In 1 Thessalonians 5:21, the Apostle Paul tells us to “test all things, hold fast what is good.” That, among other things (such as belief that a rational God designed the ordered world to be understood and ruled by rational human beings made in His image), is the Biblical basis for modern science, which arose only once in history and in only one place: Medieval Europe, which was shaped by the Christian worldview.

Such thinking gave rise to scientific method, the key to which is skepticism, as described by the late Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman:

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

When the IPCC’s computer climate models simulate twice as much warming as has actually occurred over the past 35 years, and not one predicted the complete absence of warming over the last 18 years and 4 months, it is clear that the models are wrong. Applying Feynman’s “key to science,” the conclusion is all but inescapable: There is no rational basis to fear manmade global warming, and therefore no rational basis for any policy meant to prevent it.

That leaves us wondering what other basis there might be for policy ostensibly meant to prevent global warming. We needn’t search far for the answer. IPCC co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer told us in 2010:

The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. … First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.