…is a statement that God alone could make truthfully.

Of course, that won’t stop an atheist humanist scientist from making that same statement. The only difference is that coming from the scientist it sounds arrogant.

Diaries like this inspire me to use nerdy as a term of commendation. Great work!

I really do love it.

When I was in high school in the late 50;s, it was predicted that we would harness the energy powering the sun and produce cheap, clean fusion power. I got my physics PhD in 1969 and have been watchong from a small distance as lots of money and very smart people have failed. The problem is instabilities in hydrodynamics. Similiar problems exist in understanding the interactions in and between the atmosphere and the oceans. For fusion, $billions have gone into devices and experiments where the conditions can be varied and somewhat controlled. After 50 years, there still isn;t an adequate understanding. In Global Warming there can be no experiments, only observations of our single system. When the sun changes just a little, their model didn’t allow for that and they got the wrong answer. That is probably not the only variable they have neglected.

I am really appreciating your thoughtful environmental posts as of late. While we all might not see eye to eye on certain issues like land conservation or fishing regulations, it’s certainly worth our time as conservatives (or, moreover, as humans, brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents…) to consider conservation and environmentalism as what they are: purposeful endeavors to sustain, utilize, preserve, and discover Creation.

Again, for you reasoned ideas on the subject, and highlighting the wonders of the world, the necessity of preserving it, and the falsities of the globalist ‘climate change’ mantra, thanks.

Loved it.

That is all.

…those Progressives who don’t understand the Law of Unintended Consequences and chaos theory as it relates to complex systems also – because they are atheistic secular humanists – have an irrational fear of “chaos” and grasp at control of those complex systems in an incompetent attempt to bend them to their utopian designs.

Inevitably, they fail because of their inability to understand the very things they attempt to control.

Conservatives, on the other hand, come largely from a faith in God and as such embrace the natural order which comes from chaos. Conservatives are far more comfortable with complex systems and the natural balance of which they are made, and because of that we’re able to leave those systems alone and allow the independent factors within those systems to play themselves out.

We are beginning to see the ultimate and inarguable results of those two worldviews. Progressives already have to tell bald-faced lies about their policies in order to achieve power, and Obama is destroying the credibility of their movement.

Sounds nasty.

but the answer lies in another science altogether — the science of politics:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

You must think scientists are stupid. No sane or sensible scientist, or anyone else for that matter, would claim to ‘know everything’. The burden of the main piece is that there are too many variables, and too many of them unknown or unknowable, for us to understand a system like the atmosphere. This position defies common sense and the most basic primary school science. Large atmospheric processes including the ‘greenhouse effect’ and many others, are readily described and may be adequately predicted; they have been since the late C19th and there is scarcely a scientist in the world, including those sceptical about aspects of global warming, who would venture to argue with this. Of course it is a different story at smaller scales, but that is what systems are all about.

And can it be credible that scientists are engaged in some sort of leftist conspiracy? The field scientists I know are motivated by a profound determination to understand; to carry out laborious and ingeniously designed experiments that, over years, produce tiny fragments of data that are scrutinised by others with great critical intensity. If you were to spend a week in the Antarctic with one such group, working long days in what are sometimes dreadful conditions, to examine, in their case, the growth patterns of limpets, a study that will take years and that may support other studies into the past climate, you would, I hope, regard them in a different light. It wuld be unthinkable for them to anticipate their results, to regard any position as being more than a hypothesis or to be dismissive of, or rude about, others similarly striving. I can attest that they are utterly beyond partisanship in the question of global warming. And there are thousands of them going about their work as I write.