Global Warming Science, Hoaxes and Politics

I am a scientist. I've repeatedly had political science students and fine arts students attack me when as a scientist I am skeptical about their misuse  and ignorance of science.  As a scientist its hard not to consider some of these nutters arrogant and stupid, the worst combination.  Worse, because stupidity is common and intelligence is rare, the weaners like to gang up and shout down anyone that questions their obvious lack of reasoning. This is the basic flaw in politics. It's long been scientifically proven.  Scientists are forever finding really nifty things only to have arts students like Hitler and Stalin use their research to kill each other with.

The global warming folk are  chanting the 'skies falling' . They'd still be chanting the 'skies falling' if scientists hadn't taught them about gravity and that it's good that the skies falling. No doubt there were nutters back then suggesting we blow up things to push the sky away before everyone knew the sky, our oxygen, was essential to life.

Ecology is a very inexact science.  One ecologist told me, when I asked him to explain his profession, "I am the earth's doctor, just as a physician is a patient's!"  I've know arrogance in the sciences but this took the cake.  At the time I wasn't aware that ecology was a rock star industry.
"If I want to study the mating behaviour of toads" a colleague told me," my request for grants gets turned down.  "I resubmit my grant request under the title "toad mating behaviour in face of global warming" , and I get the grant.
"No one gets promotion in the faculty unless they're on board with global warming," colleagues tell me.  A Moslem politician now says that if only women were all wearing Abaya's instead of bikinis the earth would be a cooler place.  That's definitely politics but it's clothed in pseudo science.

And pseudosciences and scientific hoaxes are far more common than non scientists are aware.

Everyone knows there's 'climate change'.  We've been hearing about 'el nino' for years.  There have been ice cap meltings, changes in bird migration and all manner of temperature readings taken from every orifice of long suffering mother Earth.
It's just that there's a whole lot of difference about what this 'means' and 'what we should do about it.'

The scientific 'facts' are not the issue despite the histrionics of the global warming pontiffs.  It's warmer, for God's sake. As a Canadian I'm frankly thankful but if I question some aspect of the shell game of Global Warming that doesn't mean I can't read a thermometer locally.

What remains controversial scientifically is the following?

A:

1) Is this global warming a permanent matter, a uni directional microwave oven sort of thing where we're all literally cooked.
or
2) This is a cyclic thing that occurs every hundreds or thousands of years.  The planet doesn't suffer collectively but those strident little doomsayers with Malibu beach houses will find that their property values drop while those with property  Anchorage Alaska  go up.

B:
1) Is the climate change caused by man?  Note that Religious fanatics believed that the world was the centre of the universe and that the sun revolved around the world.  Global warming religious fanatics today believe they are the centre of the universe and all manner of things are caused by man.  The scientist Galileo was nearly killed by the religious political fanatics of his day.  If he were alive today, he'd be killed by Global Warming Nutters.
2) Is the climate change caused by the sun?  This would be the scientist Galileo's position. He was a more humble man than the Pope of his day. There are solar flares that are definitely very hot. The heat of the planet is caused predominantly by the sun.  Planets close to the sun are very hot and those far from the sun are very cold.  Let me repeat, boys and girls, the planets far from the sun are very cold and the planets close to the sun are very hot.  Again, the sun is hot. As a scientific experiment I suggest those political doubts go outside right now and stand in the heat of the sun and see if it's not hot.  Now follow me carefuly, if the sun is a teensy be hotter, then your ass on earth is fried.   Scientists have known this for centuries.  How come it's so hard for Time Magazine cover story politicians to grasp such simple basics of science.

I've heard global warming fanatics suggest we all hold our breath to save the poor planet.
I have to agree that if there is one thing that we would collectively benefit from doing for all our sakes is to remove all the hot air of politicians.

3) The climate change is caused by man and by the sun and other factors?  Note that in politics there are tories and whigs, republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals.  Politics is a game in which there's religious opponents like Jesus and the Devil.  It's like the human race needs to develop a game beyond football in which three teams are playing on the same field and maybe just maybe the species will advance collectively in intelligence. Scientists, in contrast to politicos, and sports fans,  have long known that things like temperature are a matter of degrees. There's a whole lot of variations and play in the universe.  Science really is about wonder.

C:
1: If we agree that there is climate change and that man can affect this, will what we do be beneficial?  Here's where science moves out of the speculative into the 'applied science' world?  The debates about what we should do about climate change are myriad among those who agree that the earth is warming.  As the existing rich and powerful people have their real estate around the hottest area of the planet, the Equator, they might like to maintain the status quo with the help of science.  These nutters have had all manner of suggestion but mostly would like  everyone else to pay  for them to have improved air conditioning in their malibu dachaus.  

This is where the global warming politics are happening with real zest.  Beware.  Ecological systems are complex.  A study of Ecologists and their treatments, despite their own rock star bios, shows a long history that makes thalidomide babies and agent orange  look like kids' stuff.  I read a fascinating history of the ecological management of just a tiny piece of the globe, America's Disneyland natural wonder, Yellowstone National Park.  Every single decision by the ecologists was a disaster and a nightmare.  Untold millions of dollars have been spent to fix their fixes so that the park can continue to make millions in tourist dollars.  I wouldn't let an ecologist near my back yard.
These people are witch doctors with a whole lot of marketting and very little science.    They want you and me to trust them with the planet.  I don't trust them with an aquarium.

2. If we agree that there is climate change and that man can affect this, will it not be better for man to focus on preparing to respond to the climate change rather than grandiosely thinking he can move the sun?  I think rich people should accept that real estate values in Los Angeles are going to fall and move to Fiero del Fugo.  Rather than spending money trying to avoid the occasional fart we should realistically look at how we can collectively prepare for a predictably warmer future.  Regina Saskatchewan and Winnipeg Manitoba should accept having delegations from New York next week to discuss the appropriate site of the new United Nations.  Instead of the poor students getting the basement suites maybe we should collectively invest in some very attractive labyrthine dwelling in an underground wonder world that doesn't have to be the traditional horrible industrial temporary cave dwelling shelters of the past.  Equally important shouldn't we be financing aquaculture and life under the sea.  These are reasonable scientific responses with long standing historic precedence to this marvellous planet we live on.

It's how come we have clothing, for God's sake? Our forebears didn't get into a debate about changing the planet and the solar system but rather got together with sheep and plants to come up with a reasonable response to the problem. It's called the fashion industry.

So when someone like Presidential Candidate Santoroum says global warming is a hoax, we should respectfully listen to him.  Scientists historically, in contrast to politico nutters, haven't bludgeoned each other with words. Though that seems to be a new trend, possibly of more concern than climate change.

When the political 'war on drugs' was at it's height if a researcher found proof, irrefutable proof, with double blind studies, and every factor considered, that marijuana could cause an adaptation of the human so that he could live in a warmer climate with better health, that scientist would never have been allowed to publish his research and most likely would have been shot.

That's the sad thing about science these days. The Galileos are being shot. In the good days, Gallileo was allowed to live.