“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H. L. Mencken
‘Climate change’ is not new to the biosphere, however, sociopolitical vilification of ‘climate change’ is. ‘Climate change’ is an oxymoron, something akin to ‘cold ice’. Tersely put, Earth’s climate seeks equilibrium through various feedback mechanisms, and transitions between glacial periods (ice ages) and interglacial periods (between ice ages). The past decamillenium occurred in the Holocene era, which was preceded by the Pleistocene era (the last major ice age). Compared to the Pleistocene, the Holocene has been a summer holiday, with temperature changes being comparatively minor and stable. Humans have thrived in this era of comparative warmth. Current trends are perfectly within the Holocene range, with the last major shift occurring when the previous great ice age subsided and ushered in a new trend of relatively stable and interglacial climate change.
There are many factors influencing the climate, predominantly natural, and to some extent, anthropogenic. Recently, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) alarmism has caused the largely irrational and uneducated public to become afraid of the term. Personally, I wasn’t aware that ‘climate change’ was intrinsically ‘evil’. What is the magical temperature we wish the climate to remain at for eternity? Is it currently too hot or too cold? And if so, by how many degrees? Of course this question is truly absurd. To make matters worse, politicians have partially succeeded in perverting science to their ideology. The IPCC and other bureaucratic organizations are interested in the side of the argument that fits the narrative of CAGW, and dare not take an impartial and objective position (bite the hand that feeds you at your own peril!). Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. On the other hand, manipulating data and forcing results to fit a preconceived conclusion is fraudulent and unscientific. Something more befitting of politicians.
In conclusion, climate science is kowtowing to politics (government research is particularly vulnerable to this, although skepticism needs to be applied to private organizations just as tenaciously). Additionally, scientists are not immune to group think, corruption, cognitive bias, peer pressure, social ostracism, character assassination, threat of funding cuts or termination of employment, and any other social complications that may impair the scientific method. We must respond in kind with a more tenacious, skeptical, and objective mindset. Heavy scrutiny needs to be placed on climate research, particularly governmental climate science propagated by dubious organizations like the IPCC. With great fortitude and honesty, the international community of independent scientists can disprove the assumptions that the IPCC has espoused, and take politics out of science. Religion by and large has been successfully mitigated from corrupting science, it now appears politics has become the new anathema.