What Consensus ?

Mark Newgent, who blogs regularly at Red Maryland and has written extensively on Maryland's climate change commission and the work of the Center for Climate Strategies there, writes in the Baltimore Examiner about the phony scientific consensus of the IPCC panel that alarmists incessantly invoke when defending their indefensible alarmist panic attacks:

The claim that the IPCC represents a consensus of 2,500 climate experts is simply not true.

What goes unmentioned is the fact that the IPCC is a political body. Skeptics are critical of the IPCC because alarmists — even though they masquerade their political motivations in sanctimonious moral language — tout this nonexistent consensus in their patently political quest for massive government interventions into the economy and private life.

The truth is, the so-called consensus is not found in the IPCC scientific assessment reports, but rather in the body’s Summary for Policy Makers, which is written by United Nations bureaucrats. This is the source of uncritical reporters’ claims of a consensus of 2,500 experts. The SPM excludes contrary evidence and in many significant areas disagrees with the underlying scientific report. The real consensus is political. It consists of a coalition of environmentalists, academics and rent-seeking corporations, all of whom have a substantial stake in increased government control over the private sector.

Ask yourself, who is the reciepitent of the taxes that are so wanted by the alarmists? If CO2 is the problem, why isn't nuclear the solution? No taxes required, just do it. I think it is the no taxes required that becomes the problem.

The assertion of an undeniable scientific consensus on catastrophic man-made global warming is nothing more than an alarmist cudgel used to force policy prescriptions through the political process and paint skeptics as outside the realm of legitimate public discourse.

Precisely what Stalin did in times gone by.