NOAA to Skeptics: We’re Right, You Can’t Deny It

It was long ago understood by our Founders that any institution or discipline dependent upon the government will necessarily become corrupted by it, religion being perhaps the only example still widely acknowledged and respected. They knew that when government is allowed any say in religious practices, whether through controlling legislation or funding, it will regulate, suppress, and distort them eventually beyond recognition in a manner designed solely to increase its own power.

This same rule applies to art, banking, money, finance, transportation, medicine, employment, telecommunications, education, trade, and in this case, science. For the same reason there is no Federal Religion Administration or national faith, there should be no NOAA or any other state-dependent scientific establishment.

I have never disputed that religion is inherently flawed and corrupt, as I have always believed it is. My point in the clause you quoted was that government has yet to ensnare and manipulate religion to the extent that it has done those things to other institutions, such as education and economics — bending those things to its will. There is more than one way an institution or practice can be corrupted.

It's bad enough for you to simply be wrong, but it's far worse for you to degrade your own credibility by immediately resorting to childish namecalling. Besides, if you're going to insult me, you should at least attempt to do so with some ingenuity so as to make the put-down somewhat interesting, if intellectually vacuous.

To answer your second point: Private enterprise actually did have by far the greatest hand in turning this country from a small band of colonies to the superpower it is today (though sadly won't be for much longer, if current trends continue). Other countries fell behind to the extent that their people and leaders failed to grasp and value the importance of simply getting out of each other's way. Private enterprise functions best when government is limited, consistent, and just. When men are free to pursue ambitions, build, invest, and prosper, prevented by the government only from infringing on the rights of one another, anything is possible. It is no coincidence that the two greatest differences between the histories of the United States and any other given country are prosperity and respect for individual freedom.

And yes, I do have a very good idea of what our founding fathers understood and believed. They left behind an extensive intellectual legacy with which I have made myself very familiar. Written words can convey a great deal more than you insinuate — sometimes even more than their authors intend, as you have just unwittingly demonstrated.

Even that might be generous. I've still yet to see proof that the carbon dioxide we produce has any measurable effect at all on world temperatures or that it can legitimately be ranked as a greenhouse gas. I've read about experiments performed with CO2 that show that it can trap heat significantly more efficiently than regular air can, but those experiments always had very high concentrations of CO2. Our atmosphere, by contrast, is less than 0.04% CO2 (plants and oceans do an excellent job of keeping that number low on their own). It seems many so-called scientists forget about water vapor, which is in great abundance and almost entirely responsible for our atmosphere's heat retention.

Why the focus on CO2 as opposed to water vapor or methane, then? Humans cannot help but produce large quantities of it constantly, and the vast majority of water vapor and methane come from nature. This global warming scare is nothing more than a scam — a giant hoax for the purpose of increasing government control, and has been from the beginning. This is what I was talking about when I said we shouldn't have state-funded science. State-funded "science" only serves to support state-expanding policy.