consensus watch - 2/15/2007

An occasional series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, man-made, and must be addressed immediately if we are to forestall cataclysm. After all, without consensus, science is merely an ongoing journey of exploration and discovery.

The most recent attack on The Consensus comes from scientist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center, whose experiments demonstrating the dramatic role that cosmic radiation plays in cloud formation and therefore global warming is documented in a book being published this week titled “The Chilling Stars.”

While his theory does much to explain the many environmental anomalies being observed such as the leveling off of atmospheric temperatures in recent years and the growing ice sheet in Antarctica, his credibility is in serious question on two counts: 

1)  “Svensmark” is much more difficult to pronounce than “Gore.”

2) There exists a clear conflict of interest tainting his research:

An insidious attack percolating from within also bears watching. Scientists who have long been in broad agreement with The Consensus have started voicing opinions that deviate from the preferred 100% conformity so important to the ongoing vitality of The Consensus. For instance, Mike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research refuses to engage in the necessary apocalyptic enthusiasm required to get citizens to break down and buy a Prius, saying, “I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.” 

These are not the words of The Consensus. That is why it gives us great sadness to report that he, too, appears to be in the pocket of the petroleum industry: 

While these developments are disturbing, there are several programs in place to ensure the continuing inviolability of The Consensus.

First, is the ongoing successful implementation of programs designed to suppress Consensus-defying voices. From ridicule, to title stripping, to accusations of bias, those who challenge The Consensus are being driven to the sidelines. This is an important process since the only way to truly get consensus is to eliminate those who don’t consent.

Second, is the clever use of temporary warm snaps to create media discussions of global warming, thus subtly linking (all the while insisting that you are not) decades-long climate trends directly to people’s everyday lives. It is important, however, to keep in mind that cold snaps must not be allowed similar exposure that could raise questions about The Consensus. 

For example, this January picture taken of daffodils blooming in northern Virginia is perfectly suitable to launch a lengthy discussion about global warming and its dire consequences. 

This February picture of daffodils struggling up through inches of snow and ice taken in the same neighborhood is not.

Maintaining The Consensus is hard work, particularly considering the surprisingly high number of biased, extremist, out-of-the-mainstream scientists all of whom are in the pocket of the oil companies there are out there.

But with your help, we can do it. Should you come across one these numerously rare assaults on The Consensus, forward it to us at the email at the top of this page.

Because if you don't, we're all doomed.

J.