When Fanatical Agendas Obliterate ScienceBy Thomas E. BrewtonClimate Emails Stoke Debate: Scientists' Leaked Correspondence  Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming (Wall Street Journal,  November 23, 2009).The Wall Street Journal article notes:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html? mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews"Representatives of the American Association for the Advancement of  Science, a large professional organization, expressed concern that  the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas  emissions."One would expect true scientists to be more concerned with pursuit of  the truth than with foreclosing questions about an hypothesis.  As it  stands, the greenhouse-gas hypothesis is no more than a religious  dogma proclaimed from closed chambers.  Liberal-progressives treat  all questions or challenges to it as heresy.Once upon a time, scientists believed that the scientific process  requires testing hypotheses about the physical world to assess their  validity.All scientific advancement starts with the intuition of an inquirer.   That intuition must first be tested by experiments that either  support the hypothesis or question its validity.  If the hypothesis  appears at first to be correct, true scientists publish their  findings, along with the experimental data that appears to support  those findings.  The worldwide scientific community should than be  free, first, to attempt to replicate the experiment and its  conclusion, then to subject the hypothesis to other experiments and  to challenge validity of the hypothesis with other data that appear  to contradict it.The greenhouse-gas hypothesis differs from this scientific pattern in  significant, fatal respects.  It is fanatical dogmatism, not science.First, there is no way to subject its conclusions to scientific  experiment.  Doubters are told to accept blindly the conclusions of  self-interested people like Al Gore, who assure us that the often  unavailable data support their hypothesis."Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than  combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts  are clear." (President-elect Barack Obama, November 18, 2008, in Los  Angeles at the opening session of the Global Climate Summit.)http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/18/obama-the-science-is-beyond- dispute-delay-is-no-longer-an-option-denial-is-no-longer-an- acceptable-response/With regard to whether, as President Obama asserts, "...the facts are  clear," proponents of the greenhouse-gas hypothesis have frequently  refused to make available the data that they claim supports their  hypothesis.Second, major components of the data claimed to support the  greenhouse-gas hypothesis - notably the hockey-stick graph purporting  to show a sharp upward jump in world temperatures in recent decades -  have been revealed as either highly selective use of statistics or  outright fraud.  Perpetrators of the hockey-stick fraud, we now know  from examining their data, deliberately selected only a few of the  hundreds of tree ring data samples from their particular location,  because the vast bulk of the samples contradicted the hockey-stick  fraud.  Extensive data from multiple sources reveal that past  cyclical periods of global warming started before build-up of CO2,  which appears to be a result, not a cause of global warming.  Claims  that the earth has been warming steadily since 1979, the UN's  selected starting point, are flatly contradicted by observations from  weather balloons and from satellites.Global-warming adherents assert that the Little Ice Age and the  Medieval Warming Period, both observed and recorded at the time, are  fictions.  They say that world temperatures were relatively constant  at those times and that temperatures have suddenly, within recent  decades, soared to literally unprecedented heights.  On the one hand,  we are told not to believe records of actual temperatures and eye- witness accounts of the advance of glaciers that overran mountain  villages.  On the other, we are expected to place our unquestioning  faith in an unprovable hypothesis that rests entirely upon multiple  computer models, which disagree with each other.Third, all of the horrific predictions of earthly devastation  popularized by Al Gore are based entirely upon ad hoc assumptions  embodied in computer models.  There are at least 20 such models,  which contradict each other in important respects.  Even the UN now  admits that temperatures around the earth have been declining, not  continuing to warm, for the past decade.Moreover, even the most extreme greenhouse-gas fanatics concede that  the likely increase in world temperatures from man-made activity, if  their predictions ever were to come true, would be inconsequentially  small.  The spectacle of converts to the religious dogma of global  warming, who claim that their intelligence is the answer to  controlling the world's climate, is like a bedbug approaching an  elephant with rape on its mind.Anyone who has labored to construct computer models, from financial  spreadsheets to more complex types, has discovered how easy it is to  overlook important relationships among data points or to enter  incorrect numbers and incorrect relational formulae.  If it were  possible to project the future from past records, you can be assured  that there would be many stock market billionaires.  Earth's climate  is akin in complexity to the vast numbers of factors impinging upon  stock prices, only more so.  If the one is impossible, assuredly the  other is even more impossible.Third, the central organization bruiting the greenhouse-gas warming  hypothesis is, not a scientific group, but the United Nations'  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Professor Richard  Lindzen, an MIT meteorologist who served on a Federal government  panel evaluating the IPCC climate report, wrote that, in the main  body of the report representing the views of scientists, "...there is  no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends  and what causes them."Why, then, did the mainstream media completely misinterpret the main  body of the IPCC report?Because mainstream media propagandists (sometimes laughably called  investigative reporters) read only the report's Summary for  Policymakers.  Of it, Professor Lindzen wrote, "It represents a  consensus of government representatives ... rather than of  scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise  uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is  no evidence."And why would UN government representatives deliberately misrepresent  the far from unanimous conclusions of scientists?  Because the UN is  a proxy for liberal-progressive-socialists' fervent commitment to a  supranational, one-world government.http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/ senator_obama_citizen_of_the_world/In sum, the secular religious commitment to the unprovable and  contrived dogma of greenhouse-gas global warming is the opposite of  science.  Its closest modern parallel is the Soviet Union's show  trials of the 1930s to silence public dissenters and promulgation of  daily fiction in "Pravda."Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.  The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of  writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776http://www.thomasbrewton.com/