I have always thought that even if we can prove that Global Warming is real, even if we can show that its effects would be devastating for us, even if we can demonstrate that it is caused by human behavior and even if we had evidence that the remedy proposed has any chance to work, entrusting the job to governments is yet another receipt for increased taxation with nothing to show for it.

Now scientists around the world are becoming more and more vocal about the initial premise itself: Global Warming. Many people have voiced their disagreement before, from Coleman, the weather channel founder calling it the greatest scam in history, Lomborg who wrote one of most thorough books on the subject or Crichton who wrote a very insightful paper on bad science and politics as much as 7 years ago. But only recently have we seen those isolated voices of dissent increase to the point were more than 30,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon petition urging the US government to not sign the Kyoto agreement and arguing that there is still strong lack of evidence that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) actually exists.

Obviously we all know (except for Gore and his minions) that consensus has nothing to do with scientific proof. And we also unfortunately know that's it impossible to prove a negative. We can only hope that the population will one day wake up huge scam designed by politicians and a few opportunists to increase their influence or stuff their pockets.

Yes, the science behind AGW is bad. As Howard Hayden, a staunch advocate of sound energy policy, says:

It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive. We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

And then to add:

Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

• A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.
• The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.
• CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.
• A warmer world begets more precipitation.
• All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.
• The melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is -14 ºC, and the lowest is -117 ºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that's climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.

In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin "proved" that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He "proved" it using the conservation of energy. What he didn't know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth. Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have "proved" that CO2 causes global warming. Except when it doesn't.

To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

But this will probably fall onto deaf ears. Again.