global warming is settled science. And yet, it was only last year that the whole fraud of "Climategate" was breaking, in which it became evident through released e-mails that certain scientists and science institutions were cooking the global warming data and silencing dissent. No wonder that global-warming alarmists continue to lose credibility!
USA Today noted, "The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is very likely that anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century." [Emphasis added.]
Notice the word "unequivocal"? How often have we heard that global warming – or evolution, for that matter – is indisputable, beyond question or unequivocal? This is simply untrue, and yet there are many in the science establishment who continue to use such words to silence anyone with evidence that contradicts their position.
Another way that global-warming proponents attempt to shut down opposing views is by demeaning their opponents. According to the USA Today story, "As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced [of man-made global warming], the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates."
Is it possible that these dissenters have a smaller publication rate precisely because the publications refuse to publish their papers? This happens to creation scientists and Intelligent Design scientists all the time.
We also feel it's important to point out that the goal of this study is not the unbiased pursuit of science but a biased attempt to change people's minds and control public policy. According to the study: "This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change."
In other words, scientists who take the official position on global warming are the only ones who should be allowed to participate in media, policy and public forums on the issue. Dissenters are not to be taken seriously. Need we mention that this is precisely what is going on in the area of evolution? Scientists who don't agree with Darwin are ridiculed, marginalized and silenced. What Creation Moments would like to know is: Since when is scientific truth determined by a majority vote rather than by the evidence?
One final word … and a closing comment. When we took a closer look at the study's supporting information, we discovered that, due to duplication of names, only 472 scientists were actually included in the study – not 1,372 as reported. And of this number, nearly all were affiliated with organizations that strongly believe in man-made global warming.
While Creation Moments fully supports legitimate scientific research, we will forever oppose those who use global-warming junk science and biased surveys to confuse and misinform people.