An issue for which the science is supposedly "settled" by a complete "consensus" of scientists would seem to offer the perfect opportunity to win over a skeptical public once and for all. But look no further than global warming movement's effort to ignore the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's call to put the science on trial, involving cross-examinations, witnesses, and a judge to make a final ruling.
Climate fear promoters, knowing that they will lose an open, honest public debate, fear a trial moreso. There are some important pieces of evidence that cast into serious doubt the case for manmade global warming.

Just this year came a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears. A small sampling of developments include: New peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies, more evidence that rising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth's failure to warm.

Those are just the broad strokes. What about the specifics? As the climate fear activists point fingers and regress into amusing rants, the global warming fear movement is collapsing.

There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. This follows a peer-reviewed analysis showing that the 20th century was not unusually warm.

In addition, a global temperature analysis on April 24, 2009 found that "no continents have set a record high temperature since 1974."

On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position.

The physicists wrote to APS governing board: "Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th-21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today."

There has been the failure of the oceans to warm, and Antarctic ice continues to grow. Even the poster child of the warming fear campaign, the Arctic, is not cooperating. Sea ice there grew more than the size of Texas over the last two years.

The hits keep coming from Down Under too. New Zealand Climate Scientist Chris de Freitas revealed on May 1, 2009 that "warming and CO2 are not well correlated." De Freitas added, "the effect of CO2 on global temperature is already close to its maximum. Adding more has an ever decreasing effect."

Australian Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer wrote on August 8, 2009: "At present, the Earth's atmosphere is starved of CO2...One big volcanic eruption can add as much CO2 in a day as humans do in a year."

Perhaps this body of evidence, bolstered by a good deal more, is why a U.S. government scientist said recently that if a climate trial occurred "only those with religious convictions of warming would continue to hold any support for man-made global warming."

Certainly there is enough strong evidence to knock back overreaching efforts to legislate and regulate everyday activities that involve carbon dioxide. If global warming activists and the Administration continue to avoid an official court hearing, we will have to continue putting the "science" on trial.

In a world where there's more than a reasonable doubt about catastrophic global warming, the verdict is easy to predict.

Formerly one of the editors of a journal called "Climate Research," de
Freitas was involved in a controversy surrounding a research article
co-authored by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. The article reviewed
previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that climate
hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. But 13 of the authors of the
papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their
work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a
flawed peer review process which allowed the publication.

Among the sharp criticisms of the Climate Research paper was one from
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn
State University. When von Storch, then the journal’s editor, read
Mann’s critique, he said he realized his journal should never have
accepted the study: “If it would have been properly reviewed, it would
have been rejected on the basis of methodological flaws.” Shortly
after, Von Storch, along with two other members of the Climate
Research editorial board resigned in protest - "they submitted flawed
research," Von Stroch stated at the time.

    Plimer probably didn't expect an astronomer to review his book. I
couldn't help noticing on page120 an almost word-for-word reproduction
of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled "The Sun is a
plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass". This paper argues that the
sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers
have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is
instead similar in composition to a meteorite.

    It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that
the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a
biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather
than photosynthesis.

    Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the
dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the
influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely"
atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be
right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics,
oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to
languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the
writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.