US Physics Professor: Global Warming — Greatest & Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud

Another professor speaks up against the global warming fraud... on his way out.

...How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

More >>>
H/t SoCon or Bust

But now, once Professor Harold Lewis has resigned, the science is settled, right? Senator Mitchell believes that "climate change is so obvious that most people now acknowledge that it is happening and are not about to stand up and say, "No, it is not happening"; and, of course, one has to be pressed to imagine that it is actually not happening". So Senator Mitchell is pressing the government to make tithing to the Church of Mother Gaia (otherwise known as "carbon offsets") eligible for the Federal income tax credit.

My wife and I have three children; there are five of us. Each Canadian is responsible for about six tonnes of carbon emissions a year. In our case, that is 30 tonnes. We could go to the European market today and probably buy a tonne for about $20. For $600 a year, our family could be carbon neutral.
...
Climate change is happening. The science is overwhelming; it is being caused by human activity. We have to encourage the human activity that will fix it, which is what this bill is designed to do.

The other argument that has been used is that carbon credits have all kinds of structural problems: They represent hot air in Russia; they will not really do the trick, et cetera. I say to Conservatives who say that to me still, "You should talk to your Prime Minister because he is already committed to cap and trade, and carbon markets and carbon credits are the trade part of the cap and trade." It is a moot point for even Conservative policy now. We are into it; we just have not even started to develop the market for carbon credits.

Look elsewhere in the world. In Europe, there is a $100-billion-a-year carbon market.

Yes, unfortunately, Stephen Harper was pressured by the opposition parities and by the warmist heads of states to get Canada involved in this cap-and-trade scam. But that doesn't necessarily mean that "global warming", "global climate change", "global disruption" or whatever it's called nowadays is actually taking place. That only means that even Canada's right-of-center party is unable (and sometimes - unwilling) to stand up to climate fraudsters, that have such a strong backing in our Parliament, in the media and in the scientific community.

Senator Mitchell wants families to "voluntary" tax themselves; he believes that a family of five should be spending $600 a year on those phony "carbon offsets" to be "carbon neutral". That's over $4B a year out people's pockets - just on the individual level; we should not forget that businesses too will be compelled to buy those phony "offsets" and the costs will factored in the prices of goods and services. Plus, those jurisdictions that tax carbon, apply much higher rates than $20 per tonne, so Senator Mitchell's projections are way too optimistic. In reality, becoming "carbon neutral" will costs each family thousands, not hundreds of dollars a year. The 15% credit, if passed, will cost the government billions of dollars, that not including tens of billions of dollars in extra expenses, resulting from reduced economic output, higher unemployment and lower standards of living.

But why should we waste all that money on a pseudoscientific fraud?