I was wondering how a scientific hypothesis managed to rise to the status of fact without going through the protective measures of the “scientific method” …
Bottom line …
We do not deny that the Earth is slowly warming as we emerge from the Little Ice Age, that carbon dioxide plays a small role in this warming, and that some of the rise in carbon dioxide is attributable to man's actions on the planet. What we question is the degree to which global warming is man made and what proportion of the warming is attributable to natural processes over which we have little or no control. And, whether or not the current climate models and input data are accurate for making life-changing public policies that move us closer to losing our private property, personal wealth, and the freedoms which we often take for granted.
If science contrary to the prevailing and politically fashionable view of global warming is revealed or other contrarian viewpoints are validated, will the politicians risk their seats, will the special interests give up billions in government funding, will the institutions risk their reputations, and will the scientists risk their careers by exposing the fraud?
It is likely that anyone will do anything to jeopardize the status quo – even thought it is based on little more than an unproven hypothesis?
Probably not, and that is why “We the People” must elect politicians who are willing to say “no” and halt the corruption and special interest funding. Are ‘We the People” up to the task or will we continue to be distracted and divided by those who want to steal us blind – even at the cost of our precious freedom?
It remains to be seen, now and in 2016.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius