Consent is the Death of the Mind

Science is based upon dissent and heresy. When a person consents to surrender his reason to a consensus of other "minds", his own brain begins to atrophy. That is how scientists can maintain the edge of their rationality -- through constant dissent. With consent comes the death of reason.

World-renowned Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, is publishing a magnum opus, Heaven and Earth. The 500 page book has 2311 footnotes, and is based upon 40 years of research and experience in Earth Sciences. Professor Plimer pulls no punches and does not tolerate fools.

Much of what we have read about climate change, he argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive". Errors and distortions in computer modelling will be exposed in time. (As if on cue, the United Nations' peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computers models were wrong.)....

....If we look at the last 6 million years, the Earth was warmer than it is now for 3 million years. The ice caps of the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland are geologically unusual. Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time. What follows is an intense compression of the book's 500 pages and all their provocative arguments and conclusions:

Is dangerous warming occurring? No.

Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No.

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

"To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science."

Over time, the history of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been far higher than at present for most of time. Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise. CO2 is not a pollutant. Global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and longer life.

The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology. "But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer-reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human-induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. It has no mathematical or evidential basis."

Observations in nature differ markedly from the results generated by nearly two dozen computer-generated climate models. These climate models exaggerate the effects of human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere because few of the natural variables are considered. Natural systems are far more complex than computer models.

The setting up by the UN of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 gave an opportunity to make global warming the main theme of environmental groups. "The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists." _SidneyMorningHerald

The entire enterprise of the climate catastrophe orthodoxy is based upon groupthink, and the maintaining of groupthink discipline. Like the party discipline of Maoist China or Stalinist USSR, the liberal uses of purges and figurative exile are necessary to maintain the illusion of infallibility.

Intelligent people can be caught in the trap of groupthink -- particularly if their livelihoods are involved. But persons who are both intelligent and conscientious will avoid groupthink consensus like the plague. Because it is a plague, manifested by widespread brain rot. Those who would preserve their brains and avoid zombie-hood, will avoid the brain rot of consent. It is to them, that Plimer appeals.

H/T Tom Nelson