If the Elites are Wrong about Global Warming, the Damage will be Enormous

John Robson, National Post

If it turns out the science isn't settled, and global warming is a bust, how much less will people trust 'the experts' and 'the authorities' on the next issue, and the one after that? Jim Cole / Associated Press

It’s impossible to ignore Donald Trump for any length of time. Even if he didn’t have his “finger on the button”, and whether you blame a “basket of deplorables” or “the elites” for his success, the obvious breakdown of trust between the public and those in authority is ominous. So we shouldn’t go about making it worse, right?

Clearly I am one of those who often uses “elites” in a pejorative sense, along with synonyms like “the chattering classes.” I have nothing against people earning respect through intelligence, wisdom, energy and above all character. But I resent those in authority treating leadership as a privilege rather than a responsibility. And I think we have been badly served, indeed badly let down, by those who should know better, in areas from fiscal policy to social policy to, yes, environmental policy.

Because I fear the ongoing dissolution of social cohesion I do not welcome rudeness in public discussion. But I do make a living trying to direct pointed remarks at the right people for the right reasons, including university administrators unwilling or afraid to uphold free speech and free inquiry.

Then there’s this huge ruckus over “man-made climate change.” It has become orthodoxy in the smelliest sense, with dissent treated as heresy to be stamped out frantically, not coolly refuted or invited to dinner and reasoned with.

Protesters chant during a rally against climate change in San Diego, California on February 21, 2017. SANDY HUFFAKER/AFP/Getty Images

It is of course possible that the dissenters are wrong about the science. But it is not possible that they are wrong to express their doubts. Remember Galileo? When those in authority shout them down, hound them from their posts, and shame them, they don’t just betray science. They betray social trust.

Now some people may say debate is all fine and good. But these “deniers” are kooks, tin-foil-hatters, UFO enthusiasts, flat-earthers. Don’t you know, to quote Barack Obama’s May 16, 2013 tweet, “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous”.

In fact this 97 per cent claim is part of the problem. In addition to the multitude of scientists who work in fields so remote from climate as to have no professional opinion, there are countless geologists, physicists, chemists and others who dissent over how much (a) climate is changing (b) man is responsible and (c) it is dangerous. I’m about to hear a lot of their voices at a Heartland Institute Conference in Washington. To say they do not exist is to be, how shall I put it, a “denier.”

Mario Hoppmann/AFP/Getty Images

If you want to see the studies advancing this claim of overwhelming scientific consensus refuted, visit the Friends of Science website and search “97 per cent.” But this number is used to intimidate, not illuminate. And science does not work that way.

It is far from harmless, especially when reputable opinion swings intolerantly behind bad science in service of bad policy. Governments in B.C., Ontario and elsewhere aim to reduce CO2 and equivalent emissions by nearly 80 per cent by 2050, with disastrous impact on Canada’s conventional energy industry and all of us who like to warm our homes, cook our food and get around. And to conceal the worldwide disaster in alternative energy programs merely compounds the offence.

Now consider this scenario. Within a decade the hair-raising theories advanced by the likes of Al Gore and shouted at us by too many politicians and journalists are exposed as not just wrong, but bunk. Suppose their predictions fizzle and it becomes clear that we have long known a great deal about the history of the Earth that is plainly incompatible with the alarmist thesis (as I will show in my new documentary “The Environment: A True Story” so please visit Johnrobson.ca and support it).

How much less will people trust “the experts” and “the authorities” on the next issue, and the one after that? How much more willing will they be to back the next Donald Trump precisely because reputable opinion fears and loathes him?

There are aspects of populism I find distasteful or alarming. But to me the worst thing is the extent to which it is a reaction to the failures of people meant to be upholding sound economic ideas, free inquiry, and elementary decency in public debate.

I shudder to think of the reaction if there’s a “hard landing” on global warming. So stop the name-calling and take a sober look at the evidence. Otherwise enjoy Donald Trump, because he’s just the beginning.

Robson gives us a glimpse at where the documentary is going in the brief video at his site: 

He then states that every one of these statements is wrong and he will attempt to prove them so in his forthcoming documentary. He will also reveal just how incredibly damaging climate change fanaticism will be to societies. 

I would hope, but don't expect, that he would recognize that child sex abuse is a million times more of an atrocity in the world today than climate change and yet we focus on making a difference in the global temperature that will be too small to measure while ignoring tens of millions of children whose lives are being destroyed every single year. Our priorities are sure screwed up.

Please consider supporting him.