Is it Okay to Get Politics Out of Science?


Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout…

Understanding what the word climate means is simple: it’s years of weather. Everyone knows that the weather is impossible to predict except for a few days or weeks. So, why do some people believe they can predict the climate? “Temperature oscillations recorded in Greenland ice cores over the past 500 years,” according to Dr. Easterbrook, “are truly remarkable. At least 40 periods of warming and cooling have occurred since 1480 AD, all well before CO2 emissions could have been a factor.”

A belief that summers will be warmer than winters is not a sweeping overstatement. Sane people freely generalize about easily observable things; as with most things, we all agree hindsight is the best teacher. Most of humanity probably do not think it strange in the slightest to know little to nothing about the art or science of climate prediction or even what the climate has been in the past and most of what we think are generalizations based on shows like, The Day after Tomorrow and One Million Years B.C., or episodes of the Lone [Texas] Ranger.

See—e.g., 10000 Years of Greenland Climate

Given improved roads and modern grading equipment the number of days the Tioga Pass is closed due to snow is nothing compared to the past, even though average temperatures over the 10,000 years prior to 2000 AD were mostly warmer than today. And, there have been some legendary miscalculations — as for example, the storied weather event that trapped the California-bound emigrants of the Donner Party in the high Sierra Nevada mountains during the winter of 1846-1847.

Air and sea temperatures have failed to rise anything like as much as “global-warming” theory predicts. Explanations for the shortfall of observed outturn against theoretical projection are mutually inconsistent and scientifically dubious. I conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, the contrarians are significantly closer to the truth than the UN and its supporters. ~M of B

The mathematical climate models are simple extensions of weather programs and are nothing more than modern-day divining rods. In an earlier time in America people like Michael Mann and James Hansen were simply run out of town on a rail when they claimed they could make the rains come or not. They weren’t hired by the government or considered to be public servants and certainly wouldn’t have been allowed to be around and teach the children. Scientists in other societies laugh at the West; they do not take the science of climatology with any more seriousness than the science of ancient astrology.

The governments’ growing intrusiveness into our lives parallels its current interests. It wants to pass laws we all are required to pay for and follow, based on what the climate will be in 50 years. And yet, based on the science, the most dispositive indication of our future ruin is that we continue to pay and vote for a government that still is putting targets on the backs of our individual liberties when it comes to paying for governments’ global warming propaganda.

For example, the current EPA has no place in a free enterprise system. Consider for a moment that secular-socialists already take advantage of the fact that all businesses are at the complete mercy of an unlimited and astronomical legal expensive exposure that plaintiffs attorneys eagerly exploit as if it was a natural resource created by the Left. By defining CO2 as a pollutant the EPA has given wings to such lawsuits. Both Galileo and Franz Kafka are mute examples of what happens when the government is both the proof source and silent witness concerning all of the accused’s alleged calumnies.

The real facts (i.e., not UN-approved politically-motivated EPA facts) are much different according to Claude Allegre and 15 other scientists writing in the WSJ. “The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today,” as can be seen in 16 scientists’ Jan. 27, 2012 Wall Street Journal op-ed, reassuringly entitled as follows:


No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to
‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy
.   .   .   .   .   .   .

While everyone is entitled to their opinions, in reality, Western PhD candidates are being trained in the ‘hockey stick’ method, and to government-funded climatologists everything in climate science looks like a ‘hockey stick.’ Global warming has become the New Deal of science at a time when taxpayers should do everything possible to get politics out of science for good. So, looking back… George Bush was right to refuse to sign the UN’s initiative on global warming in Kyoto! And sadly it is not hard to believe that the Left still wishes Bush had done what Al Gore would gleefully have done: replace the use of reason in science with ideology.

“We hear a great deal about dangerous climate change,” says Dr. Philip Stott, “from the likes of Al Gore and Nicholas Stern. By contrast, I wish to speak about dangerous ‘Green’ economics. We forget at our peril that a significant portion of the ‘Green’ movement has striven for over 40 years to undermine the whole of our economic system.”

Reformed environmentalist Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace) went so far as to say he now believes in nuclear power and says the Left has gone over the cliff. “Nuclear energy,” Moore says, “is essential for our future energy supply, especially if we wish to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. It has proven to be clean safe, reliable, and cost-effective.” (see, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout…)

If you can look into the seeds of time, and say
which grain will grow and which will not,
speak then me. (Shakespeare)

Two celebrated standard bearers of scientific skepticism today, Freeman Dyson and William Happer, weighed-in giving their views about the motives and plain ignorance of global warming alarmists. “There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves,” Happer observed. “Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous.” Going to the matter of competence, Dyson was no less sparing of brainwashed climate scientists. “The models are extremely oversimplified,” says Dyson. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.” (See–e.g., Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor)

Dyson worked with Einstein — he replaced Einstein — and knows a little something about what we do and do not understand. Dyson just does not believe climatologists “understand the climate,” and says, “their computer models are full of fudge factors.” Dyson also says, “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic.”

“It was similar in the Soviet Union,” Dyson observed. “Who could doubt Marxist economics was the future?” The government may fund another 40,000 scientists to research the AGW hypothesis but this will butter no parsnips.

Government scientists’ end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it hyperbole just might be wrong. Oh well… no harm done, right? But, is more government still the only correct answer?

Will we look back years from now and see the current hiatus for well over 10 years of no global warming, as the halcyon days of places like Greece and the Hotel California where middle-class people flee while their life’s savings are still intact? A time when Leftists and liberal Utopians of the secular-socialist government-education machine could be totally wrong and knowingly wrong and still be employed to teach science to children in public schools? If so, Western civilization deserves to fail grandly.

About Wagathon

Hot World Syndrome—fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. A Chance Meeting– We toured south along the Bicentennial Bike Trail in the Summer of 1980, working up appetites covering ~70 miles per day and staying at hiker/biker campgrounds at night along the Oregon/California coast (they were 50¢ a day at that time). The day's ride over, and after setting up tents, hitting the showers, and making a run to a close-by store, it was time to relax. The third in our little bicycle tour group, Tom, was about 30 yards away conversing with another knot of riders and treating himself to an entire cheesecake for dinner. He probably figured Jim and I would joke about what a pig he was eating that whole pie and decided to eat among strangers. Three hours later after sharing stories and remarking on a few coincidences that turned up here and there, Tom and one of the former strangers realized they were cousins, meeting in this most unlikely place for the first time. ~Mac
This entry was posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Is it Okay to Get Politics Out of Science?

  1. Pingback: The Instantiate Nature of Global Warming | evilincandescentbulb

  2. Pingback: Climate Change Always a Mixed Blessing | evilincandescentbulb

Comments are closed.