Global Warming as Political Science is settled. It begin as Political Science and will die as Political Science. The reason? The theory is flawed and they can't put enough lipstick on that pig to sell it.
Motivated to find a rationale for redistribution of wealth, well intended socialist crossed over to the dark side and bought into the disease, "the ends justifies the means". Thinking that the greenhouse effect was unassailable, that co2 was a component of greenhouse gases and co2 was a product of prosperous nations they concluded that they could use the inconvenient truth that prosperous nations were causing global warming and were destroying the planet and it was only proper that they pay for their evil by giving their wealth to the poor nations.
Using computer models based on the theory and feeding these models with "cherry picked" data they achieved remarkable results. Enough to convince naive liberal politicians that the science was solid, primarily because this is what they wanted to believe anyway.
Skeptics were not so easily convinced. They wanted to see the data. They wanted to analyze the models and see if they could reproduce the same results. Also known as good science. The chinks in the armor started to appear. The skeptics wanted to know why certain data was used and other data wasn't. They questioned the data collection. They were concerned that the models were predicting what the global warming scientist were wanting rather then letting the models speak for themselves.
Then the early results of their models started to deteriorate as they failed to explain more recent temperature measurements. It seemed that the global temperatures might be decreasing. They started fudging the data and making excuses. If the temperatures increased, it was due to global warming. If the temperatures decreased, it was called an anomaly. This is when the commissioned global scientists transformed their climate science into political science.
The ordained global scientist, now having too much skin in the game, begin to withhold data from the rest of the scientific community except those who agreed with their conclusions. They openly criticized other scientist that were skeptical of their results. They discouraged peer review of these dissenting voices. Their house of cards collapsed in Dec, 2009 when emails were revealed disclosing the inconvenient truth.
So where is the Achilles heel in their case? I believe it's with the assumption that co2 causes the global temperature to rise. This is at the core of their theory. Without it, their theory falls apart. Without it, there is no man made global warming. No man made global warming, no Kyoto Protocal, no redistribution of wealth, no being in charge of the global future. A disaster for so many that were so wrong about so much.
I will examing why co2 does not cause global temperature in another blog. To be sure, it's a complex subject but like global warming we will find that it's far from being a "settled science" as is the church of political science (or should I say, Political Correct Science") says it is.
