Rivaling Lysenkoism Now
The Alarmist "Climate Science" is Rivaling Lysenko-ism Now for its longevity.
You get what you pay for. We pay people to raise a ruckus about Global Warming, so that is what they do. I am certain the alarm will die down very quickly once we stop paying them.
It is true that we have adverse impacts on the environment. That does not mean that any remedy is appropriate. It does not mean that we should be funding pseudo science and paying Shaman.
If you really give a rat's pants about the environment you should be throwing your weight behind the pursuit of plentiful energy. With enough energy we can do almost anything we wish. That includes, if we are stupid enough to pursue it, messing with the weather.
The misappropriation of resources for the sterile pursuit of 'Climate Science' is not free. It comes at a cost that diminishes us. It ultimately condemns people in parts of the world to poverty and death.
Much of our activity is relatively destructive. That will not be cured by impairing one of the few positive side-effects of our activity (production of plant nourishing CO2).
Rather than waste resources on a fake problem introduced by charlatans and fools we should be directing our attention to very real problems about which we can do something. There is no shortage of them.
I have no doubt that many of the people behind this movement are sincere. They are either deluding themselves because they are at the trough or they are logically challenged. We can fix the problem with the trough and profit in the bargain. The logic thing appears to be a huge problem in that camp. Peeling back the arguments in 'Climate Science Alarm' is a lesson in logical fallacies. It is hard to be a real leader in science if you have difficulty with logic. If they cannot be educated in Logic, we should probably move them to some place they can do less harm.
Below is a real Scientist speaking about real Science. Climate Science is the antithesis of that.
"There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in "cargo cult science." It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition."
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
Richard Feynman "Cargo Cult Science", adapted from a commencement address given at Caltech (1974)