[ RadSafe ] Climate Change a fraud?

[Clayton J Bradt]

I have no doubt that future historians of science will refer to the Global
Warming Movement as a classic case of pathological science, much like the
Lysenko catastrophe in Soviet biological sciences.  In both cases a
scientific theory was raised to the level of an official dogma and an
orthodoxy enforced by the institutions of government. Fortunately, the
mechanisms for enforcing Global Warming orthodoxy are nowhere near as
efficient as were those available to the Soviet state.  Heterodox climate
science is still allowed to be done, it's just not likely to be supported
by government funding.

That the Global Warming Movement is pathological is beyond dispute:

1)	The authority of consensus is anathema to the scientific method. No
scientist would even appeal to it for support.  Yet Global Warmers are
constantly yammering about the consensus of scientists supporting
anthropogenic warming.  When the Nazi's published the book "100 Scientists
Against Einstein" (I may have the title wrong), Einstein is reported to
have said "One would have been enough."
2)	Science is never "settled".  Einstein's theory of Relativity is one
of the most thoroughly tested of any in physics.  It's assumed correctness
is one of the basic tenets of all physics research done today.  There is no
theory more firmly established in all of science.  Yet, there are still
papers being published in the peer reviewed journals purporting to
demonstrate that some information (laser pulses) can be transmitted faster
than the speed of light - a direct challenge to Relativity's fundamental
postulate.  If Relativity is still not "settled" in its basic assumptions
after more than a century then Global Warming theory surely isn't.  All
scientific knowledge is tentative - accepted provisionally until overthrown
by new evidence.  No scientist could ever say that the science of Global
Warming is settled.
3)	Science is DE-scriptive not PRE-scriptive.  At best, science can say
how things are - never how they should be.   As soon as the word "should"
enters any discussion, we have passed from the realm of science into that
of moral philosophy.  What should be done about Global Warming, even if it
exists, is not a scientific question and scientists have no business
involving themselves in it, at least not as scientists.  As moral
philosophers, yes. As politicians, sure. But anyone can do philosophy or
politics, and anyone's opinion in these areas are as credible and carries
as much weight as anyone else's.  Scientists who enter policy debates can
claim no special status for their opinions as opposed to those of say Joe
the Plumber, or Sarah Palin.  Contrary to this, Global Warmers like Hanson
and Mann and the IPCC generally, have conducted a media campaign to promote
their policy preferences, using their "expertise" as a bludgeon against
opponents.  That isn't science, its politics.

I could go on but I think the point is made.  The real tragedy of the
Global Warming Movement is that it discredits the good science that's being
done on climate change.  Anthropogenic CO2 as a cause of recent climate
warming is a plausible theory, and deserves to be studied.  But as any
other scientific theory it needs to be approached with the healthy
scepticism of a scientist, not as a true believer.


Clayton J. Bradt
dutchbradt at hughes.net
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.