I find Molyneux’s video-enlarged, ranting bald head a bit creepy. But his content is often brilliant. I recently listened to this one from 2015.

Molyneux proposes the following thought experiment:

1. Suppose stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs – whomever you view as corruptible) are in charge of calculating some important measure of the world.
2. Let’s call it the Economy Rate (ER). It could go up or down. The stockbrokers fudge and massage the ER data, as they see fit.
3. First, the stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going DOWN! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
4. But over the years, the ER rises. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going UP! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
5. But then the ER stops going up. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it could go UP OR DOWN! With unpredictable pauses! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”

At what point do you begin to see that the stockbrokers are taking you, in a racket?

• Point 1 is climate scientists – who are a huge, publicly-funded industry. Each scientist profits (as wage/salary payments, benefits, etc.) from the grants she receives.
• Point 2 is the world average temperature, which climate scientists derive from data that they themselves fudge and massage.
• Point 3 is the 1970s, when climate scientists gave alarming predictions of a New Ice Age.
• Point 4 is the 1980s to the 2000s, when their monster was Global Warming. The famous “hockey stick” upward graph.
• Point 5 is recent years, when the “hockey stick” graph failed and they switched it to Climate Change – in whatever direction.

Do you believe that climate scientists are less corruptible than stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs)? That they’re somehow more objective and noble?

I don’t. You who do (lefties) have a RELIGIOUS FAITH in climate scientists, that you’re not admitting. And it’s exactly what climate scientists want you to have.

Your delusional, gullible faith is how they keep their tens of billions of taxpayer dollars coming. And of course they would have a “consensus” that they are objective and noble and deserve it and should be listened to and those dollars should keep coming. Of course they would.

Happy Earth Day!