Weekend Question 2: Why Aren’t Enviros Called on This Inconsistency?

Pepperdine Professor Emeritus of Economics George Reisman makes a huge point about the positions of the global warming and climate change cabal (HT Don Luskin):

The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even to bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one—not even the staunchest supporters of science and technology—had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them is forecast the weather—for the next one hundred years!

Everything mentioned in the first sentence above is subject to painstakingly detailed quality control and testing and government oversight. Research on climate change, an iffy project in the first place, as Reisman notes, also has the handicap of a woefully inadequate peer review process. Recently, we have seen in another area of scientific research favored by the liberal elite, embryonic stem cell research, that the entire research effort could be faked and not get caught until much later (the Korean scientist involved finally had his license revoked). Faked climate change research would be more difficult to detect in the current peer-review system.

And yet we’re supposed to be believe that global warming, and of course the need to radically alter the world’s economy, is irrefutable gospel. Puh-leeze.