Quote:
|
it has never been a matter of science.
|
That is very true. But the problem is that global warming (or lack thereof) is a scientific issue. The “proof” for global warming is being touted as scientifically proven fact when it is not.
I don't think we should knowingly do things that have strongly negative environmental impact.
Similarly, I do not think junk science disinformation should be allowed to set public policies, especially when the result is to stifle development and injure the economy. For example, environmental concerns are the main reason the U.S. can’t produce enough domestic oil and this in turn results on dependance upon foreign oil. Dependance on foreign oil (from the middle east) helps fund the jihad terrorism against us.
In 2005, fifteen hurricanes formed and a number of them made landfall, some causing horrendous damage. We listened to the global warming activists tell us in 2005 that more of the same was to come with severe hurricanes becoming more frequent and more powerful.
The real world experience did not verify the "doom-and-gloom" preaching. The 2006 hurricane season yielded only six hurricanes, NONE of which made landfall in the U.S..
Another indicator global warming activists tout is diminishing volume of polar ice. Some of the information in this area is contradictory. There is apparently scientific evidence that the antarctic ice is actually growing, not diminishing.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp
Or, how about The Weather Channel (TWC) "climate expert" Dr. Heidi Cullen, who wants the American Meteorological Society to de-certify any broadcast meteorologist who fails to beat the "catastrophic global warming is caused by human activity" drum.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a-88824bb8e528
Junk science is not real science. Scepticism and making a scientific theory stand up to it is a normal, healthy and necessary part of the scientific process. It is supposed to prevent junk science from being adopted as scientifically supported fact.
The lack of tolerance for alternate viewpoints that is being expressed could probably be described as scientific evidence that they are not being scientific.
As such, the theory itself comes under serious question as to its validity.