The Politics of Science

Ever since the uncovering of emails two weeks ago indicting the global warmers for misconstruing data and thereby perpetrating perhaps the greatest scientific fraud of all time, the few conservative media outlets, most notably Fox News, have been on a fast-break to make up for years of being put down as being climate-challenged.

Every few hours Fox runs the story again and features another guest-expert who had previously been nothing but a skeptic and now looks like a hero. This is a welcome change in the debate, and now a majority of Americans fall into the skeptics camp, and the warmers are a dwindling if feisty minority.

On the other side, MSNBC has all but ignored the story, but finally this morning they found someone who would take the flag off a fallen comrade whose corpse, like the earth, is cooling, and wave it with the same bravura as if the whole email incident never happened. Indeed, the liberal media has focused on who hacked the emails, as if that was the crime, in a sad attempt to hide the elephant in the room with a washcloth.

The guest on Scarborough this morning eviscerated the Wall Street Journal for linking science to cash, which is a valid point, but he went to the extreme claiming WSJ was only fixated on the money angle, and seemed to be indicting science as a whole, in which case, "This country is doomed." As if an indictment of science could do worse than we're doing for ourselves already.

The obnoxiously biased, liberal pro-warmer was trying to put the skeptics back on the defensive, but what he doesn't realize is that we're really not skeptics anymore. Anyone who is still clinging to the 'earth is warming because of man' line is now the belligerent, or as Bara Bama put it, is like someone clinging to God and guns.

Science is not the problem. Science is a process, and is untainted. It is a pure quest for fact that begins with a theory - The earth's climate is heating up and man's emission of CO2 is to blame - and ends when the facts fail to prove the theory. Science does not allow for the Theory to remain even after the facts have proven otherwise. This problem is with the scientists.

For a long time scientists have been held up because they are just smarter than the rest of us, or so we are led to believe. The truth is that on the whole, the scientific community is only marginally more intelligent than the rest of society and no more capable or driven. Most theoretical climatologists work on the government dime - this is not something WSJ invented, it is fact! As such, these men and women are funded to research projects that titillate politicians, and for the last 10 years that has meant global warming. The scientists, whose livelihood requires continued funding from the same government sources, cannot quickly dispel the myth of warming just because the data doesn't work for them, so they fudge a few things and voila! The planet is warming (even though it's actually cooling). To disguise the obvious discrepancy, the warmer community changed tactics, going for "Climate Change", instead of just warming, thus justifying the fact that they really have no idea what the planet is doing now that all their fancy computer models are broken.

Is it so unlikely to say scientists can be biased or predisposed to support a political ideology over the scientific process? Consider that many of these scientists were environmentally-minded from a very young age, and chose to pursue earth sciences because of their formative experiences. To such a person, Earth is a god and environmentalism the true religion. Liberals blast conservative Christians all the time for our faith and our beliefs, and yet are incredulous when we question theirs. Yes, some people still believe the Earth is only 8,000 years old because the Bible says it's so, but most of us believe in the facts produced by science. Too bad the environmentalists still believe their religion over their science, but the tide has finally turned, and not because the icebergs are melting.

In desperation, the guest on MSNBC this morning appealed to common sense. How can one look at the smog in cities like Los Angeles or Beijing and not think that's harming the environment. This tactic is the warmer's last hope, as even now that the lies have become public, that in fact, the link between man's CO2 emissions and global temperatures is unknown or at worst insignificant, the warmers make their stand and fly in the face of the science they themselves created. I'll be honest, I like fresh air and clean water, but now I also want my due, and I want those nasty warmer bitches like Al Gore to be exposed as the hypocrites they are. What may have started innocently enough as a chance to improve our environment has turned into something very sinister, and following the money is exactly the right thing to do. Al Gore stands to make tens of millions of dollars or more selling worthless carbon offsets if Cap & Trade were to ever materialize, and the rest of us would suffer for it and almost no one would be any better off.

This debate is important for two very big reasons. One, we can bring visibility to the failures of scientists - not science - and expose the politicization of the scientific process. This will lead to better science in the long run. Two, we can expose Gore and his lackeys in the scientific community for the frauds they've always been. This will help restore common sense and intellectual honesty to the nations policy debate, which will align with more conservative principles. Both of these things are good for America and the world.

I read a headline this morning where two of the Oscar committee members demanded Al Gore give his trophy back. That's funny, but I say he keeps it - his performance in An Inconvenient Truth was some fine acting to have fooled so many people!