What’s your authority, Mr President?
“Climate change” as a scientific event, whether man-made or natural, is over.
Yes, it will die the slow death that politicians seem to bequeath to lost political dreams, but this may be a good thing in that there will be more public hangings, hopefully James Hansen among them. But the scientific community needs to quietly retreat behind closed doors to deal with these matters there, without bringing further harm to the various sciences and disciplines involved. Saving “science” and “the Method” is, or should be, their number one priority now, for civilization itself depends on its veracity being maintained.
As a course of scientific inquiry, the theses behind climate change all have to start from scratch, all over again. Back to the drawing board. This is not to say that there isn’t plenty of valid raw data out there. But it has to be attached to something, and joined with still other things so as to form the basis of a thesis. (Actually several.) And just like a criminal trial, that thesis has to go before a set of judges (peer-review) who bring a gavel down and decide that the evidence presented was or was not obtained legally, without falsification, i.e., was relevant. They decide what evidence the jury can and cannot consider.
The jury, of course, is us, the People, only we’ve passed that charge over to our elected representatives, to act on the evidence the judges have determined fit to be considered.
Where we are now is that the judges have thrown out much of the evidence about climate change, based in part on the confessions of some of the accusers that they had lied. Not all the evidence is tainted, only some. But in one way or another almost all of it had passed through the hands of those who are now awaiting charges in another courtroom for perjury or some other charges of scientific indiscretion.
In a case like this, when the chief witnesses for the state’s case have been dismissed for perjury, the right-minded judge declares a mistrial, telling the attorneys in charge of to go back and bring the court better evidence and a working theory at some later date. And then the judge dismisses the jury.
Well, it seems Mr Obama, as foreman of the jury, won’t go. In fact, he stands up and tells the court he has his own theory of the case.
There really is only one question that needs to be asked, then. “What is your authority, Mr Foreman.” If you remove the science, and that, at one level is being done now (re-evaluation) and on another level is already a fait accompli (the tainted hands that had touched it, “fruit of the poisonous tree”), then your only basis to proceed is one of politics (and business)…neither of which have any foundation in science…and this is a Court of Science, Mr Foreman. Without this court, “you got nothing!” (Al Capone).
This one suggestion to the media, if you want to be around after the dust settles:
Ask that one question, to Obama, Gibbs, Gore (watch yer back, Al Gorevera, Baby, you’ve fleeced a lot of people out of billions in hatching this scheme), et al…then, like a bulldog, don’t let go. Grab ’em by the ankle and clamp down hard. If they can’t answer that one question…and they can’t…there is no sense to follow up with a second or third question. Then, drop that ankle like a hot rock for where they are going is not a place you want to follow, or worse, be drug down with.
Thus endeth the lesson.