The science that cried wolf

Looks good to us.

An article today in The Australian concerning the imminent demise of the Great Barrier Reef and the exhortation that something must be done is interesting not for its bloated and deceitful content but for the comments that follow it. The writer, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, is the director of something called The Global Change Institute at the university of Queensland.

“The Global Change Institute (GCI) at The University of Queensland is an independent source of innovative research, ideas, policy and advice for addressing the challenges of a changing world.”

In other words, do-gooders who managed to wrangle themselves sweet funding under the guise of ‘the end of the world is nigh!’ (Notice how you don’t see those crazy guys holding placards outside dusty train stations anymore? They’re all employed in the climate scam industry.)

The crux of the scaremongering in the article comes down to this bit:

“The changes are being driven by the climate, which is the reef’s most significant threat. The Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report, produced by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, makes that clear, as does the Reef 2050 Plan, the overarching framework for protecting and managing it developed by the commonwealth and Queensland governments. It tells us that a lack of action on climate change will see our reef disappear, along with other vital ecosystems.”

Get that? The reef will disappear! (Waves arms and runs around in circles whilst making the boogy-man noise).

The comments that follow the article are uniform in their scorn and ridicule for the false message that the climate doomsters have been predicting for so long now. What a turnaround from just a few years ago when the majority of comments would have elicited tones of deep concern and shock that such a great tragedy was about to befall our nation and our world.

That’s what an increase of over 500% on domestic energy prices will do to your message of doom.

Scientists have sure been banging on for quite some time now about a variety of doomsday disasters caused by us human folk that somehow have all failed to materialize as predicted. We were going to run out of oil, copper, gold, gas and just about every other resource you could poke a stick at by the 1980s. The world was going to be consumed by horrible famines caused by overpopulation, while instead we’re now producing so much food that we’re using the leftovers to fuel vehicles. There was going to be a new ice age, then it was global warming, and finally they hit upon the singular brilliant tautology of climate change.

That last one is indeed true because the climate is not static. Way to go scientists; you got one right! (Not.)

There has been so much scientific bullshit that people are becoming somewhat inured to what so-called scientists claim. James Delingpole just doesn’t trust scientists anymore:

“It’s not science they distrust so much as scientists — especially ones in more nebulous, activism-driven fields like ecology or sociology. As Cofnas told Campus Reform, a site that exposes left-wing bias at universities: ‘Conservatives are right to be sceptical. Take any politicised issue that is connected to some disagreement about scientific fact. I do not believe there is a single case in the last couple of decades where a major scientific organisation took a position that went against the platform of the Democratic party.’ He added: ‘What an odd coincidence that “science” always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview.’”

The politicization of science, the substitution of scientody for scientistry, is in of itself inherently unscientific as it relies on some sort of left-leaning democratic process. To get ahead in this rigged game, people pretending to be scientists have to make things up. How else can one explain the appalling revelation that less than 50% of scientific studies can be replicated.

“Six such projects, including the SSRP, have now been completed. Between them, they’ve successfully replicated just 87 out of 190 studies, for an overall rate of 46 percent.”

No doubt many of these bogus studies were cited in peer-reviewed journals and used to badger dim and corrupt politicians into squandering the resources and wealth of their countries into placating the great climate god Ghia.

But the people aren’t believing it anymore. I’ve been bashing heads with climate change idiots online and in real life for over 10 years, but the turnaround in attitude that we’re now seeing really does underline the fact that the general public isn’t buying it anymore.

Which is too bad for science. You can only cry wolf so many times before the public no longer believes you. And if then a real calamity should present itself, a calamity that only science could identify, predict or solve; what then?

Science. Just one more part of our civilization that the prog army of darkness has successfully destroyed.

This article was originally published at, where Adam Piggott publishes regularly and brilliantly. You can purchase Adam’s books here.

Photo by r.mcminds

  • The ideological bias that has infected the University system also extends to scientific curriculum.

  • John Sheppard

    Finally got around to watching the great global warming swindle movie. Provides some very simple counter arguments to the idiots who believe this stuff. If you havent seen it, check it out here:

    • Ralphy

      Great video. Thank you for the link.

  • thegentlemantroll

    I’ve lost many friends because of the leftist disease

  • Andrew Thompson

    No scientists disagree that the climate is always changing, the argument is that we are causing the change to accelerate at a rate that could be very well out of our means to adapt to

    • Ron Mortimer

      But what about the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods? Equally as warm…..and generally good times for life on Earth with longer growing seasons. Cold is the killer.

  • Ron Mortimer

    I was sceptical of the whole story back in the early 90s because there was no balancing of the obvious pros and cons of a supposedly warming world. As there would be winners and losers the question is would there be a net benefit or not. Instead,we just had a non stop gloomathon.

  • MatrixTransform

    The world has been recently warming at about 0.14C per decade for about 150years
    The velocity of warming or cooling changes periodically every 30 years or so.

    Lately this has also happened to coincide with an increase in CO2 levels.
    Thats about all the Scientific community agrees on.

    Solar variability (which many climate scientists deny) is measured by its proxy, in sun-spot activity.

    The warming and cooling rates do seem to correlate with the sun spot cycles.
    Thats not say that CO2 doesnt have an impact, maybe it does.

    The last inter-glacial period about 125k years ago, temps were about the same, CO2 was higher and sea levels much higher maybe 5-10 meters higher than today

    humans back then (as far as we know) werent using coal to make electricity.
    we still have coral reefs

    Spring begins in 2 more days but today, I have the electric heater under my desk to warm my bollox.


    • Jai_Normosone

      I hope you’re not so old that your bollocks drop off your chair into the heater 😀

      • MatrixTransform

        no, theyre stainless steel and spot welded on with wire braid…but thanks for caring enough to mention it

        Renewables are currently at about 3% world wide. Seems to me that the iPad and the Tesla are still coal-powered, as is the internet Opinion Generation Factory.

        For a while there I’d drunk the Kool Aid and was a true believer (in fact my job depends on people with money to back up their belief in AGW), but the more I read about how the science is settled the more I discover that the only rigor is in demanding consensus.

        I also have post grad qualifications in Sustainable Eng.

        … and, a tin-foil hat certainly wont stop cosmic rays.

  • Ron Mortimer

    Since we are on the AGW topic, I just want to acknowledge the indefatigable Jo Nova who has been running her climate realist (and generally pro conservative) site for many (10+) years.

    Another true blue aussie legend imo

  • entropy

    Science is a method, not an outcome. Replicability is essential to scientific method and studies not being able to be reproduced is science working as intended.

    The problem is the usual suspects: prejudiced individuals with preconceived ideas and an incompetent and scientifically illiterate clickbait media reporting unsettled science to stir outrage and generate traffic.

    • Jamie Blank

      What they’re doing is making the data fit their model. Totally non-scientific.

  • Jamie Blank

    It’s dry. We’ll die of thirst as our crops wither. Pray in exact the way I tell you and it will rain. You will be saved.

    It’s dry. We’ll die of thirst as our crops wither. Vote in the exact way I tell you and you will be saved.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    • MatrixTransform

      You forgot to tell us which way to pray and vote.

      …thanks for nothing

  • Dan Flynn

    Can somebody please explain this paragraph to me?

    ‘And if then a real calamity should present itself, a calamity that only science could identify, predict or solve; what then?’

    Is Adam not acknowledging the importance of science while simultaneously saying we shouldn’t trust scientists?
    Makes no sense to me at all.

    • Mattys Modern Life

      The scientific method is important but global warmists have corrupted science with their lies and dogmatic propaganda designed to win funding.

      • Dan Flynn

        Thanks for taking the time Matty.
        While I understand what you mean, I find it implausible that the majority of climate scientists have abandoned their professional and moral values and become deceitful, money-grubbing lunatics, and that large oil and mining companies (who have most to lose if proper climate change polices are implemented) are the only ones telling the truth.
        It’s upside down logic to me.

        • Mattys Modern Life

          You clearly don’t understand incentives, there are billions of State funding dollars up for grab for those who push the global warming lie.

          Even taking the money out of it in order for something to be a scientific theory it needs to predict real world outcomes, Warmists have basically made sport of being wrong about pretty much everything.

          The State corrupts everything, once you realise this the truth becomes obvious, “global warming” is a State funded scam, what’s “upside down logic” is thinking those who get State funding to push “Global Warming” are not going to push “Global Warming” just because it’s demonstrably wrong.

          • Dan Flynn

            Unfortunately we live in different worlds Matty, which is why each other’s logic appears upside down.
            I understand incentives perfectly well. If I worked in the coal industry, I would be looking very hard for reasons to de-legitimize theories on global warming. My livelihood would be at stake. Incentive enough?

            Do you remember tabaco companies trying to muddy the waters around links between smoking and cancer?
            If the state ‘corrupts everything’ why did the truth eventually come out about that?

            I totally accept the fact that there are people taking advantage of climate change funding, no argument there, you will find corrupt people in all levels of society. However this cannot be used as proof that the whole climate change theory is wrong, you just cannot draw a straight line between these two things.

          • Correct, we do live in “different worlds,” problem is yours isn’t the real one.

            “Global warning might make my business look bad” is not the same as “global warming puts food on the table.”

            Have you considered that the coal industry also has an incentive to not have their livelihood smeared and defamed by people with a massive incentive to lie? Cleary not.

            Your tobacco company argument fails for one major reason, there is actually proof tobacco increases the chances of cancer, there is no such proof that CO2 causes the climate to change dangerously, prove otherwise.

            Tobacco companies hid research, coal companies have not.

            You don’t understand how science works, it’s not up to skeptics to prove the warmist hypothesis wrong, it’s up to warmists to prove it right and you just haven’t done that.

            “Lots of people dependent on it being real agree it’s real” is not an argument.

            You are free to believe any rubbish you wish, the problem with warmists is you demand we all suffer for your beliefs, why do you think that’s acceptable? Why should we all suffer because you believe an unproven hypothesis?

          • Dan Flynn

            Matty, my greatest hope in life is that you are right and I am wrong, I want climate scientists to be wrong, so much!
            The thing that keeps me up at night is the knowledge that my children are growing up into a world that may be seriously fucked when sea levels rise, food insecurity rises and we move into global chaos.
            That is the fear that underpins my propensity to believe what scientists are saying. Climate change theories are nothing more that ‘our best guess’. I’m inclined to go with it.
            The ‘suffering’ you refer to is beyond minuscule compared to the suffering future generations with experience if the scientists are right.
            But like I said, I hope you’re right.

          • You are free to have any fear or any belief that you wish to have, if you wish to “go with” the obvious lies and manipulations of charlatains that is your right.

            It is not your right to demand others suffer, even if it’s “miniscule” as you claim, simply because you believe something is true.

            You are required to prove your claims beyond any reasonable doubt and warmists haven’t even proven Co2 emissions are bad for the world, not even slightly.

            The suffering brought about by misguided climate zealots is potentially extreme and, in fact, when you calculate the true cost of mitigation it’s likely far worse than any scenario dreamt up by the warmist religion.

            So please, believe what you like but keep your beliefs to yourself and don’t complain when people push back against your holier-than-thou religious zealotry.

          • Dan Flynn

            ‘So please, believe what you like but keep your beliefs to yourself’

            Sounding like a snowflake there Matty, this is a public forum. Deal with it.

        • MatrixTransform

          Dan, forget logic…go with human nature.
          I’m living proof.
          Happily take the money and spend it on a jet ski.
          If politicians get votes from AGW believers then the money will flow.
          science be damned

  • Mattys Modern Life

    I too have been calling out this rubbish for over a decade, it’s been wonderful watching people slowly wake up to the lies.

    The warming cultists still believe but the general public is over it, as you say there’s nothing massive bill to wake you up to a scam.

  • I remember as a schoolboy in the 80s that the reigning propaganda was that we had 10 years to save the planet.

    I’m starting to go grey and all they’ve changed is the end date. I’ve noticed the most ardent environmentalists that I know have bigger cars and travel far more than I do.

    I think we can all remember Michelle Obama flying the presidential jet on her holidays, rather than toughing it out in first class on a commercial airline with more common folk.

    After quitting as head dickhead of Griffith, Rudd bought himself a luxury apartment in Brisbane’s CBD, ffs. That’s hardly demonstration that he gave a shit about the planet.

  • The Expanding Man

    How can you deny climate change? Science denier!!! However, I don’t accept Evolutionary Darwinism. Human evolution only applies from the neck down. We’re all equal after all. Except white males. They are all evil exploitative colonialists and rapists.

  • Adam, I want to thank you for using the “Prog” abbreviation for Progressive in your article here. I have been trying for years to get that into the normal discourse, not just because it makes a great abbreviation for Progressives, but something that can send Progressives into emotional tantrums. Now, if only I can get more of us on the Right to stop using the word “Liberal” when addressing these Leftists. Real Liberals are actually the good guys, and using it correctly is the act of sticking FDR in the eye. After all, he started this Big Lie, way back in 1932, and its well past time it ended.

    • Jai_Normosone

      I also detest the use of “Progressive” for these fools because it is akin to the idiots in the burger joints charging a fortune for a “Wagyu” burger when it is now just a patty of fatty mince.

  • Jai_Normosone

    Because deep, deep down, they’re really good people? 😀