reply to post by Sestias
Citing the New York Times as an objective source on tea party advocates or climate change is your first mistake.
Trusting government and foundation funded theories is your second. AGW advocates are just as dependent on money to feed their programs, except it
mostly comes from taxpayers instead of corporate profits,
So, the Times story moves from "global warming" to "climate change" to "anthropogenic global warming" whenever the reporter feels the need to
denigrate opposition or support allies. The fact is that Earth's climate is cyclical, with periods of dramatic heating and cooling long before man
ever appeared or industry developed.
Then, it moves to "preaching" and "faith" and "denial" as biased interpretations overtake actual reporting.
AGW advocates act more on faith than science, themselves. It has become a religion, despite its "sacraments" having been proven to be illusory, at
best, and economically devastating at worst.
The UK carbon trading scheme is an utter failure. The EU's, even worse. The Kyoto Protocol was worst of all. The OMB reports that cap and trade will
add extreme costs to life as we know it; even the president admits this is so. All without measurable benefit.
Recently, even the most ardent "priests" of the movement, including the inscrutable Phil Jones of the CRU, admitted that the "science" is NOT
The only "salvation" AGW advocates ever offer is dramatic redistribution of income, economic punishment as "penance," and the de-industrialization
of developed nations.
The models have never come even close to being able to predict anything: all their theories are based upon looking backward at ancient tree rings,
which are of questionable value, and entirely subjective "analysis."
You can belittle conservative politicians who mix politics with religion, but that does not make the "science" any better. They know that throwing
money at a problem is never the solution; and the most ardent supporters (Al Gore, James Cameron come to mind) refuse to make any sacrifices
themselves. Tea Party supporters and their candidates also know that wasteful spending will not change the climate.
Man will be long gone from the planet before we would see any benefit from the proposals on the table for climate remediation. Carbon dioxide is far
from the most dangerous of the GHGs; water vapor and methane have far more serious consequences. AGW advocates cannot even agree about the effect of
clouds on the climate.
As for fossil fuel industry funding, we never hear anyone take into account the BILLIONS already spent in futile attempts to measure, predict and
"cure" the climate. There is much more money available to AGW advocates, most of it confiscated in taxes, than there will ever be for
If you learned ANYTHING in school about science, it is that many things once accepted as settled were far from it; and were, often, completely wrong.
True science INVITES skepticism, criticism and re-examination of "settled" theories.
The only true sign of ignorance is the hubris that we already know all there is to know. We should spend wisely to learn more, but there is no
"settled science" that justifies panic or waste.