The once-respected science journal Nature recently published a whining editorial to the effect that climate scientists are not criminals, really; that attacks on them by increasingly-skeptical news media are soooo unfair; and that the fundamental science showing that the planet is doomed unless the economies of the West are shut down at once is unchallengeable.
No doubt most climate scientists are not criminals. However, some are. Many of the two dozen Climategate emailers, who have for years driven the IPCC process, tampered with peer review in the learned journals, and fabricated, altered, concealed, or destroyed scientific data are criminals. Whether they or Nature like it or not, they will eventually stand trial, and deservedly so.
After all, the biofuel scam that is one of many disfiguring spin-offs from the “global warming” scare — driven by the poisonous clique of mad scientists whom Nature so uncritically defends — has taken millions of acres of farmland away from growing food for people who need it and towards growing biofuels for clunkers that don’t. Result: a doubling of world food prices, mass starvation, and death, leading to food riots in a dozen major regions of the globe.
You won’t have seen much about these riots in the Western news media: they are too busy reporting on every putative icicle putatively dribbling in putatively melting Greenland.
[More]
See Also:
Hmmmmm …… just a general comment about the whole issue, here are the questions that should be answered:
A) Is there Global warming, YES or NO ?
B) If there is Climate change, more than the fact that climate has never been static over aeons, YES or NO ?
C) If yes to the above A or B, are we accelerating the process because of human activity, YES or NO ?
D) If yes to C, are we sure about the cause i.e. CO2 being an important factor or the most important factor to focus on, YES or NO ?
E) If yes to D, are the measures proposed like carbon trading going to reduce the level of carbon in the atmosphere YES or NO ?
F) If no to E, what should we be doing to actually have an effect on CO2 levels, not a yes or no question.
G) If D is no, then CO2 is not the main or only cause of ” Global Warming/Climate Change, then more research is needed to find the real cause or causes.
H) if the cause is out of our control being neither CO2 or anything else we can change or is caused by natural cycles then the question(s) become how best to adapt to changes i.e. survive !
I ) If Global warming is real are the disastrous effects predicted accurate or alarmist, YES or NO ?
J) Is Global Warming much less of a catastrophe than a possible Ice Age it might have more up side than the warmists are predicting, YES or NO ?
K) Back to A and the whole thing is a fraud or at the very least the science is just too uncertain at this time to have any predictive value on which to base the destruction of our economies, YES or NO ?
Finally I’m sure that a lot of other questions could be asked and the above decision tree is just suggestion about all the answers that we don’t have at the moment to make intelligent and non-emotional decisions.