Is it Science?

The article "Climate Scientist to Fight Back at Skeptics," Washington Times March 5, 2010, by Stephen Dinan, describes a forthcoming campaign to attack the credibility of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics. According to this article one promoter said that the campaign needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach. The article also says that "Climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of 'being treated like political pawns' and need to fight back. …" Their strategy includes the formation of a NPO (non-profit organization) to use donations to run adds to criticize critics.

AGW is the theory that man is causing global warming. Socialist leaning politicians are using this theory as a tool to try to control how, and where people live, and what activities they may choose to participate. Politicians are trying to use AGW as a means to control people. In the past 6 months the data used to promote AGW was shown to be manipulated, changed, and fabricated to promote AGW theory, not based on actual science. AGW proponents across the world have been exposed to lie about their data, and hide or destroy (lose) original data so that their conclusions cannot be evaluated by other scientists. AGW proponents have been show to actively attack and suppress peer review, and scientific study that doesn’t promote their preconceived ideas about AGW (go Google “climate gate” for yourself).

Rather than fight skeptics of AGW with solid science, using the scientific method and sharing both raw data and methodologies with peers, the March 5th Washington Times article, reflects typical socialist methodology of attacking the critics not the message. This is a common logical fallacy called an ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), which is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. Proponents of AGW, are not offering the data, methodologies, and models, as proof of AGW, they are attacking people who use solid scientific evidence to expose the non-scientific nature of AGW.

E-mails obtained by the Washington Times quote Paul Ehrlich, Stanford professor and environmentalist, saying, "Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules." AGW skeptics want to use the rules of the scientific method, not politics. AGW skeptics want to use the scientific method, actually analyze raw data, review methodologies, and use solid science to confirm or refute the science. AGW proponents want to “hide the decline”, use ad hominem attacks, collude to suppress any data they don’t like, and cut the funding and ability to do research to those who don’t agree with AGW theory.

AGW skeptics say the science is solid and that the theory of anthropogenic global warming doesn’t hold up to critical analysis; they have exposed the poor scientific methods and models used by politicians and AGW proponents. The science is not only not settled, but more and more evidence shows that in spite of an increase man made global warming gasses since 1995, the earth has cooled.

Questions about global warming we need to ask:

Why have proponents of AGW suppressed scientists and studies that don’t promote AGW?

Who benefits from the fear AGW generates?

Who funds pro-AGW studies, why, and do they benefit from certain results?

Why won’t AGW proponents release their raw data and methodologies to others? (a basic part of the scientific method)

Why are proponents of AGW actively working to attack critics instead of using the scientific method to prove their case?