Why are global warming skeptics shunned (via the Daily Express)?

FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.

A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.

Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.

His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.

If global warming is such a scientific slam dunk, why are skeptics treated so shabbily? Some very prominent, respected scientists have recently expressed skepticism so it can’t be that all these people are nuts. I have done a lot of reading on the subject, have more science education than the average bear, and can’t buy the CO2 forced warming proposition. I’m not a nut. And I’ve had an interest in solar power for over 20 years. I still think that will prove the long term answer once we get our act together on a smart, nationwide grid. So do I deserve ridicule for not buying the hype?

It seems to me that the vehemence with which AGW supporters silence dissent is indicative of a basic insecurity about their theory. Scientists who have data to back up a theory don’t fear skeptics; they embrace them. If your data and observations are accurate and your theory is supported you have nothing to worry about. And that is a problem for the AGW crowd. AGW is a theory “proven” through computer models. A sufficiently large, accurate data base of global temperatures is not in existence so the data is rendered through inference. There is no way to construct a model which takes into account all the factors which affect the climate. In fact, we probably don’t even know all the factors which affect the climate. How can the model possibly be accurate? AIG and Lehman had models too. And they were working in a market where the factors affecting the price were pretty well known. They just made bad assumptions. Maybe climate scientists who are being funded to research global warming are making some bad assumptions too. Or maybe their incentive structure is screwed up like it was on Wall Street.

Predicting climate change using computer models has some serious shortcomings. The computer models to date haven’t been terribly accurate, generally predicting more warming than has actually occurred. Could that be a hint of bias on the part of the programmers? If you hire someone to build a model that predicts global warming….you get a model that predicts global warming.

I don’t know this chap Bellamy from Adam. The BBC may be shunning him because he’s a wanker, I don’t know. But there have been enough of these types of stories where skeptics don’t get grants or lose jobs or are compared to holocaust deniers that I have become concerned. The people pushing carbon taxes or cap and trade programs have a lot to gain whether it be fame,fortune or power. Al Gore has built an entire post politicial career on the concept of AGW and you can believe he will do everything he can to protect his investment. And that worries me.

Polticians are preparing to spend a vast amount of our money (either through taxation or through regulation which will artificially raise the price of energy) in an attempt to solve a “problem” that may not even exist. Obama’s green economy funded through a cap and trade system is a scheme to take money from the average citizen’s pocket and give it to polticially connected green enrepeneurs who can’t get funded in the real world. We all know how well that worked out in the ethanol industry.

I am willing to give President elect Obama the benefit of the doubt until I see what his actual policies are, but if cap and trade is near the top of his to do list, the honeymoon will be very short. Cap and trade is a power grab (pun intended) of unprecedented scope.