The mainstream view on Climate Change and some of it's Consequences

The mainstream view

There is a currently, I’ve simplified extensively, what may be termed a "mainstream" position on climate change some key elements of which are that :

• 97% or more scientists believe the Earth has recently been and is continuing to heat up - Global Warming (GW)
• GW is not the result of natural variations in the earth’s climate but a result of human activity i.e Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) primarily due to burning of fossil fuels - oil, coal resulting in increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the main culprit being carbon dioxide CO2 
• given such a huge consensus in the scientific community the existence of AGW is essentially a hard-scientific fact or as put by some “the science (on AGW) is settled” 

In addition a further key element of the mainstream AGW position is that:

• AGW is essentially bad for everyone therefore all nations MUST implement polices to try to reverse it by : 
• reducing energy consumption 
• developing alternative "green" sources of energy e.g.  wind farms, solar power, tidal power nuclear power use of new fuel e.g. Biomass 
• reducing  drastically the use of fossil fuels
• rewarding  those who implement the above bullet points by tax incentives and direct subsidies i.e. giving them money and LOTS (Billions) of it from the taxpayer 
• deterring  /preventing those who don't by imposing  new and /or increase existing taxes on them and /or implementing  policies to stop them e.g. banning cars from towns or city centres, government mandates to phase out petrol and diesel cars, shut down coal fired power stations etc 

I don't support the mainstream position and :

• think that we should all at least review our positions - the main reason being that I am convinced there is not and there never was a  >97% consensus of scientists on AGW  
• think that the public have been and still are being misled, misinformed and manipulated into believing this mainstream view
• help provide an understanding of  the techniques being used to promote the mainstream view and why this is happening 
• highlight that navigating ones’ path to a well-informed view on climate change and to decide which policies on climate change you should support or oppose is by no means an easy or comfortable task

One Consequence of the mainstream view - the end justifies the means 

Some (many) of mainstream AGW supporters think, falsely but not illogically once you've bought into the mainstream view, that necessarily climate sceptics must be either scientifically incompetent "flat earthers" and /or blinded by vested interests - in the pay of the oil companies. Additionally by raising doubts about the the existence of AGW, as well as being incompetent and /or corrupt, climate sceptics are undermining the polices urgently needed to deal with the predicted terrible consequences of AGW.  Preventing such terrible consequences is thus an end that all right minded people should support. That being the case some means are required to stop sceptics from undermining it..

Examples of the means seen as currently acceptable not only to mainstream media outlets like the BBC, media hacks in the Guardian and Independent, politicians and environmental activists but also alas many eminent scientists and scientific bodies are that climate sceptics:

• should not be allowed to publish scientific papers expressing doubts about or challenging the mainstream view on AGW 
• should not be given air time in mainstream media to express their views 
• if these methods fail to stop them then their views should be ridiculed 
• as they must be either incompetent and/or corrupt, it’s perfectly OK to ridicule not only sceptics views but the sceptics themselves. A good tactic being to smear them by calling them climate deniers which will help associate them in people’s minds with Holocaust deniers or people who deny that the earth is round i.e. flat-earthers  

Additionally some of the mainstream supporting scientific community have and still do seem to think its acceptable to manipulate the presentation of modelling results and even measured data to an extent which to my mind is essentially scientific fraud albeit often done in a manner that provides numerous "ways out" when detected using either an "end justifies the means" argument as to why they "sexed it up" ad/or -" it was just a mistake we all make them and I've now revised my computer model, paper policy, recommendations etc to address that .." an argument  that can be applied ad-infinitum

I regard this end justifies the means argument and the misrepresentation techniques as things everyone,  in particular those involved in science and research, should abhor as they undermine the entire scientific process reducing it to something akin to the worst sort of  "I've got more votes than you so shut (TF) up" politics" as evidenced  by the BREXITeers and their regular and vicious attempts to put down"REmoaners"

In support of the above see  Essential Reading