If you have to lie to make a point, you have a terrible point.
That should be incredibly clear logic, but it seems to be the norm now that people are often willing to tell outrageous lies in order to sway public opinion. Even scarier than the increase in lies from politicians and pundits has been the politicization of science.
What many don’t understand is that science is a direct result of funding, whether through research grants or private corporations. If you’re willing to fudge data or skew results to a certain bias, you can make data say just about anything you want for the company/people footing the bill. As Mark Twain said, “There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
The scary part, however, is that many scientists have spoken out to tell us that if they’re not willing to “toe the line” and say what the check writers want, they won’t be funded – and this is increasingly regarding political, not just business, interests.
What are the major red flags that you’re being lied to about? Feigned indignation, where the claimant is “appalled” that you would ask for evidence to back up their claim. Useful idiots (celebrities and politicians) used to parrot a narrative despite no background in the subject. Creating a false enemy. And, of course, the attack of a person’s character rather than the issue at hand is the most prevalent red flag we often see used today.
The climate change crowd have been dealt a major blow in the Supreme Court of British Columbia this week, where climate change alarmist Michael Mann’s libel case against Dr. Tim Ball was thrown out, due to Mann’s refusal to hand over the data used to make his (now debunked) “hockey stick” graph.
Mann’s graph, which was featured prominently in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report, removed data from what is called the “Medieval Warming Period” (MWP) that proved the climate was much warmer in those years than it is now.
But the scientists and citizens who debunked and criticized Mann’s graph and the refusal to submit data for peer review faced each of the red flags of lies listed above.
A mentor with a background in politics once told me, “People don’t vote for issues, they vote against enemies.” That’s an interesting thought to keep in mind when considering the red flag of creating a false enemy. Is climate change being positioned as an existential threat? Certainly, it’s a complete political platform for some candidates at the moment.
But looking at the Paris Accord we can see an even greater false enemy: us. If you’ve ever wondered why President Trump was so against the Paris Accord, look at the false enemy it created. The largest fines set in the accord were against the USA, who leads the world in reduction of pollution and emissions. The accord completely ignored India and China, who are the world leaders in pollution and emissions. Are you starting to get it?
We should also look to the Forbes article from 2011 on ClimateGate, which showed emails between climate scientists telling each other to delete email conversations so they didn’t go public, questioning egregiously bad data being put forward and deciding to politicize their contrived findings.
If climate change is real, man made and an existential threat, why would they go to such lengths to lie about it? And why would the Obama’s buy a $15mm mansion in Martha’s Vineyard if it’s really going to be under water in 10 years? And didn’t Al Gore tell us the world was supposed to end decades ago?
If you repeat the term “settled science” you obviously don’t understand science. If science were ever truly settled, we’d still be using leeches to cure all illnesses.
So why do climate change scientists refuse to hand over data and allow it to be peer reviewed? Why do they go to such lengths to discredit anyone who disagrees? Why do politicians frequently lie and say “all scientists agree” when a large number of them do not?
If you ask these questions, you’ll promptly be labeled a conspiracy theorist. But if we don’t ask these questions, we’ll allow the world to go to the most delusional and power hungry among us.
Robert Patrick Lewis is a Green Beret OIF/OEF combat veteran with 10th SFG(A), CMO of Heroes Media Group, entrepreneur, MBA and award-winning author of Love Me When I’m Gone: The True Story of Life, Love and Loss for A Green Beret In Post-9/11 War, The Pact and The Pact Book II: Battle Hymn of the Republic. Follow him @RobertPLewis on Twitter or on his RobertPatrickLewisAuthor Facebook page.