Sports. Politics. Culture. UNFILTERED.

Yesterday, the George Carlin's and Michael Crichton's of the world could voice contrary opinions; today, science is settled

Didya’ like Leo DiCaprio’s acceptance speech at the Golden Globes last weekend? You know, the 2:30 ode to his virtuous self? Like the good culture warrior he is now, Leo had to let the world know that he is a towering champion of the current zeitgeist. Climate. Natives. Energy.

Watching, one wondered what George Carlin would have thought of Leo’s preening. You remember George Carlin? In case you don’t, here’s George’s take in 2007 on the beautiful people, their beautiful feelings and their beautiful place at the centre of the universe. 

To sum up his attitude about the Leos: “White bourgeois liberals who think the only problem with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths, who want to make it safe for their Volvos… environmentalists don’t care about the planet… you know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. They're worried at some point in the future that they might be inconvenienced.”

Sort of like DiCaprio and his fellow sensitivity trainers flying jets to Paris to complain about air pollution. Of course, Carlin would never be able to say any of this now on a college campus or in a progressive newspaper, because climate science is “settled”. The L.A. Times won’t print any more letters to the editor that mess with this orthodoxy. CBC has swallowed the David Suzuki kool-aid. The prez says everyone agrees so shut up.

It’s too bad, because the Leos and Sean Penns used to think George was their guy. Before they dressed in tuxedos to talk about indigenous cultures, they knew that Carlin would call people out on their BS. But now he and author Michael Crichton, who also dared to dissent, are gone. It’s safe to strut your virtuous pap. And we’re left with cultural hall monitors like DiCaprio checking your sensitivity before you can enter the building.

U.S. president Barack Obama will say how can you not trust Michael Mann or Phil Jones, high priests of the climate cult? They are eminent, respected in their field, admire by the media. Why wouldn’t you take their word?

Make no mistake, this is all about posturing, not data. As observed by Crichton, the Jurassic Park author who died in 2008, the Leos and Al Gores don’t read the underlying data behind the Time Magazine’s scarifying headlines. They read the executive summaries prepared by the political handlers of climate science. Had they looked they’d be troubled, said Crichton.

Hollywood provides a parallel in The Big Short, Michael Lewis’ book about the sub-prime mortgage fiasco. The outcasts who bet against Wall Street’s derivative swindle did something the big-shot financial experts never did. They examined the underlying data by visiting the failed real estate developments upon which the whole enterprise depends.

What they found were derelict homes, underwater mortgages and absentee landlords not paying premiums. In defiance of these observations, the wise men and women of Wall Street still shot them down, playing the “who are you?” card. The media sycophants, along for the ride, didn’t want to disturb their sources for stock tips. The ratings agencies looked the other way, giving a blue ribbon to to garbage investments.

In the end, of course, the data was borne out, and the economy collapsed. The moral of the story is who you going to believe? The purported experts or your lying eyes?

But you won’t see the same skepticism rewarded in the Climate Business. Not when there is so much money to be had feeding the beast. As Crichton observed, the only way to grant money in the 1960's was a cure for cancer. Now climate calamity predictions are the meal ticket. In legacy media, kissing up to the rock-star environmentalists gets you above the fold in the New York Times. Dissent, if it’s to be printed, will get you a small mention on B14.

Nobel laureate, physicist Ivar Giaever, is one of the few left trying to point out the gaping fallacies in the global warming theory. For his candour, Giaever (who lives in Albany, N.Y.) has been made a pariah by the consensus-science brigade for saying that a rise of 0.08 degrees since 1850 is a blessing, not a curse.

Poor man, hasn’t he heard? Obama wants science in good taste, not science that tastes good. Last July, the 1973 laureate schooled the U.S. President and his wind therapists on the notion that climate science is the biggest threat faced by mankind. “It’s a ridiculous statement,” Giaever says, showing how the data are cooked by self interest.

When, in defiance of their computer models, measured global temperatures paused for 18 years, NASA and its pals simply added the temperature of the oceans for the first time in a century “to fiddle with the data”. Why, if CO2 drives global warming, has there not been a commensurate spike in temperatures as carbon emissions climbed since 1998?

He then cites a simple example of how overblown the “crisis” has become. How many matches would you have to light in a 20-foot-square room to match the entire CO2 output from all the world’s cars in a year? One, says Giaever, shaking his mane of white hair is amazement. “On global warming (Obama) is all wet.”

In the end, the strongest argument remaining for the acceptance of climate science is the safety of numbers of fellow travelers in Paris nodding at the count of three. Who you going to believe, the IPCC honchos saying the Himalayas are melting or your lying eyes?

As Crichton pointed out, “Consensus science is not science. Consensus is about politics.”  But till the politics change don’t expect Leo to turn down any more chances to bloviate on his virtue.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy

Bruce's career is unmatched in Canada for its diversity and breadth of experience with successful stints in television, radio and print. A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada's top television sports broadcaster, he is also the best-selling author of seven books. He was a featured columnist for the Calgary Herald (1998-2009) and the Globe & Mail (2009-2013).