I'm a denier.  After the collapse of the UEA data over two years ago it seems to me that one after another part of the puzzle has collapsed.  But for the left it isn't really "science."  It's their religeon.  If the facts collapse it's ok because they accept the truth as an article of faith.  And this has been a rough week for the true believers.

First we had Dennis Byrne writing in the Chicago Trib (you know, THAT bastion of right wing claptrap).  

Today I am writing about religion. Specifically, about those who worship in the Church of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. More specifically, about those who, as a matter of faith, believe that the science of climate change is settled.

These believers preach that mankind is steering the planet onto an irreversible and cataclysmic course unless we do something. They have engaged in a clever ploy of labeling those who disagree with their dogma as “deniers” and “anti-science.” When actually they’re the ones trashing science.

Let’s take the latest scientific research that demonstrates, again, that the science of climate change is too complex to lend itself to simplifications and claims of “consensus.”

read the whole essay here

Then Jonah Goldberg over at NR posed an interesting question: 

Why does the Left get to pick which issues are the benchmarks for “science”? Why can’t the measure of being pro-science be the question of heritability of intelligence? Or the existence of fetal pain? Or the distribution of cognitive abilities among the sexes at the extreme right tail of the bell curve? Or if that’s too upsetting, how about dividing the line between those who are pro- and anti-science along the lines of support for geoengineering? Or — coming soon — the role cosmic rays play in cloud formation? Why not make it about support for nuclear power? Or Yucca Mountain? Why not deride the idiots who oppose genetically modified crops, even when they might prevent blindness in children?

Some of these examples are controversial, others tendentious, but all are just as fair as the way the Left framed embryonic stem cell research and all are more relevant than questions about evolution. (Quick: If Obama changed his mind about evolution tomorrow and became a creationist, what policies would change? I’ll wait.)

Keep reading this post . . .