The late Michael Crichton, in his far seeing Appendix to his fictional novel (with real charts and a bibliography) "State of Fear", explained the apparent chorus of "scientific" voices in favor of the "theory" (more a vague hypothesis) of "global warmng". Crichton's assertion was that scientists know where their bread is buttered, and that the way to success in today's world is to support man-made "global warming". That is how you get the government grants and support so crucial to modern universities and taxpayers supported "science". More importantly, the guaranteed path to professional suicide is to question "global warming" orthodoxy. It is well known that the Church forced Gallileo to back off of the idea that the arth moves around the sun (instead of the heavens revolving around the Earth). Gallileo is said to have muttered under his breath: "But it still moves." The feeling of Crichton and myself is that there are a lot of scientists that privately mutter: "But the climate always changes, even without man."
You doubt me or Crichton? Never do that. Look again at the "winners" in that pork "stimulus" bill proposed by the Democrats. Even though "climate modelers" do not noticeably have an employment problem, and even though there are not even as many of them as those people employed by my brother's sstruggling trucking company (not being bailed out by Congress, as is true of all non-favored small businesses), Democrats are proposing to give tens of millions of dollars--perhaps hundreds of millions--to "climate modlers" and "global warmng" scientists. Of course, the total amount of money earmarked for "climate change" projects is in the tens of billions, and probably hundreds of billions, of dollars.
If lyou are a "computer modlerer", or other "scientist, receiving money from a government dominated by Democrats for whom "global warming" is a religion, do you or do you not know what conclusions you are supposed to reach (whether your datat support those conclusions or not)? Of course you know. The way "global warmng", and atmospheric "science", is done now promotes subjective conclusons.
That is because of the dominance of "computer models". Did you know that the results of a "computer model" are NOT a "scientific theory". Well, it is absolutely true. Nor are the results of a computer model EVIDENCE of a "scientific" theory. That is a perversion of the purpose of a computer model. The scientific "theory" is the theory programmed into the computer creating the computer model. You can pre-determine the results of the computer model by the "theory" and datal lyou program into the computer ("garbage in, garbage out").
What is the real purpose of a computer model? It is to TEXT a scientific theory by PREDICTING the future. What is the most distinctive characeristic of the predictions of "global warming" modells? Right. They mave mainly proved to be WRONG. What has been the reaction to this by "global warmng" "scientists"? Right again. The reacton has been to EXPLAIN why the actual data slupports the vague "theory" of man-made "global warming" (I refuse to say "climate change", because there is NO theory of "climate change" not based on global warming and warming temperattures). That is not the skeptical way in which "sicince" (a pocess and not a set of revealed truths) is supposed to work. Yes, you develop new theories, and revised theories, when predictioins fial. But you do not constantly say that the theory that produced the bad predictions was right, as long as you look at it the right way.
Nope. "Glboal warming" and "climate change" are not "science". They are a political religion, and Obama and the Democrats propose to bnarupt us pursuing this false God of "green".