IS CLIMATE CHANGE SETTLED SCIENCE?

I find the concept of “Settled Science” to be very unsettling.  
The concept of “settled science” based on majority vote is the mantra of the climate change industry.   It was once “settled Science” that the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.   It was also once settled science that bleedings were the best way to cure just about any ailment.

Science, by its very nature, requires proof, and proof is the one thing the hierarchy of the environmentalist movement hasn’t provided.   Newsweek once wrote, “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth.” (Emphasis added.)  Quite a few qualifiers in that sentence, don’t you think? 

This was from an article in 1975 entitled, “The Cooling World” about the consensus among scientists that we were on the verge of a new ice age. (You can read the whole thing here.)  That was “settled science”.  The vote had been taken.  We were doomed.  Only someone forget to tell the planet because the ice age didn’t happen. 

Yet the solutions proposed then – more government control of the economy, higher taxes, less freedom, etc. – are nearly identical to the “solutions” proposed for global warming decades later.  Since the planet hasn’t warmed in 18 years, despite consensus that it would, the catch-all term has been updated to “climate change.”  This empowered progressives to blame anything on it – cold, hot, storms, droughts, lack of storms, lack of droughts, etc.   But the solutions are always the same – the same governmental power expansion they’ve been seeking for nearly a century.
Their faith, if not their facts, remains unwavering. 

They will make up date to back-up their claims, and hide data that doesn’t.  If you doubt that, read HERE   Science is suppose to be the seeking and understanding of provable fact – it’s knowledge, precisely what these progressives and academics seek to keep from the masses. 

Ironically, the very people who attack anyone who dares question their faith is labeled a shill for “big oil.”  Meanwhile those progressives control the bureaucracy that oversees the government spigot from which flows billions of dollars in grants to academics to study more “climate change.” 

Progressives have their agenda, and the American public rejects it – at the polls, when they run on it in campaigns, or later when they are again found to have concealed it.  But they don’t care.  What they can’t get at the ballot box, they seek from the courts.
What they can’t get in the courts, they seek through regulation.  When they can’t win an argument, they create a moral imperative to justify it (ironic considering they’ve spent decades telling conservative “you can legislate morality”). 

“Save the planet,” “For the children,” and so on have been the battle cry of the greatest affronts to liberty this country has ever seen. And it’s all funded by the very taxpayers who oppose the end result – against their will and without their knowledge.

Just like those who tell you what’s good to eat, drink, etc., progressives would like people to believe science is on their side, and that once a vote is taken it is settled. Of course, science isn’t consensus. It’s not about a majority vote. And unlike the reality of their failed agenda, it rarely, if ever, is truly settled. 

HERE’S A VIDEO THAT SUMS IT UP PRETTY GOOD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s#t=107