Like Darwinism and Creationism, Man Made Global Warming is a Religion and not Science

The Day Science Died (0.00 / 0)

When we pretend that science requires "Consensus" to formulate "truth", there is no science only lies, deceit and hypocrisy.  Read on if you like http://www.intellectualconserv...

Who are you going to believe?  Scientists, or your lying eyes?

The revelations in recent days that prominent members of the scientific community have been deliberately falsifying data to support the political conclusion that man is primarily responsible for "Global Warming" (now commonly referred to as "Global Climate Change," since the planet is actually not getting warmer), has raised a troubling question.

Unlike the social sciences, where agendas and opinions often substitute for "facts," the hard sciences are supposedly pure, objective and rational. Here numbers don't lie, statistically demonstrable trends aren't self-serving conjecture, and the only agenda behind these scientific inquiries is a pure, unfettered, search for the truth. If tree rings and dying polar bears tell us the planet is getting warmer, and an increase in C02 levels tell us man and man alone is responsible for the warming, then by God (or by Gore for those who can't quite fathom the notion that there is a Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe), the science is "settled." Anyone who thinks differently is just a religious fanatic trying to impose his version of God on the rest of humanity, or equally despicable, an anti-intellectual moron who's missing several of his teeth as well as major neural synapses.

And yet, there's this nagging, troubling problem that surfaced a few days ago where these same Keepers of the Truth on Anthropogenic Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change have been shown to be, well, a bunch of hypocrites and liars. Contravening data is ignored, suppressed or destroyed; supporting data is cherry-picked or manufactured out of whole cloth, and overlapping all of this is a political agenda tied to utopian social change and economic redistribution. Other than that, the evidence is pretty clear and convincing that man is the primary agent of global climate change going back hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Like the author states, "consensus science" is "shorthand for "would you shut up and stop asking these kinds of embarrassing questions because we already have the conclusions we want."  The conclusion no longer need be proven with science,  Dear Leader will save the earth with feel good politics and our money. . . . and do nothing to change the course of the planet.  What bullshit !
   

---

by: thejuri1 @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 20:51:59 PM CST

For more on Dr. Alan Carlin, who (0.00 / 0)

wrote the report cited in the diary, see this story in the NYTimes, behind the furor over a climate change skeptic. Dr. Carlin works at the National Center for Environmental Politics:

It is true that Dr. Carlin's supervisor refused to accept his comments on a proposed E.P.A. finding, since adopted, that greenhouse gases endangered health and the environment, and that he did so in a dismissive way.

But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin's highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview.

Dr. Carlin remains on the job and free to talk to the news media, and since the furor his comments on the finding have been posted on the E.P.A.'s Web site. Further, his supervisor, Al McGartland, also a career employee of the agency, received a reprimand in July for the way he had handled Dr. Carlin.

Dr. McGartland, also an economist, declined to comment on the matter. But top officials of the agency said his decision not to forward Dr. Carlin's comments to the E.P.A. office that would be writing the final report had been his own and not directed by anyone higher up in the agency.

Adora Andy, the agency's chief spokeswoman, called the accusation that Dr. Carlin had been muzzled for political reasons "ridiculous."

"There was no predetermined position on endangerment, and Dr. Carlin's work was not suppressed," Ms. Andy said in an e-mail response to questions. "This administration has always welcomed varying scientific points of view, and we received much of it over this process."

There is no doubt that the advancement of science must include legitimate hearings on dissenting views; to not do so is to no one's benefit. I have not read all of Dr. Carlin's paper (it is 98 pages long), but the points raised in the Executive Summary should be addressed, and perhaps they were. From the Times:

Agency officials and outside experts who reviewed his report as a result of the outcry over the episode have said they found it wanting in a number of ways. It included unverified information from blog posts, they found, quoted selectively from journal articles, failed to acknowledge contradictory information and may have borrowed passages verbatim from the blog of a well-known climate change doubter.

In the interview Thursday, Dr. Carlin admitted that his report had been poorly sourced and written. He blamed the tight deadline.

"There are numerous problems with it," he said. "I wouldn't dream of sending it to a journal in its current form. It is totally unacceptable for that type of thing. But it was either do it in four and a half days or don't do it. I had to take some shortcuts."

I'll note that the Times piece was published seven months after the first draft Carlin's was written; it seems that he had ample time to "polish" it and provide it to the Grey Lady.

What has always intrigued me about those that accept that global warming is happening but discount humankind's contribution to it is the implied argument that our current pollution rate is acceptable, and that encouraging or mandating switching to renewable forms of energy generation would result in an undue burden on economic development.

This view ignores some important ideas: localized pollution has long been recognized as a threat to pubic health. Ozone alerts in Maine are not some fantasy - I've ignored them and gone on long bike rides, and the aftermath left me feeling like I had smoked a pack of cigarettes (and as an ex-smoker, I'm well aware of what that feels like). People that live in Los Angeles or Houston understand what local pollution is. That these airborne contaminants go global is accepted - what is argued is that they contribute to the melting of glaciers throughout the world.

Mandating pollution controls in the U.S. and Europe does not mean that these economic zones will be at a disadvantage compared to countries that don't have them or don't enforce them. The U.S. and the EU need to use their consumer markets as a bargaining chip, much like California did when it mandated a stricter emission standard for cars than the Fed did.

In the end, two hundred years from now, when all of us are long since dead, will it matter if it is proved that the output of human beings contributed little to global warming, but that we did to airborne pollution that led to other harmful effects? Rather than see changing to less polluting methods of manufacturing and production, why not look at it as an opportunity?

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 22:26:41 PM CST

Climate Religion Continues - " The Dog Ate My Data " ? (0.00 / 0)

As investigations continue into "Climategate", more revelations are coming forward.  When scientologists were asked to review the details, we have the intellectual equivalent of "the dog ate my homework" . . . http://themoderatevoice.com/54...

. . . . Now, the same group of scientists has been forced to admit that they no longer have the raw data upon which their computer models' predictions of global warming are based. The data sets they do have were adjusted to account for other variables and homogenized, but the lack of the original raw data points means other researchers can't verify the calculations made to come to a conclusion of anthropogenic global warming.

East Anglia is saying the data was dumped in the 80's because it was taking up too much space and are busy asserting that the lack of the original data in no way invalidates the research based upon it. Unfortunately, one of the principles of the scientific method is repeatability, and without the original data to check, the calculations cannot be independently verified and East Anglia's conclusions cannot be checked - conclusions, by the way, which were instrumental in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) pronouncement of a "unanimous consensus" on man-made global warming and directly led to efforts at industry-killing carbon rationing like the cap-and-trade bill currently stalled in the Senate.

Not only are the models flawed and based on coercive consensus but now we know that the original, unscrubbed data, can just vanish into thin air.  How convenient . . .    

Gerald, this argument is not about protecting us from carcinogens, but CO2.  A naturally occurring component of the air we breath.  To protect the environment against real pollution is essential; but to mandate economic restrictions against non-pollutants is a joke.  This is essentially what you are continuing to support.  If I were you, I wouldn't use California as a bell weather for doing the right thing.    http://www.ocregister.com/opin...

Scientific, economic and political realities are reining in worldwide efforts to combat global warming. But not so in California. As others stop short of committing economic suicide, California's overaggressive government could inflict further economic harm on the state.

The California Air Resources Board last week released a draft of its Draconian, top-down manipulation of the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The agency's cap-and-trade regulations effectively would impose broad-based new taxes by making energy more costly and forcing industries to buy permission to emit greenhouse gases that bureaucrats insist dangerously warm the atmosphere.

This California style "Cap and Tax" will bring their state it's knees, yet you say the end justify the means; even when their appears to be no "Ends".  This is the same state whose budget will fall short 21 billion next year and unemployment in excess of 12%.  Would they better serve their state residents by getting more folks to work instead?

Why not focus on real issues and real pollution; not CO2.  This whole issue is a perfect example of why most American's don't trust progressives.  Lies, compounded upon lies.  When exposed as such, you should stop consider and change direction.  The problem is that there is so much political capital expended in promoting this crap, that changing direction is not an option in progressives eyes.

The earth will change and one day humans will be shaken off her like an unwanted parasite and there is nothing that we can do.  

Climate change is a religion preached by progressives with their hands in everyone elses pockets; not science at all.    

---

by: thejuri1 @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 18:39:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Acid Rain (4.00 / 1)

Did you favor or oppose the cap and trade program for acid rain, which conservatives alleged would destroy the American economy in the early 90's?  It has been a success.  Our economy was chugging along fine notwithstanding the "horrors" of cap and trade.  

---

by: dbent @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 22:23:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No . . . . (0.00 / 0)

Cap and trade is a way for the rich to make money off of their excesses.  That's why Gore is so for it.

---

by: thejuri1 @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 16:22:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]