Looking back at my days in Catholic grade school, I can only imagine that the nuns must have thought of me as a precocious child. Unlike most of my peers who were bored in religion class, I took an interest. However, the nuns did not appreciate it. They were prepared to handle a few oddball questions, but were completely unsettled by my barrage.  When a nun finally deemed my line of inquiry to be too much of a distraction from her teaching, she practiced the tried-and-true method for silencing a student. She would parade me in front of my peers uttering the words, “Ok, Mr. Ponton, if you’re so smart why don’t you take over teaching the class.” After a bit of stuttering on my part and some derisive comments from my classmates, the nun would end the charade, confident that she had put me in my place.

It’s all understandable. She had a class to get through and did not want any disruption, but on the other hand she was using her position of authority and manipulating the mob to suppress my inquisitive nature; it has stuck with me just how effective the technique was. It is a technique that I also see employed by modern day climate elites. I guess that is not to be unexpected. Both groups are wedded to orthodoxies that require a level of blind faith, but they do not display an outward appearance of doubt, and only one of these faiths is “science.”  Climate elites do not evoke the sacred as their source of authority, but derive their authority from their role in secular institutions.   This position of authority is often all that is needed to intimidate others into submission.  No one dares to question any “scientific” claim, lest they be regarded as ignorant.

How many times have you heard the following from someone who seems on the surface to be intelligent? 

“I am not a climate scientist, and defer to the overwhelming consensus and expertise of the IPCC, National Academies, American Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society, lead scientists and advisory panels for NOAA, DOE, NASA, NSF, etc. etc. etc.”

It sounds awfully intimidating, but only if one is not aware of the sad state of these institutions. That statement always reminds me of Einstein’s retort, “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough,” when he heard that a book titled 100 Authors against Einstein was published in Germany.

I am also reminded of Einstein saying, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” With that one statement he captured the essence of the scientific method. So, when Ross McKitrick and John Christy come out with a paper refuting the hypothesis supporting every climate model and the whole climate community remains mute, one has to wonder if climate science is real science. I would contend that it is not. Moreover, the experts that perpetuate the myth of climate catastrophism have more in common with the nuns in my grade school academy than any true scientist.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license.