Settled science is neither settled nor science

"When a scientist tells you that 'the science is settled' in regard to any subject, he's ceased to be a scientist, and he's become an evangelist for one cult or another. The entire history of science is that nothing in science is ever settled. New discoveries are continuously made, and they upend old certainties."

Dean Koontz, Breathless, pg. 300

Comment posted on Sci Am website in reply to "350 ppm" initiative article by "greatmag"

The relationship of atmospheric carbon and global warming is unproven. Iceland and Greenland supported much more agriculture one thousand years ago than it does now. They were much warmer than they are now. Yet there was no industry to speak of. England was famous for better wines than France now grows at around the same time. Going back even further the Florida keys were underwater reefs until the ocean levels fell. These climate changes are the natural outgrowth of the variable heat engine in our sky. The sun. The CO2 levels have been rising every year since 2000 yet we can observe the planet's temperature is cooling every year. Our planet naturally goes through cycles of warming and cooling. The people that want you to adopt a more primitive lifestyle to "save" the planet are nothing more than tyrants. Their leaders (Gore, Kennedy, Hansen) are in it for 2 things. Money and power. Do you see them leading the lifestyle they want you to live? Since the renaissance we have been fighting a war against intellectual and physical tyranny. Are you willing to let these frauds reduce you to serfdom and slavery?

Comments from Slashdot.org story on Global Warming trial

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1347733&cid=29200735

Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" (really Big Fat Lie, which makes him Big Fat Liar) not only was less scientifically accurate than the sci-fi movie "The Day After Tomorrow", but is actually banned from being shown to schoolkids in Britain because it is so inaccurate.

Much of "climate science" is turning out the same way. NASA's major climate "researcher" James Hansen has been repeatedly caught doctoring his data when it didn't support his predetermined conclusions. Other NASA groups have been caught screwing up, announcing "catastrophic" figures, and then silently releasing "corrections" later that disprove the global-warming hysteric crowd.

The end result is, the "climate change" folks have lied, repeatedly. They are the boy who cried wolf. And we are getting pretty damn tired of this constant "OMG we have to save the planet" drumbeat. I'll make meaningful conservation efforts and am all for clean air and efficient technology as their own reward, but don't fucking lie to me or try to scare me into accepting major taxation and other nonsensical changes.

Global Warming to Be Put on Trial?

From the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-trial25-2009aug25,0,901567.story

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.

Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.

"It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."

The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.

The EPA is having none of it, calling a hearing a "waste of time" and saying that a threatened lawsuit by the chamber would be "frivolous."

EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency based its proposed finding that global warming is a danger to public health "on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare."

Expanding the size of government

Cap and trade will allow large amounts of revenue to accrue to government in such a way that average citizens will not fully understand; they will tend to blame "greedy businessmen" and "evil corporations" for the higher prices. While increasing government revenues, it will allow politicians to buy votes by granting more and more tax credits to workers, which will benefit lower income workers proportionately more, while increasing the cost of government to the middle class and the wealthy -- and particularly for retirees -- all in a highly complex manner that will make it difficult to figure out how all this is being done.

The combination of deception, dishonesty, and the increase in taxes, makes cap and trade a virtually ideal policy from the point of view of liberal politicians -- particularly "blue state" politicians -- interested in expanding the size, scope, and power of government.

Michael W. Leach
Virginia Beach, Va.

Letter to the Editor, Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2009

Green is the new Red

"Global warming is quickly becoming the one-stop shop for almost every variety of social engineer and closet authoritarian who hankers to boss the rest of us around. Those who want to dictate where Americans live, including the size of their houses and lots, what they drive or whether they drive, and even what they eat, need only link their goal to the campaign against global warming to infuse it with moral force. You don't have to be a global warming skeptic (I'm certainly not) to be disturbed by this trend." -Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News, October 16, 2007