Climate Alarmism Is But a Symptom of the Failed Uniformitarian Paradigm

I have submitted the following comment to the American Thinker site, in response to another commenter who averred that the climate change debate was politics, not science. My concern is with the science, so I responded:

It has been about politics, or political propaganda -- a Big Lie -- since 1988 or so, when it became a UN movement (to "redistribute wealth", as they have lately admitted) but before that, from about 1960, it was about the failure of climate science, which in turn was just the tip of the tail of the failure of the paradigm behind all of the earth (and life) sciences.

You see, the "greenhouse effect" originally came into science as a way to explain past "ice ages", which were themselves but a uniformitarian "explanation" for the patterns of geologic stratification, physical scratches, and erratic boulders found over the surface of the Earth. Carl Sagan championed the "greenhouse effect" in 1960 and after, and one of his students was James Hansen, who became the premier climate alarmist scientist of our time.

But back to the dog and its tail-tip. What we see now in the "debate" over "climate" (both of these are fake terms, as used in the political propaganda) is a replay of the debate in the latter 19th century, between Darwinian (undirected, uniformitarian) evolution and "Catastrophism", with the ironic twist that the followers of the uniformitarian paradigm -- the consensus, since Darwin -- are now the catastrophists, in positing a "global climate" that is balanced on a razor's edge (of "radiation forcings", one of which is the "greenhouse effect"), that is being knocked asunder by a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide from about .03% of the atmosphere to about .04% -- totally negligible.

The bottom line: First, "climate science" is a failed science; as I keep writing -- because I proved it, with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison and merely solid, COMPETENT physical reasoning -- there IS no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists. Climate science needs to be taken from the climate scientists, because they have all been miseducated and have all failed. And that is irrespective of their subornation to an insane political narrative on the Left. But second, the paradigm of uniformitarian evolution of the physical Earth -- the extended Darwinian paradigm -- has failed, has in fact failed from its inception, despite its supposed support from Mendelian genetics, in the life sciences (there is no such, even seeming, support for it in the earth sciences -- only random cosmic accidents, "early on in the development of Earth" as the believers chant, to themselves as well as to every new student that comes to them). Genetics only lays bare the DESIGN of life, not its development -- the latter, comprising "evolution theory", is all made-up, unsupported, and even multiply disproved, speculation.

There is a crisis of incompetence throughout science today, because of the wrong turn made by Darwin and his followers more than a century and a half ago. And the bad science is just one part of the world-encompassing false dogmas, that have been too long nurtured by various groups, and cultures, that we are faced with today.

We are living in a climactic time, when many false dogmas are "coming home to roost" at the same time. Yes, like Islam, and every religion (and religiously-held ideas of every kind). It is a test, whether we have really grasped the Enlightenment that brought forth America (and the scientific revolution), or we will slip back into the easy dogmas of every past, ignorant people, going back to the very beginning of human intellectual endeavors.