Global Warming: Take it for what it is – a theory based on consensus


Recently there was a scandal involving “Global Warming” (again) – this time a progressive scientist used “dirty tricks” to obtain internal documents from Heartland Institute, a prominent thinking tank, and published it. The documents contained items exposing a plant to to create a curriculum from K-12 that would show that “global warming” is nothing but a consensus. And why not? The “sky-is-falling” global warmists, who were exposed with their bad information and a “scientific” theory that was based on consensus – not fact. But, as Neal McCluskey wrote:

the scandal reveals that our children’s minds may be the newest battleground in the unending global warming war. The scandal revolves around the unauthorized publication of internal documents from the Heartland Institute, an organization in the forefront of global-warming skepticism. Among the items exposed was a plan to create a K-12 curriculum casting doubt on the “consensus” that global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous. Indeed, the most damning document – which Heartland maintains is fake while confirming the authenticity of the others – says the lessons are aimed at “dissuading teachers from teaching science.” The scandal doesn’t end with publication of the documents, or the possibility that one is a forged fraud, however. It is how Peter Gleick – hydro-climatologist, president of the Pacific Institute, and admitted deceiver – obtained some of them: by assuming the identity of a Heartland board member. … A couple of years ago a similar act of legerdemain – publication of a purloined trove of emails from climate-change believers – produced considerable evidence that the discussants had tried to strong-arm scientific journals into blackballing anyone who cast doubts on their views. “Climategate” was like getting a rancid pizza from a guy with the flu – both the delivery method, and what was delivered, made you sick. All this illustrates why everyone – no matter where they fall on climate change – should be greatly concerned about mixing global warming with public schools. … The main purpose of science is to tackle matters we do not fully understand. To teach that there is only one right view on such matters, then, is inimical to this purpose. It is also extremely dangerous, taking everyone down darkened paths, eliminating alternate routes, and leaving no options for escape if what’s “right” turns out to be wrong. Finally, we see in these scandals that scientists will sometimes stoop to trickery and bullying rather than rely on the power of their evidence. … In the case of education, that means moving away from a system of schooling controlled by government, and towards parental choice and educator freedom. It means enabling all to access a curriculum that’s coherent because it’s not a compromise. It means making ideas compete, and giving no one special access to children’s minds. People on all sides of the global-warming debate will take issue with this, insisting that it would be wrong not to make all children learn their, often biased, “truth.” But climate change isn’t scientifically settled, and even if it were, most public schools still wouldn’t touch it. Only school choice overcomes these myriad, treacherous problems.
A bit over a decade ago, scientists were warning everyone that an Ice Age was coming – also caused by the same factors now called “Greenhouse gases”, specifically CO2.
I would rather have a warming than a cooling — imagine a world where the only place food can grow are greenhouses. 
On the other hand — there isn’t a damn thing anyone could do about it even if such an effect was taking place. Changes in climate that have been drastic has occurred all through Earth’s history — long before humans existed and throughout human history. 
As far as Gleick – he should be on more than “leave of absence” – he should be fired and prosecuted.
Progressives: If they can’t back up what they are saying or their ideology with facts, they will make them up. Global warming issues needs to be put into the background, out of our school curriculum, and into the garbage heap where it belongs. We need scientists that are more concerned with facts and legitimate research rather than wasting everyone’s time with their ego-inflated ways of making themselves famous. It is wrong to ostracize anyone who disagrees with another scientist; or even a group of scientists – especially when that person has legitimate sources and findings to back it up.
Enuff said. We have more serious issues to address than this claptrap.
Advertisements