Three More ...

The global climate alarmists are like vampires, always re-awakening when others are asleep, following an alternative reality that has little to do with the real world, living as parasites on the community. Their ideology, seductive and prone to leave the affected impervious to argument and swooning at the voice of their master(s), is fundamentally suspect: it is based on ignorance and keeping people in the dark about reality, rather than serious scientific examination.

The first of the three links here is to Roger Pielke, Jr., a climatologist who has seen the meaning of the work he has done turned completely around in an attempt to prove a point that he actually disproves, in such a way that the only real explanation is apparently outright misrepresentation and deliberate fraud, but in a government document that the watermelon people are going to be using in the years to come to brow-beat their opponents.

The second: fundamental forecasting errors by MIT scientists that can really only be explained by ideological blindness and a collapse of the scientific method: the parading of opinion as scientific fact.

The third: that the models used by global warming proponents continue to be fundamentally flawed and incapable of standing up to rigorous testing, resulting in widely variant results for something that should, for all purposes, be readily estimable within a fairly small bandwidth if their models were actually useful.


I will reiterate the question raised by Doug Hoffman and Professor Pielke: how many years of wrong results are necessary before we reject the IPCC reports and the models they are based on?



The answer, of course, is that the "truth" of global warming is chiliastic and does not entertain empirical verification: it is true because of first principles, not because the data tell us so.