The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. . . . We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. . . .Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

The struggle to which Feynman refers is, of course the centuries of dispute between science and religion.  A dispute that often resulted in the excommunication or death of the scientist.  It is not without irony that those now purporting to be on the side of science are screaming heresy at those who actually are on the side of science.

As I noted earlier, calling someone who does not believe in Global Warming™ a Holocaust denier is not just hyperbole, it’s idiotic, narcissistic and thoughtless.  Exactly the kind of thing you would expect from a celebrity.  Of course, there is a major difference between science and history–especially recent history.  We may never know how many Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other innocents the Nazis condemned to death, but we know they did it.  You can speak, even today, to Holocaust survivors.  We know it was done, and it is a black mark on the soul of humanity.  But those who have doubts about Global Warming™ are more like War of the Worlds deniers.

Global Warming™, is a theory.  A theory that started out as a crackpot joke, but was endorsed by politicians, first to gain leverage over coal miners, then to guilt the world into economic starvation.  The science of climate change is vast and complex.  Scientists cannot even agree on a baseline of historic temperatures (unless, of course, they are fabricating them).  Moreover, much of the anecdotal evidence in favor of the theory has fallen apart in recent years.

The massive ice sheets that cleave off of Antarctica were recently found to have been caused by a change in the flow of an Antarctic glacial river after millennia of erosion, not you driving an SUV for the last 5 years.  The Earth has been warming for thousands of years as we emerge from the last ice age.  An honest scientist would tell you that we cannot rule out that this long-term warming is not the cause of any minor variations we see today.  Such a scientist would also tell you that the evidence of a connection between historical CO2 and temperature points to a lagging one–temperatures rise first, then CO2 increases.

Liberals have a problem allowing for the possibility of doubt, or a rationale that cannot be blamed on consumption.  This is because blaming a climate disaster on human consumption gives them access to guilt, taxes and regulation–the favorite tools of liberal governance.  If you can blame humanity for a crisis, you can gain control over human lives.  You cannot tax the sun for its natural variability, nor can you regulate millennia of natural warming.  Rice patties do not respond to guilt.

As challenges to their Global Warming™ religion come closer and closer to debunking their whole belief system, alarmists become more desperate and hyperbolic.  A scientist would consider alternative viewpoints and question their premises.  This is the purpose of peer review in science.  But a religious fanatic will scream “death to my enemies” and slit your throat over a cartoon.  Global Warming alarmists like Paul McCartney have more in common with religious zealots than scientists.  Their fears are irrational, their minds are closed, and their plans will destroy mankind.

Oh, and the Beatles sucked.  Elvis lives, baby.