Climate? How Things Have Changed… Part III

(It’s been a long time, but this is the third and final part of this series. You can also read Part I and Part II.)

We’ve already talked about the falsehood of climate change, and that the only reason to hang on to such an unsupported theory is faith/religion.

Where is the support for climate change in it’s time of need? Well, there was Britain’s Hadley CRU (Climate Research Unit), but emails found showed falsifying of evidence (discussed in part I). What about NASA? Well, in November (of 2009) the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) filed suit against NASA for violating the Freedom of Information act because of withheld information. On top of that, NASA has been caught in fraud recently, the same fraud that has CRU in trouble.

Jay Nordlinger in National Review (February 8, 2010 issue) makes it clear, “Science is no respecter of persons. Whether you are a High Priest in the Church of Climatology or a head-scratching Canuck, the question is, Can you make it add up?” Unfortunately, climate change cannot. Some of its biggest advocates either profit, or have been caught in fraud.

The New York Times reported this month that the teaching of Climate change in schools is growing, and that President Obama and his departments are pushing for more schools to teach the theory.

But wait, please allow me to quote the very first amendment of our Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. But as it is already established that the belief in climate change is a faith-based religion (discussed in part II). Therefore, by teaching climate change in our public schools it is a violation of the United States Constitution. If teaching Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam is unconstitutional so is Climate Change.

Paul Johnson with FORBES magazine probably encapsulates the situation best:

[A]s the theory of man-made global warming unravels, scientists are suddenly and devastatingly revealed as fallible, mendacious, self-seeking, criminally secretive, furtively trying to hide their errors, debasing the system of peer review of scientific papers and conspiring to conceal the truth from once highly respected professional publications. The image of the scientist who puts the pursuit of truth before anything else has been shattered and replaced by a man on the make or a quasi-religious enthusiast who wants to prove his case at any cost. Science is becoming the tool of campaigning warfare, in which truth is the first casualty.” Paul Johnson with FORBES Magazine

Pinocchio’s problem was when he lied his nose grew, that was something his puppeteer could not control.



Leave a Nit-Pick, Bash, Rant, or Obsequious Note

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: