A New Definition of Science
To me, global warming is a problem that ranks in seriousness just below the issue of what color pocket handkerchief I'll be wearing to the royal wedding... and no, I'm not invited... and if I were, I wouldn't wear a pocket handkerchief. But as I've read about and investigated the matter, there always seemed to me to be a scintilla of a sliver of a scrap of a possibility that there might be something to it. This article by former climate alarmist David Evans from last week's Financial Post is the clearest debunking of the whole thing I've yet read and may be the last word on the subject I ever read:
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
The article goes into precise and concise detail on what is happening and why - short, to the point and perfect for us non-scientists. It seems to me we need a new definition of science: theory supported by observation and experimentation over-ridden by money.
H/T to the lovely Mary Belle Snow at The Snow Report.
- Comment (47)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
"It seems to me we need a new definition of science: theory supported by observation and experimentation over-ridden by money."
Also, self-interest, expedience, state expansion, controlling the ignorant population....
Jan '11
Re: A New Definition of Science
If you're in the secular world, "scientists" are your priesthood. Speaking from the experience of someone who still loves the old priesthood, a word of warning. There's nothing that provokes corruption faster than a little bit of authority.
The religious priesthood attracts people who want to gain instant respect, without having earned it. The collar brings respect that isn't really deserved. That syndrome isn't limited to religious life. In every sphere of life, when your job or position brings respect (cop, soldier, teacher, etc.) you're bound to find within it a number of people who sought the job for the respect, without appreciating the responsibilities that go with it.
These days, "scientist" is that kind of job. It brings instant respect, even if you haven't really done anything.
The religious priesthood goes through its own "scandal," which many think undermines its authority. Science has the same problem. If you hold yourself out to be dedicated to provable truths, you can't hide or suppress conflicting evidence.
May '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
I'm pretty sure the fact that you wouldn't wear a pocket handkerchief is somehow connected to your lack of an invitation. Dude, I'll lend you a pocket handkerchief. This slouching toward slovenliness may go over in Montecito pal..
At present, the only impetus toward CO2 regulation in the US is Presidential fiat. Presidents come and go, so that won't last, and Congress has no appetite for it. It's bringing down the Labor government in Australia. All the steely-eyed, hard-nosed realistic players in the world see it as total BS unworthy of their consideration.
Which leaves Europe, and they've been in the habit of being left for so long that we pat them on the back when they show the merest spark of non-decline.
Warmenism has retreated to the enclaves of trade journals, the NYT (but I repeat myself), Brussels and Turtle Bay.
Nov '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with religion, but....the most alarming thing about climate change is how many people still buy the whole thing. Thanks for pointing out a great article. When I first got out of the Army in '91 I went to Whitman College and studied Astronomy and Physics, until my money ran out. I remember my Astronomy professor giving essentially the same story as Mr. Evans. Scientists have known for a long time that this global warming stuff is a hoax.
May '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
Fortunately, science is different from social science. In science the evidence eventually cannot be denied. In social science, you pick your evidence and ignore the rest.
Aug '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
Growing up, scientists were typically portrayed as either 1) Mad or, 2) the Eventual Creators of Flying Cars.
Now we know there is a third breed of scientist: the Will Say Whateverthehell We Need To Say To Keep Our Government Paycheck type.
And me, I'm still waiting for flying cars.
Apr '11
Re: A New Definition of Science
Thanks for the link. I'd hate to be an atmospheric scientist when politicians finally sense the public has had it with this foolishness.
Jun '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
Many of the proponents of AGW weren't even practicing scientists but environmental activists who the UN IPCC treated as credible authorities on the Earth's climate. But those scientists who have prostituted themselves for grant money or enhanced status and who have deliberately discarded contrary evidence that discredits AGW have done a tremendous disservice to scientists everywhere who are simply going about their business quietly.
Science is not a static endeavor. Theories are constantly and repeatedly challenged. Science is rarely if ever "all in" despite what the evasive-Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist-meteorologist-Albert Gore, Jr. thinks.
Throughout the entire AGW hysteria what was a constant source of frustration to me was not seeing the issue vigorously debated in the public forum on television even though by now there are arguably more scientists who refute AGW than support it. But one wouldn't know that because the propaganda machine of government and their media toadies has been in high gear and won't allow debate.
Every time I hear the claim in commercials about diminishing our carbon footprint or buying a certain product because it helps to fight climate change I want to kick the TV in.
Mar '11
Re: A New Definition of Science
I was fascinated reading the comments following the article. No Ricochet code of conduct there!
Feb '11
Re: A New Definition of Science
The whole point of science is *you can always go and see for yourself*....you don't have to believe Aristotle about falling objects or Ptolemy about the motion of the heavenly bodies; get your own stopwatch or telescope and see what's really happening. This point has been largely lost in K-12 and university science education; the decline of lab science surely plays a part in this.
In particular, the use of computer simulation models as a *substitute* for actual experiments is a bad idea. Even worse is the attempt to turn science, like all other subjects, into a "social studies" mush. See my post skipping science class.
Jun '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
Sadly science isn't the only thing over-ridden by money. Come to think of it, is there anything in life that is immune from being over-ridden by money?
Dec '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
Pity. I was looking forward to global warming.
It gets too cold around here.
Aug '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
Brian - Maybe you should get one of those fake TVs used in furniture stores. Keep it handy - and you can kick it in without destroying your actual TV. You'd get a little satisfaction at way less expense.
Jun '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
David, that's a great post.
I can't imagine not having a basic understanding of science and being able to function in 2011. My science foundation may be quite rusty, but because of it, I know where to turn for answers and explanations for any scientific or medical question that comes up. The process is what has stayed with me long after the minutiae have been burried somewhere in my aging brain. Knowing how to get answers and how to follow logically to the next step of inquiry is something that is enhanced by lab science instruction.
Jun '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
This is very true... I'm getting pretty in depth into the statistics and methods courses of my social science and the further I go down the rabbit hole, the more I realized that with statistics, you can say the data support pretty much anything.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
May '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
The global warming charade is necessary for the Left because all other rational have objectively failed. The past century has proven (through the death and devastation of hundreds of millions) that democratic socialism, Marxism, national socialism, etc., have all failed miserably. Global warming is a relatively new - supposedly "objective" - reason to further a statist agenda.
From what I can tell through polls and personal anecdotes, most people either think global warming is an outright hoax or "acknowledge" the problem with a politically correct but politically ambivalent wink and nod. One of my greatest concerns is the damage this political charade has done to the reputation of the hard sciences. I love publications like Scientific American but to include global warming news on the same pages as actual breakthrough scientific research is akin to including an alchemy discussion with the theories of Newton.
May '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
Songwriter
Brian - Maybe you should get one of those fake TVs used in furniture stores. Keep it handy - and you can kick it in without destroying your actual TV. You'd get a little satisfaction at way less expense. · Apr 14 at 7:32am
With all due respect, kick the real TV in, and keep it that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1IzySRln_I
Mar '11
Re: A New Definition of Science
There is not a problem with bad ideas. You cannot have ideas without some, or even most of them being bad or wrong. Progress and new knowledge come along and better explanations are formed. Bad ideas are driven out if freedom exists.
Bad ideas are only a problem when they become politicized and are used to make laws and guide policy. Government is an incredibly powerful force. They have a monopoly on the legal use of force and when you combine that with bad and wrong ideas such as AGW, we are in big trouble. Political power is poison beyond a very limited set and we are so far beyond that rational and moral limit that we are in real danger.
Science and religion do not scare me - politics does.
Jun '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
Songwriter
Brian - Maybe you should get one of those fake TVs used in furniture stores. Keep it handy - and you can kick it in without destroying your actual TV. You'd get a little satisfaction at way less expense. · Apr 14 at 7:32am
Hmmm...it's a thought.
Aug '10
Re: A New Definition of Science
Brian Watt
Songwriter
Brian - Maybe you should get one of those fake TVs used in furniture stores. Keep it handy - and you can kick it in without destroying your actual TV. You'd get a little satisfaction at way less expense. · Apr 14 at 7:32am
Hmmm...it's a thought. · Apr 14 at 8:19am
Think of it as cheap therapy.