Making Scientists Out of Monkeys

The Los Angeles Times is criticizing the US Chamber of Commerce’s request to put global warming on trial, suggesting that the organization wants to “make monkeys of the legions of scientists”:

Courts and judges are for resolving questions of law, not of science. Though the 1926 Scopes trial is often remembered as a contest between evolution and creationism, it actually concerned the legality of a Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of Charles Darwin's theory.

Environmentalists can be dismayingly smug about climate change, sometimes claiming that the science is “settled” and there's nothing left to argue about. Scientific theories are very seldom settled; they are continually tested and revised based on the latest findings. That's why regulatory decisions are best made by consulting the scientific literature, not judges or juries (or environmental activists). The weight of scientific evidence suggests very strongly that the globe is getting warmer, that greenhouse gases emitted by humans are the cause and that the health and welfare of future generations are under serious threat. That might make for a lousy show on Court TV, but it should be enough to prompt action by the EPA.

While Al Gore and the scientists he’s bought have cited a few pages of temperatures collected from hot parking lots throughout the US, geologist Ian Plimer has presented four billion years of conclusive geological evidence, including more than 2200 scientific references in his questions related to the Global Warming theocracy.

The geological record conclusively proves that during the past 4 billion years, the Earth has repeatedly heated and cooled because of super volcanoes, extraterrestrial events, wobbling orbits, solar flares, and comets long before man appeared 100,000 years ago. Since life thrived millions of years before the ice caps began to appear, it’s hard to imagine how a warmer planet threatens life or how man can possibly influence its warming. Based upon my examination of Dr. Plimer’s book, the US Chamber of Commerce has more than enough probable cause to ask questions that might prevent another disastrous AIDS-like theocracy from wasting another trillion research dollars.

While courts, juries and investigators are less likely to understand some aspects of science, they are more than qualified to understand corruption, how evidence is deliberately misinterpreted and falsified, and how to evaluate standards of proof. Indeed, most Americans learn about the “scientific process” in middle school. Americans aren't as stupid as Al Gore wants us to believe we are.

As a thirty-year criminal and civil investigator, I’m deeply concerned that there are no local, state, or federal agencies that are competent or willing to investigate scientific corruption. When I brought cases to law enforcement officials, they referred me back to the same agencies that are engaged in the corruption – often to the detriment of the complaining party. As a result, scientists and researchers are forced to acquiesce while the criminal enterprise continues unimpeded.

If taxpayers and business owners cannot hold corrupt scientists and activists accountable; and if Al Gore’s lobbyists pay legislators to blindly accept things that they are too stupid to understand, science becomes a theocracy. This is no different from the “astronomical consensus” that Pope Urban used to defend Rome’s theocratic view of their geocentric universe. Rather than look through the heretical telescope of a disruptive mathematician named Galileo, they threatened him with death until he admitted his heresy. If unbiased courts cannot examine the evidence, taxpayers have no ability to control the spending or to hold corrupt scientists accountable.

This can have deadly effects. When scientists claimed that HIV causes AIDS and that 20 percent of all Americans faced death from heterosexual transmission of AIDS, their research became a political theocracy that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of allegedly HIV+ victims. These victims died mostly from liver failure, brought on not by AIDS but by the toxins used to treat the unproven relationship between HIV and AIDS. Because the corrupt scientists police themselves, no one was ever held accountable.

For those who want to see scientists behaving like monkeys, look no further than Brent Leung’s documentary, “House of Numbers.” After twenty-five years as the ostensible experts of HIV and AIDS, none of these monkeys got their stories straight and routinely contradicted each other as they gave their opinions. One alleged discoverer of HIV admits at the end of the movie that anyone with a healthy immune system can fight HIV without drugs. Several scientists repeatedly contradicted themselves in the same interviews.

The documentary, which is winning awards and praise at film festivals throughout the US, illustrates what happens when self-described scientists spend two decades and billions of dollars supervising themselves while paying off the legislature and universities – all the while infesting agencies like the CDC, FDA, NIH with highly paid pharmaceutical marketers. Eli Lilly insider John Virapen PhD describes this arrangement in great detail.

Based upon my examination of the scientific community and universities, I’d say that the concerns of the US Chamber of Commerce are well founded.