Believe in Global Warming, or Get Out the Want Ads

I wish somebody would tell us what's really going on with global warming, don't you?

A few years ago, I just assumed global warming was BS because it was a pet cause of famous ignoramuses known for believing and promoting BS. Then George Bush said he thought global warming was probably real, and I figured there was probably something to it, because it was against his interest and America's interest to say that. Now I'm back on the "Global Warming is BS" side simply because the people promoting the idea have proven they don't care about the truth. The most ridiculous example I've seen is the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen, saying that the American Meteorological Society should withdraw its endorsement of any scientist who doubts that man-caused global warming exists.

The pro-warming extremists claim NOAA is "monitoring" government scientists who speak to the media, implying that the censorship and intimidation is coming from both sides. But it looks like they're lying. NOAA says all it requires is that its people notify the brass when they talk to the press. You can't compare that with revoking people's professional accreditation and calling them Holocaust deniers. Every company known to man requires employees to contact the management before talking to the press. The insinuation that NOAA's very ordinary policy is necessarily sinister is pretty hard to swallow.

In the Soviet Union, conservatories used to avoid the subject of Bach. Can you imagine that? How can you teach pianists without including Bach? But that was the policy. Why? Because Bach was a Christian, and he wrote religious music. That was enough to get his pieces banned. Even the ones with no religious content.

The Soviets squelched all sorts of scientific theories and discoveries, too, because they conflicted with some nutty leftist notion or other.

It looks like the Soviet approach to science is taking over the US now. Climate scientists are going to have to choose sides in scientific debates based not on empirical evidence subjected to the scientific method, but on whether they want to succeed in their careers. Want a life? Say global warming is real. Want to end up working as a substitute science teacher? Say what you really think.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain the evidence to us. I mean someone other than Al Gore, who has no scientific training and failed out of graduate school twice. So far, it sounds like the evidence is, "There has been a tiny increase in the world's average temperature lately, and there has also been a microscopic increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air." If that's the argument, it won't wash. Everyone knows the average temperature swings dramatically whether man does anything or not. We ought to have better proof than that before agreeing to cripple our industries and increase poverty and hunger.

It isn't enough to prove the temperature is changing. We have to know why. If the evidence was strong enough to justify hamstringing our life-giving, wealth-increasing, welfare-improving industries, I very much doubt that so many reputable climate scientists would be saying man-caused global warming hasn't been proven to exist. The last things we need right now are propaganda ministers like Heidi Cullen, filtering the knowledge that gets to the public just like Dan Rather used to do.

If Heidi Cullen were a real scientist, she would welcome serious discussion and investigation from all sources, because those things are what will establish the truth most quickly. If her science is good, theorizing and experimentation by scientists with competitive hypotheses will prove their theories are wrong and hers are right. Her intimidation tactics, on the other hand, only serve to destroy her credibility. After her crazy announcement about discrediting other scientists, I wouldn't believe her if she said the sky was blue. The Weather Channel ought to fire her and issue an apology for hiring her in the first place.