"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that's a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult. ... All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide." ...
Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable "religious cult," noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.
He noted in an interview that in the past decade, despite what he called "alarmist" claims, there has not only not been warming, there has in fact been global cooling. He added that climate change scientists are unable to use models to either predict the future or accurately model past events.
"There was a baseball sage who said prediction is hard, especially of the future, but the implication was that you could look at the past and at least second-guess the past," Happer explained. "They can't even do that." ...
"[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It's going to give science a really bad name in the future," he said. "I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this."
Someday, books will be written about how a cabal of politically motivated and economically self-interested politicians and scientists nearly bamboozled the public into dismantling the economies of the developed world."
Maybe books will be written, but I doubt you'll see them on the NYT bestseller list no matter what (hey - you don't see the Bible on that list, now do you? The most distributed book in history to this day). In any case, about those computer 'models:' THEY ARE NOT MODELS! They cannot predict the future nor reconstruct the past. They are scenarios. No different than a bunch of guys hanging around the water cooler coming up with "what if" scenarios. The MSM doesn't know the difference.
In any case, modeling the Earth surface to upper hemisphere is such a complex system that no one knows exactly what variables to put in should anyone come up with an actual 'model.' It's not the lack of computing power, it's a lack of scientific knowledge to feed into the computers. Plus, chaos theory will always be against long term predictions of such complex systems. The more variables there are, the more any possible model will suffer predicting farther into the future. So forget these "this is what will happen in 50 years" scenarios being trotted out there by a biased media.
Isn't it funny that the solution to global warming, poverty, etc. seems to always be the same thing: socialism/communism (I put them together because the end result is the same (the total and systematic destruction of ALL LIFE on Arrakis). the only difference is how each is installed. The latter by physical power of the state, the former by the vote of the people).
