In the never ending war against all the political appointments of King Donnie, the media have now savagely attacked the new director of the Environmental Protection Agency. According to CBS news, which reported that the new director "broke from science" when he proclaimed his agnosticism in regards to anthropomorphic global warming, "The new chief of the Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, a statement at odds with mainstream scientific consensus and his own agency. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said measuring the effect of human activity on the climate is 'very challenging' and that 'there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact' of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. 'So, no, I would not agree that (carbon dioxide) is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,' Pruitt told CNBC’s 'Squawk Box.'” Let's consider this issue for a moment today.
I wrote a piece for this blog previously, found here, in which I conclusively proved that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. I would strongly encourage you to read that post before you continue here. If you decide to skip that post consider this: CO2 and the air temperature of the earth are supposed to be directly correlated in a closed system. I have seen no true believer in anthropomorphic global warming who does not believe this to be true. Yet the direct correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 in our closed system is nonexistent. If you don't believe me go read that blog post. The data in support of my view can be found there.
Pruitt is being a reasonable man when he says that he is skeptical about the connection between CO2 created by mankind and rising air temperatures. That used to be considered good science but in this day of global warming hysteria it is deemed to be worthy of a lynching. Pruitt received so many phone calls from religious devotees to the doctrines of man-made global warming he had to disconnect his phone number at the EPA. Make no mistake, attacking the gods of a secular society will bring about swift retribution. What did Pruitt do? He "broke from science" and denied the "scientific consensus" that evil profit seeking oil companies are to blame for the fact that the temperate zones are now tropical rain forests.
The allegation that Pruitt broke from science has been equated to saying that he also believes in the flat earth theory. An entire page of the Sunday Denver Post was dedicated to arguing that people like Pruitt must also believe in a flat earth since they so clearly have rejected the things science has proven to be unalterably correct and eternally true. By the way, right alongside the doctrine of global warming was the equally correct and eternally true religious doctrine of evolution. Quite obviously, according to the writers in the newspaper, nobody in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika who has even half a brain (Rush LImbaugh excepted) would ever dream about believing in anything that contradicts the scientific dogma of man-caused global warming and evolution. Well call me brainless if you must but what they are calling science is not science at all.
Science only makes progress via the pathway of skepticism and continual attempts to prove its postulates in error. The scientific method, something unknown to today's taxpayer financed "scientists," is built upon the concept of seeking evidence that the current theory is false, not true. The goal of all good scientists is to falsify the theory they have cooked up, not to prove it. Today's corrupt scientific method, if it can even be called that, has turned everything upon its ear. According to the proponents of global warming, good science consists of finding nothing but experimental evidence in support of the theory. Evidence not in support of the theory is ignored or interpreted away. Given the powerful nature of presuppositions it should not surprise any of us that no evidence ever arises against global warming that is capable of discrediting it. Everything is easily explained away.
The fact that a simple statement made by Pruitt can outrage such an enormous number of people clearly indicates we are dealing with religious beliefs and not scientific facts. If the director had come out and said that he believes the earth is flat he would have either been ignored or made the butt of many jokes but he would not have been demonized as an unbeliever. If the director had come out and said that he believes the Higgs boson is not the "God particle," he would have been ignored or, perhaps, interviewed by Scientific American to find out why he believes what he does, but he would not have been demonized as an unbeliever.
The notion of "scientific consensus" has no consensus in the scientific community. There are very few things scientists generally agree upon. The theory that the earth revolves around the sun can be described as a theory that most folks believe. The theory of a round earth falls into that camp as well. I suspect the theory of gravity would be on the list of generally agreed upon beliefs as well. But most of the time some group of scientists start throwing around the term "scientific consensus," especially when that consensus agrees with them, we can be pretty sure they are simply trying to pull the wool over our eyes. If there truly is a scientific consensus on something, like gravity or a round earth, nobody gets very excited about the item in question, especially when some crackpots question it. On the other hand, when a scientific consensus is alleged but the people who make that allegation get extremely agitated when someone dares to disagree with them we can know for a fact we have moved from science to religion.
Today's scientific consensus about man-caused global warming is nothing more than a bunch of guys on the government payroll doing everything they can to keep their jobs and retirement pensions. As long as global warming remains a hot item they will be secure in their positions as government financed scientists. And just as the "scientists" of ancient times always found what their benefactors wanted them to find, the scientific consensus of today always finds man-caused global warming. I don't need to know anything about the science involved in this dispute to know that global warming adherents are wrong. The party that runs to ad hominem arguments in support of its position is always wrong and the scientific consensus argument is nothing but an ad hominem argument.