Government shuts out sceptics
Without saying a thing — no conspiracy necessary.
[Anon1:] A major problem is that Harry Clark, who is the only scientist on the ICCC, has a conflict of interest. If we submitted Jock & Tom’s paper (Greenhouse gases – a more realistic view (2018)), for instance, then Harry Clark would pour cold water on it. If he accepted the conclusions then his job and research funding for the greenhouse gas research outfit would cease. If he were replaced with Reisinger or Frame the same thing would happen. As long as the gatekeepers, advisers or members of the committee have jobs that are dependent on maintaining the IPCC line then they will reject any sceptical view of the science that differs from that narrative.
I very much doubt that National, even if it had the nous to perceive this problem, would be successful in having independent scientific advisers. As long as politicians fail to see the conflict then we do not have much hope regardless of how strong a case is made. There are thousands of papers challenging DAGW, but none of those in power know they even exist.
[Anon2:] That’s true, and the remedy is to advise them and their advisers that such papers exist.
Visits: 76
Yep, I have been in contact with Matt King, Northland MP. He has a BSc and agrees with us more or less, but is first attacking the economic hurdles of CAGW, to avoid the “Flakey Denier” labelling.
You may all wish to open dialogue with him. I have put it that the false reasoning behind CAGW needs attacking too, because I have the works of Einstein (1917) and Maxwell etc behind me.
Anyway, Matt, an ex Cop and a Farmer with a Degree (like many of us, we did not build Massey and Lincoln for show), must be a good contact point. Winston has also promised not to let the scam get final approval in any dangerous form next year. Quiet converse with him should be worthwhile, he knows a scam when he sees one, proven on a very large scale a la Cook Islands etc..
Cheers from Brett Keane, Ruawai