n parts 1 and 2 of this series we examined the environmentalist movement and its attempt to stop oil drilling in Texas, and its practice of blatantly ignoring hard science. In this 3rd and final part, it is important to grasp the fact that those who adhere to a 'man-made climate change' theory are actually involved in a political movement rather than a scientific one.
For example, several years ago PBS was scheduled to do a documentary on global warming. They were planning to utilize the expertise of a world-renown scientist at the University of Oklahoma. However, when the scientist explained to the producers at PBS that he planned on basing his views solely on hard science, they told him in no uncertain terms that he MUST lay the blame for the phenomenon on human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. When the scientist protested that such a view is based upon speculation and opinion rather than hard scientific evidence, he was politely told his services would not be needed on the program.
Why? Why is the dogma of the environmentalist movement so important to its adherents that scientists must be browbeaten into submission and the documented scientific evidence ignored?