Droopy wrote:all the hiding of data and computer source code,
What? When did they hide data and computer source code? Science requires this to be repeatable. They would have to publish their methods. I really don't buy that. Just because you might not understand source code doesn't mean everyone is so mystified (I could go on tangents there though).
all the curve fitting,
a.k.a. legitimate science.
all the corruption of the peer review process and manipulation editorial decisions at major scientific magazines and journals; all of the moral corruption of the scientific process by vast oceans of politically interested government grant money seeking scientific conclusions with policy implications, can be traced to the work of a rather small cabal of highly politicized/agenda or economically interested scientists, government agencies, political groups (the IPCC), and corporations for whom AGW means either power, money, or both.
Ah, now that would be on to something. However, I am skeptical.
For many on the Left, it is an aspect of their anti-human, militant neo-pantheistic religion.
I will give you half-credit for that. I'm not so sure about anti-human or how militant it is, nor do I think it's pervasive for those who lean left. However, an undeniable nature-worshiping culture can be found in the world and manifesting itself as opposition to useful technologies like genetically modified plants. The Dude provided me with a great book on that called something like Finding Eden.
For others, it is a vehicle for the wrenching and thorough social transformation that could not be achieved by appeal to class war alone from within the framework of an older theory which has now been able to "hitchhike" upon the back of the Green movement.
I don't see how. In fact, he green revolution provides existing companies many opportunities for innovation and furthering of power. They have the money. Many of them undoubtedly have great research facilities and connections on obtaining energy and using it. It also provides new opportunities for new companies to grow. Both scenarios are ones I would think a free-market lover should enjoy. The problem is that it does have a steep initial cost. However it should pay great dividends in the long run even if global warming is a hoax (which it is almost surely not).
There is no "science" behind AGW. The entire edifice has been falsified and/or rendered moot by actual empirical earth science.
How has it been falsified by empirical earth science?