I've said many times I became suspicious of "climate change science" when the climate change scientists started attaching the word "anthropogenic to it. I mean, anthropogenic, WTF is that all about? Anthropologists study hominids; primitive man, chimps and those dwarf chimps that are always wanking, baboons, gibbons, gorillas and monkeys. Anthropology is the study of human development right? The study of humankind according to the OED if we are being picky (there is bound to be some boy-scientists along who wants to brandish the Wikipedia definition and I can't be arsed slapping them down. Similarly anthropogenisis, the word from which anthropogenic must derive , relates to the origins of humanity.

So anthropogenic global warming? are we saying it is all down to cavemen and baboons farting? Well they did have a high fibre diet but there weren't enough of them to make much difference.

The attaching of anthropogenic to phrases like global warming or climate change is a typically crude and hamfisted attempt by scientists to baffle us all with big words because their scam has been well and truly sussed out. Anyone who expresses the smallest degree of scepticism about the "science" is dismissed and ridiculed as a climate change denier, conspiracy theorist, right wing crank or a fascist.

There is plenty to be sceptical about however. Without even getting into recent exposure of the use of fraudulent data in creating climate change models, the use of mathematical modelling and linear predictions to forecast something as non linear as weather patterns is extreme folly. What happened to the "barbecue summer" the clever scientists at the Met Office promised us? Well despite billions of pounds spent on research, bigger computers on which to build more complex mathematical models, the science of meteorology (study of weather) has not proved capable of forecasting the weather accurately much more than 24 hours ahead, something my Grandad could do with a pine cone and a twinkle in his eye. In spite of that the weather scientists insist their science is valid and their lack of accuracy is all the fault of us tightwad punters who will not tolerate the 150% income tax required to give the nerds who would rule the world bigger, more expensive computers than have ever been built and the unlimited resources needed to fashion the software that will tell us as accurately as Grandad's pine cone what the weather will be like next week.

You think I am showboating? Read what Simon Jenkins was writing in The Guardian earlier this year.

I was always told that you cannot predict summer weather in Britain. My early holidays on Cardigan Bay were enlivened by my father given a running commentary on the titanic struggle between "a depression off Iceland" and "an anticyclone off the Azores", as if it were Arsenal v Chelsea. Between this Scylla and Charybdis flows the Gulf Stream. As it collides with the complex profile of the British Isles, it generates the south-westerlies that pummel the coast all summer. The result is lost in chaos theory, vulnerable to a butterfly in Greenland or a leatherback turtle in the Caribbean. Yet whenever criticised, the Met Office pleads for more staff, more research and a bigger computer. It is like burning pound notes in a gale.

I'm not the only one to come to this conclusion then. The climate change scientists like the climate change lobby and the Large Hadron Collider team at CERN always use scientific curiosity and the "expanding the boundaries of human knowledge" argument to justify their demands for more money. Unfortunately the politicians, who in this respect have really imposed a one party state on us, all governments being of The Emperor's New Clothes Party, have not been willing to ask for what benefit are we investing taxpayers money. There is something in the scientific mindset that cannot ever accept "we just don't know and are never likely to" as the answer to most of the great questions of life and the human condition.

The Large Hadron Collider (it gets scientists so excited I'm always tempted to reverse the d and r) is a prime example of how feeding this scientific curiosity and thirst for knowledge becomes a bottomless pit into which we pour money. The one now being wound up to full speed at CERN is latest in a long line of colliders. The scientists in charge of each have given vague predictions of possible material benefits that might accrue from the experiment. So far each generation particle collider has failed to answer any of the questions we were told it would answer and has raised a lot of new questions which necessitate more expenditure and research. You want to know how The Universe works. It works, that's how.

How does this relate to the futility of the Copenhagen Climate Summit? Simple, as with the Universe so with the climate. It works. Left to itself the planet will balance everything eventually.

Leaving the planet to itself and just belting up, battening down the hatches and preparing for a rough ride is not good enough for the science lobby though. They, who when faced with doubts and queries about compulsory vaccine programmes, accuse their questioners of using emotional blackmail to manipulate public opinions, who insist we all have to be automatons, devoid of emotion, running on pure logic when addressing "scientific problems" are very quick to resort to sentimentality and emotional blackmail when "science" comes in for criticism.

"But you must trust the scientists and implement their solutions or billions of people might die," they wail. Then they add that it is the people in the poorest countries who will suffer most. "Oh the poor poor people, suffering again when they have already suffered so much for the sake of our western lifestyle," we are supposed to say. But is it all our fault. The science lobby, manipulative and disingenuous as usual, are just trying to guilt trip us.

Bangla Desh, one of the poorest countries in the world and with a large portion of its 165 million population living on low lying land in the deltas of the Ganges and Brahmaputra and around the Bay of Bengal, is likely to be one of the nations worst affected by climate change. When I read that information I was gobsmacked. Bangla Desh a hundred and sixty five million people? Where did they all come from? It was only 110 million in 1997.

There we have one of the main reasons for our problem. That population has increased by almost 50% in ten years. 165 million people in a land area the size of England (without Scotland and Wales that between them account for around ten million of Britain's 60 million. All those people consume resources.

In a world that insists on clinging to an economic system based on perpetual growth all those extra people, extra consumers, may seem not such a bad thing. What the perpetual growth enthusiasts, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and most other western leaders glibly overlook is that we live of a planet of finite resources. There is only so much land available to grow food, only so much water available to drink and bathe and wash cars, only so much coal and oil to be dug or pumped out of the bedrock. The answer is simple then, we need less economic activity not more.

Far from being our salvation and the answer to all our problems science is actually at the root of most. Look at Bangla Desh again. Shortly after partition from Pakistan during which there was an influx of political migrants Bangla Desh a famine which killed millions, the government are coy about how many millions. Without the protection of larger, more prosperous Pakistan, Bangla Desh had not been able to organise an effort to cope with the rapidly increasing population.

It may sound harsh and uncaring to say this but reality has no time for soppy liberal sentiment. The famine was caused by western science. In poor areas disease and hunger were always regulators of population. Western medicine and powdered milk prolonged life and reduced infant mortality but the bigger communities lacked the means to feed themselves. The west was willing to supply contraceptives but not willing to take the necessary steps to change attitudes. Without a western attitude to family size and birth control disaster was inevitable. It is easier for the science lobby to pull number tricks of course. The USA has three hundred million people they say as if this makes the USA culpable for Bangla Desh's poverty. So the US has twice the population, it also has fifty times the land area. We can say many things about America but not that it is overpopulated.

But science is to blame in many other ways for our predicament. While the narrow minded scientists and short termist politicians focus on only one thing, carbon emissions, understanding the problem requires a much broader vision. The way we produce our food is one of the biggest contributors to emissions. The western diet high in meat comes in for much criticism but with only slight changes in the way we eat (more mutton and deer for example) much unproductive upland could be brought into use. Factory farming beef cattle as well as being inhumane is hugely wasteful.

Another debate waiting to explode into open battle is the question of Genetically Modified crops but we will save that for another day. Again the science lobby here are incapable of intelligent debate. The ability of GM foods to feed the world is scientifically proven they argue. The case for GM technology is no more proved than the case for Anthropogenic Climate Change was. Scientists decided on the shakiest evidence and a compelling desire for it to be so, that climate change was entirely due to human activity just as they have decided the case for GM crops. These things have never been proved, they could probably never be proved even if it were true. There are just too many factors in the equation that cannot be measured or controlled.

In both cases though it would suit the science industry and the corporate and financial interests that fund it and the political establishment for their arguments to go unopposed. Thus they resort to bullying and intimidation. The imbecile Obama and the cretin Brown have even talked of making a crime of expressing dissent from the official stance on climate change. Dissent though is not denial. Few people actually deny that climate change is happening. The question that has never been settled is that of cause. And the answer is "We don't really know." The world is stubbornly unscientific.

"We are scientists, that proves we are right," is in the stock argument of the climate change science lobby. That is, is it not, more fatuous than a Bible fundamentalist saying, "If it is written in The Bible that is proof enough."

So the whole catalogue of climate change science aruments is bases of emotion, sentiment, blind faith, self-interst, grrede and lust for power. That is the inconvenient truth about Climate Change. Is it any wonder then critics have started talking of the climate change evangelists as a fundamentalist religion.

We must fight for our right to think for ourselves, hold our own opinions and express them freely. The Copenhagen Summit is not really about climate change, it is about power and control.

RELATED POSTS:
Former Chief Scientist Talks About Green Scaremongering
Science: You Don't Say
Science- Who Can You Believe
Religion Versus Science (The New Religion) Victim of a Witch Hunt
Scientists Now Not So Sure About Safety Of The Large Hardon Provider
A Roundup Of All Our Climate Change Posts
Copenhagen Climate Change Lies
Climate Change: Is Science To Blame
Copenhagen Climate Change Stink Of Corruption Brown: A Lust For Glory
Why Copenhagen Will Fail
Climate Change Science Scam
Climate Change Deniers Deny Nothing
Government By Fear And Panic
Obama's Climate Change Bill
Renewable Energy Con
V2G: Technology You Can't Believe In
Too Many People
We Need Nuclear Power
Feel The Burn
Nature Does Not Negotiate
Wind Of Change
Copenhagen: The Real Agenda An Inconvenient Truth About Climate Change Canadians Who Cared
Peccavimus
The Offcomer
The Climate Change Whitewash
Climate Change Fatigue: Science Of Fear And Panic Lost The Argument
Demented Mouse Science
What Are You? Man Or Mouse
Mnemosyne
A Jobless Economy
Tommy Clod
We Don't Need No Edukashun
Ten 4 Ten
Giving Up On Work
BBC Weathermen To Be Sacked?