Candor in Climate Change
In a paper entitled “Improving Science Advice to Governments” headed and researched by pragmatic academic professors who long understood that progressive governments and mainstream media broadcast loudly and unapologetically about the proponent science of anthropogenic climate change and even when proven false, they refuse to retract the ‘science’ and are impenitent or unrepentant about it.
The writers and researchers address the, “fatal flaws in the scientific advice provided on climate change and during the Covid-19 pandemic and deplores the irresponsible use of computer modeling, among other issues.” I have covered the inadequacy, impropriety, inappropriateness, and inaccuracies generated by the hypothetic models that are fed by advocate science and scientists. Yet, this continues as their major instrument of evidence – proven incorrect at all times, even in the historic or recent period that a specific modeling covers.
I bring your attention to one of the research professors, an Australian named Peter Ridd, arguably the foremost expert on the Great Barrier Reef. Ridd was fired from James Cook University when his research concluded that bleaching in the coral reef was not a condition of climate change. As I related in my July 2022 article “Cancel Culture - A University and Universal Evil”, Dr. Peter Ridd not only lost his job but lost it to truth and honesty.
Back to the research, and summarizing what the researchers declared and acknowledged:
The rapid receipt and acceptance of challenging climate information from a team of qualified dissenting scientists;
Establishing a quality control and auditing process;
The requirement of preparing a deterring or cautioning presentation before inappropriate costs are assumed;
A review process that affirms and exhibits the risks of unintended consequences of action;
The prerequisite that universities, scientific academies, and journals not take an official position on scientific issues, thereby suppressing “diversity of thought, freedom of speech and the reliability of advice”;
The safeguarding of scientists who judiciously and lucidly disagree or oppose mainstream views and opinions;
Encourage and facilitate fair debate to guard against ‘groupthink’; and,
Liberalize not inhibit freedom of speech.
As superficial politicians are prone to say, “We believe in science”. The reality is that they are faithful to the science that aligns with their politics. The majority of large media corporations, who support these progressive politicians, are predisposed to this same condition.
In the paper, first above-mentioned, all the academic researchers are asking for is fairness, open-mindedness, and civility. Will they get it? While hopeful, I have many doubts.