- There was a pseudoscience theory about plants called Lysenkoism, which helped starve millions of Soviet Union citizens.
- The popular theory that dietary fat causes heart disease was based on just a few bad studies in the 1950s.
Nina Teicholz’s book "The Big Fat Surprise" shows opponents of the dietary fat theory were starved of grants, and the intolerant anti-fat consensus refused to debate them.
Lysenkoism and "Fat is Evil" were pseudoscience with strong political support, and in both cases a consensus, or "monopoly", developed.
- Lysenko’s opponents were even imprisoned, or killed, to keep that pseudoscience alive.
- Astrology, homeopathy, scary genetically modified food claims, etc., -- we should know all of these are pseudoscience.
- But so is much of "climate science".
Since the 1960s, we've had grossly exaggerated "scientific" alarm over population growth, DDT/pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, genetically modified crops, global cooling, global warming, etc.
Why so much environmentalist scaremongering?
(1) Because scientists exaggerating the most, got the most attention, and were much more likely to get government grants to study the "crisis" they see coming.
(2) Because "green" organizations exaggerating the most, were rewarded with the most attention and money.
(3) Because mainstream media sources televising or printing scary exaggerations from press releases, without ever reading the studies or understanding them, were rewarded with most viewers or readers.
(4) Because if you believe you are working to save the Earth, your goal is more important than the means used to accomplish it.
In the past two decades, left-wing commenters have "policed" online discussions to character attack and ridicule people who question left-wing beliefs (such as a coming climate change catastrophe).
When an environmental boogeymen is claimed to be leading to a catastrophe … it's interesting that the predicted catastrophe is always ('conveniently') so far in the future it can't be proven wrong in one's lifetime !
A climate catastrophe has been predicted for the past 40 years … but nothing unusual has happened … so the "crisis" is always claimed to be still "coming" … some day … in the future … and don't you forget it !
Climate "science" is:
(1) A belief that humans are destroying the Earth, leading to one unproven theory after another, that man made ... chemicals like DDT ? ... or was that global cooling ? ... no, it was acid rain ? ... wait, I meant the hole in the ozone layer ? ... no, that's old stuff -- the latest environmental boogeyman is: Global warming ... that will end life on Earth as we know it … assuming none of the other boogeymen listed don't get us first !
(2) Ignoring or attacking contradictory data,
(3) Treating computer game wild guesses as real data,
(4) No money available to investigate theories other than 'CO2 controls the climate', and 'a catastrophe is coming',
(5) Character attacks on skeptics,
(6) Scary, wild guess predictions consistently accepted by the mainstream media without question, or investigation,
(7) Green pressure group non-scientist activists getting "science" jobs with the EPA and IPCC, and
(8) Skeptical viewpoints ignored or ridiculed by the mainstream media.
The trillion-dollar "green industry", supported by government grants and loans, is based on an assumption about CO2 originating in 1896, for which there is still no evidence.
The original unproven assumption is modest warming caused by adding carbon dioxide in the air (although each additional +100 parts per million CO2 added, is said to have significantly less warming effect than the prior +100 ppm added).
Creating fear required a second assumption.
The second (hard-to-believe) assumption is that slight warming caused by more CO2 would be tripled by extra water vapor (the primary greenhouse gas) going into the air as the Earth warms (this called a strong positive feedback).
The assumption of any positive feedback, even a weak one, is completely unproven, and illogical.
There was never runaway warming in Earth's past, even with up to 20x more CO2 in the air.
In fact, scientists believe the past one billion years of Earth's climate history had average temperature staying within a modest 10 degree C. range, and today's average temperature is close to the lowest (coolest) temperature of that historical range.
The recent warming from the coolest period in the past 1,000 years (during the Maunder Minimum -- unusually low output from the Sun in the late 1600s), to the latest El Nino warm temperature peak (cyclical heat release from oceans in February 2016) is roughly +2 degrees C.
Yes, it's true -- Earth has probably already had +2 degrees C. of warming in the past 425 years.
Note that in recent years warmunists have frequently claimed +2 degree C. warming since 1750 would be a catastrophe for our planet (this claim is not based on any science, the +2 degrees C. danger zone is just a wild guess).
For no good reason, warmunists have chosen 1750 as the ideal climate, over every other climate condition in the past 4.5 billion years!
Any changes from 1750 are deemed to be bad news.
That's a bizarre claim:
The climate in 1750 was near the coldest climate, and near the lowest CO2 levels (excluding peak glaciations periods), in the history of our planet.
The cool weather in 1750 was bad news for people, and the low CO2 level was bad news for green plants !
Only fools would want a return to the 1750 climate !
There is much anecdotal evidence that humans hated the cool weather back then, and much scientific evidence that plant growth was slow at those CO2 levels.
Ice core studies show that average temperature of the oceans determines how much dissolved CO2 they can hold.
When oceans heat up from natural causes, they release some of their dissolved CO2, and when they cool off from natural causes, they absorb more CO2.
This effect can be demonstrated by opening two identical cans of soda pop in the summer, putting one in the refrigerator, and putting the other can outside in the sun.
After a few hours you will find the cooler can of soda pop in the refrigerator has retained much more CO2.
More important:
CO2 levels rose every year, from 1940 to 2015
Based on surface data from 1940 to 1978, and weather satellite data since 1979, the average temperature was quite steady the whole time, except for some warming between 1993 to 2003, that may, or may not, reverse at some time in the future !
The truth is that scientists are terrible at making forecasts of the future -- often worse than laymen (see Dan Gardner's book "Future Babble" for evidence of that).
Hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars have been wasted on the imaginary boogeyman of carbon dioxide.
The result has been the corruption of science, and scientists.
Climate "science" has affected, or should I say "infected", all science.
When people hear the words: "scientists say", they are increasingly likely to change the channel, turn the page, or surf to a different web page!
- Scientists on government payrolls say you shouldn't trust scientists on private sector payrolls.
Okay, I agree -- cigarette companies in the past bought the "cigarette science" conclusions they wanted.
- Scientists on private sector payrolls say you shouldn't trust scientists on government payrolls.
Okay, I agree with that too -- governments buy the "climate science" conclusions they want.
- My common sense says: Don't trust any scientist !
Too many scientists are willing to come to whatever conclusion the people who sign their paychecks want.
If scientists make confident predictions about the future, I especially recommend you not listen.
If the prediction eventually comes true, the scientist who made the prediction might be worth listening to.
Climate change "science" (non-science) has seriously hurt the perceived integrity of science, and scientists.
Earth's climate has barely changed in the past 150 years.
Today's climate is likely to be the best it has ever been for humans.
Today's climate is a great improvement from the low CO2 1700s for green plants, thanks to more CO2 in the air.
Environmentalists should ignore the climate, and focus on real pollution, such as in China, India and other parts of Asia -- but they won't, because that requires real work, not just talk.
Needless scaremongering by the climate change cult has seriously hurt the reputation of science, and scientists.
Climate "science" funded by governments is not science at all -- it is scaremongering about the unknowable future climate paid for by politicians … using scientists they hire as props … to create an imaginary "crisis" … that only more government power can "prevent".
Climate "science" is mainly nonsense, but not harmless nonsense -- in just a few decades it has destroyed the formerly high level of integrity people attributed to scientists.