Charles Krauthammer Has Found The Real Killers Of Science: People Who Believe In Climate Change

Charles Krauthammer is actually really good at his job, if you define "his job" as "to disguise establishment-serving nonsense and lies as pithy nuggets of wisdom." Check it out:  

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist-in-chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.

How's your petard? Hoisted? You bet it is, because Charlie K has turned the tables on you, dumb liberal! Science can simply not ever be settled, which is why it's called the theory of evolution,  the chlorophyll postulate, and the when you have to poop, it means poop is going to come out of your hypothesis. Why are climate scientists so anti-science? 

Of course Charles Krauthammer isn't dumb -- just like you, he's totally worried about CO2 emissions! No, really!

I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

So it's really smart and strategic of him to have written this column that will be trumpeted by people who have dedicated a worryingly large portion of their lives to opposing any action that would, you know, stop humanity from "spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." We assume this is there so people can point to it and say "Look, he's so reasonable! He just cares about the science! Drill, baby, drill!"

Here, have a splitting headache:

Not surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly wrong” in their predictions

Followed by:

far from being supported by the evidence, “the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter.”

Stupid Obama, climate models are all wrong! Stupid Obama, climate models say you're wrong! Stupid Obama, why you gotta be so stupid?

And of course, no column that disingenuously extols the virtues of science would be complete without a part that gets the science completely wrong:

Settled? Even the U.K.’s national weather service concedes there’s been no change — delicately called a “pause” — in global temperature in 15 years. If even the raw data is recalcitrant, let alone the assumptions and underlying models, how settled is the science?

Phil Plait over at Slate debunked the "pause" over two months ago. The whole post is worth a read, but here's the key point:

By the numbers, far from pausing, overall the Earth is warming 2.5 times faster since 1997 than the previous figures indicate. To be clear, warming over the past few years has slowed a bit compared with a few years before but not nearly as much as has been previously claimed, and we know that most of that heat is going into the oceans anyway.

To be fair, though, we are not sure about these theories of "heat" and "oceans" and "1997." Being sure is just not very science! 

Here he is on Fox, running his mouth about it. You could watch it! You probably won't!

</p><p>Now if you'll excuse us, we need to test our theory that Charles Krauthammer will disappear if we stop thinking about him. </p><p><em><a href="https: //twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=alexruthrauff">Follow Alex</a> on Twitter -- it's not climate science!</em> </p><p>[<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371639/myth-settled-science-charles-krauthammer" target="_blank">NRO</a> / <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus" target="_blank">NASA</a> / <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/12/16/global_warming_new_study_shows_pause_doesn_t_exist.html" target="_blank">Slate</a>]</p>