Recent reports have poured yet more doubt on the existence of manmade global warming. This got me to wondering what all those smug liberals would do if the world’s climate scientists did a complete about-turn overnight? I realise you’re more likely to see Kim Jong-Un twerking on MTV, but open your mind this otherworldly possibility for a moment and consider the question. What would they do? Throw their copies of the Guardian in the air and rejoice? Urge everyone to crank up their thermostats and tear down their wind turbines? Would they heck. They’d bitch and moan. They’d question the sanity and credentials of the scientists. They’d fish around for rival evidence to shore up the collapsing consensus. They might even cry a little. And if all that failed, they’d pack up their kitbags, decamp to a new crisis and start over.
Climate change was always a policy in search of a cause. It fell like manna from heaven for the Left. It had the veneer of scientific respectability, it called for massive expansions in state power, and it obviated the need for democratic consent. Little surprise that it was ecstatically received by those who rely on state largesse for status and influence: politicians, bureaucrats, academics, in-pay experts and the media. That’s right, the media too. A small state with no one to blame, bully or enact their ideas is no use to hacks of a certain persuasion.
Ever since Marx presented his ideology as a science, the Left has pretended that it is comprised of disinterested truth-seekers and has portrayed divergent opinion as irrational dogma, motivated by vested interests. But when the evidence doesn’t take their fancy, they become as irrational and dogmatic as the next man, dismissing it as ‘unhelpful’ – meaning unhelpful to those who wish to ram egalitarianism down our throats.
Take the controversial Bell Curve research, which purported to show systematic disparities in the IQs of different races. Leftists have criticised its findings on the basis that they’re pleasing to racists. As the philosopher Jamie Whyte has pointed out, this is flawed reasoning, since the fact that racists find the evidence agreeable is irrelevant to whether it is true or not (it’s also dangerously wrong-headed, since it tacitly implies that discrimination against people with lower IQs is justified). In this instance, real world evidence is rejected because it doesn’t fit with a pre-existing agenda. Political correctness trumps reality every time.
This demonstrates the sham of liberal liberalism. They talk the non-judgmental talk, but they don’t walk the walk. They claim to be all about the evidence, as long as it supports their case. They’re the Henry Fords of political thought: you can any have any opinion you like as long as it’s theirs.
Bogpaper.com 
Agree totally but even if you are wrong and Agw is taking place the solutions are barmy. The whole situation is a gift to the left,the greenshirts and the cronies, bugger the poor in fuel poverty,let them eat Cake!
Reblogged this on Concrete Bunker.
When the AGW bandwagin stops (as now seems likely to happen sooner rather than later) they will be looking for something with a strong moral imperative – ie one with which anyone who dissents is inherently a “bad” person, in the same way that you must be evil if you oppose those who wish to save the planet.
They are going to have a slight problem though. The most obvious candidate is third world poverty. In fact, if you are old enough to remember the world before the Global Warming scam, you will recall that third world poverty was very much the number one subject.
Unfortunately, a major plank of “saving the planet” has been to prevent the third world from developing. This has of course contributed enormously to poverty. The simplest argument against the left when they start bleating about the starving billions will be to say “”yes – and you caused it”.
You give them too much credit, Simon. They don’t care about remaining consistent or whether their ideas caused the problems they are now keen to address. They simply reflect on their good intentions and let them be the measure of their righteousness. As long as a cause enables them to simultaneously feel good about themselves and expand state power, they’re happy.