Many critics
of climate orthodoxy argue that Environmentalism is the continuation of various left - wing ideologies.
Worst still, the shrill complaints made about people who
challenge climate orthodoxy by Bob May effectively close down any possibility of debate.
Well, it's clearly not true that there is the freedom to disagree
with climate orthodoxy — as we point out in a previous post on this topic.
By «career suicide», Dr Curry means that, if you dissent from the
Big Climate orthodoxy, thug enforcers like Dr Michael E Mann will take the hockey stick to you until there's nothing left.
For instance after many years of heavy promotion of
calamitous climate orthodoxy from world leaders (see footnote 2a for some snippets), governments, NGOs and businesses, local councils and celebrities and so on, climate skepticism remains stubbornly high.
Defenders of the
Anthropogenic climate orthodoxy have actually a more closed mind to science - based evidence of important natural contributions to warming, than most skeptics to evidence of GHG contribution.
This, in turn, relies in part
on climate orthodoxy that claims that global temperatures will increase catastrophically if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are not drastically reduced.
On May 7th, the Institute for Policy Studies sent him an email terminating him because of his deviation from Mann -
style climate orthodoxy.
«Scientists don't need to be paid to oppose the ideas
of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad,» Essex writes.
Either the strategy is larger tha anyone can imagine (i.e. silencing * anyone * who disagrees
with climate orthodoxy) or Mann picked his targets rather haphazardly.
For those who are fearful of his challenge to
climate orthodoxy, though, here is a quotation from a recent publication of his:
A BBC News journalist's willingness to report more than
climate orthodoxy should be encouraged not condemned...
Joking about genocidal tendencies that are of your own imagining is not only not funny, it's typical of where defenders of
the climate orthodoxy are willing to go in their smearing of their enemies.
Meanwhile, it will be worth watching to see how the tactics of
the climate orthodoxy change as — and if — the present slowdown in temperature rise continues.
Your willingness to question
the climate orthodoxy, at the potential expense of your career, reputation and by default, exclude yourself from funding, is beyond commendable.
Of course,
climate orthodoxy and environmentalism can be challenged from political or ideological perspectives.
The response of some GWPF scientists to
the climate orthodoxy shows that scientists do not need to be paid to have reason to question the climate orthodoxy.
«Scientists don't need to be paid to oppose the ideas of
climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad.»
The Royal Society and its most prominent members have recently been taking it upon themselves to make statements — via open letters, the media, and public debate — about the moral character of those who dare to challenge
the climate orthodoxy.
Second, a sign of just how shallow and desperate the vilification of world - leaders and industrialists who do not genuflect to
climate orthodoxy is the language that is used to diminish them.
For a long time,
climate orthodoxy has hidden behind «the consensus».
Over the last ten or twenty years, the «debate» has been dominated by
climate orthodoxy, not by differences of opinion.
The scientists at RealClimate (lead defenders of
the climate orthodoxy) are not unaware that the hot spot is not appearing.
And so it is with the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)-- a three - man, cross-party, independent think tank with charitable status, which dared to challenge
climate orthodoxy.