Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Let's Call it What it IS...

...an establishment of religion.

The soon to be emperor resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in New Rome Washington DC has just appointed as Pontiff Science Advisor John Holdren, a member of the College of Cardinals of the Warmista sect of the Green Religion Harvard faculty of environmental policy. By making this appointment according to the New York Times, the Marxist Messiah "...Pledges Allegiance to Science". This humble writer begs to differ.

The warmista sect bases its dogmas exclusively on the projections generated by computer models and asserts that this is "science". Computer modeling is by no means science. The generation of projections by computer modeling while useful for limited applications does not qualify as science:

A simple single word definition of science is the ability to predict. It is not used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), yet they present their work as scientific predictions. Media and the public generally believe the IPCC is making predictions and that is clearly the assumption for government policies. Sadly, members of the IPCC do nothing to dissuade the public from that view. All previous “projections” were wrong. The most recent example is the period from 2000 to 2008. IPCC predicted warming but temperatures went down while CO2 increased. Finally, the IPCC AR4 itself explains why IPCC model projections fail.

“Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.” (AR4, Chapter 8. p.600)

It is hard to imagine a better example of Beadle’s axiom paraphrased as follows, “Half the work done by the IPCC is to make things appear what they are not.”

The warmistas dismiss the global cooling that has been objectively measured during the last decade as a "mere interruption due to la niña of the long term warming trend caused by human CO2 emissions". If this is the case, why have not the computer models predicted it since they are "reliable enough" to provide the basis for extreme government regulatory actions? Another glaring flaw common to virtually all of the computer models relied upon by the warmistas is the total absence of any factoring in of solar output variations as they have impacted previous changes in climate.

For these reasons as well as others I would assert that congressional confirmation of Professor Holdren's appointment as "Science Advisor" is a violation of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment to Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". Religion is defined as: "3. A set of [unprovable] beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader [i.e. Al Gore]" who was consulted prior to the Holdren appointment.


Rose said...

I say, Amen! to that :)

Here's another cheery one for ya...
Scientists warn Christmas lights harm the planet

Check out the earth at night photo. Isn't that all those blue states lit up like Christmas trees?

Pogo said...

Anyone interested in the most damaging critique of the "science" supporting the warmista agenda should read this as well as this.

Rose said...

Mankind does better in periods of warming. There are advances in science and art - people are healthier, food is more abundant.

It's such a simple concept. What is wrong with people? Why so willing to be fleeced, scared, made to feel guilty, to pay up?

Is it because we have abandoned traditional religion? It would seem so.

I agree with you. Let's call it what it is.