31 July (PRINCIPIA-SCIENTIFIC) – I love and respect science! I believe that true lovers of science must always be sceptical of scientific findings and pronouncements.
by James Isanhart
After all, it is the true scientific sceptics who define what science really is!
In my experience as someone who has been involved in the environmental field for over 30 years, there are two types of scientists.
The first type of scientist is honest and hard-working (though not immune to the human inclination of self-preservation). This scientist will debate and attack another’s science vigorously. They are by nature sceptical and critical thinkers. They live and work in the ‘real’ world where competition for funding and ideas is fierce and unrelenting. The vast majority of scientists fall into this category. They are rarely ever heard about, are principled, and believe in open and honest debate. I shall henceforth call them ‘true-scientists’.
The second type of scientist (or perhaps ‘pseudo-scientist’ is a better descriptive term) is one who seeks to stifle scientific debate through manipulation and denying peer review to anyone who is not part of his/her inner circle. They indulge in ad hominem attacks on other scientists who do not comply with the viewpoint of his/her inner circle. These ‘pseudo-scientist’ are truly the ‘charlatans’ of science.
It is not too hard to find who these ‘charlatans’ of science are; look no further than the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). Also, you will find them in NASA and NOAA; and at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UK). This list extends to the Presidential Science Advisor in fact, and notably, wherever comfortable, ongoing, government climate research funding is provided.
In the matter of the notion of ‘anthropogenic global warming/climate change/climate disruption’ (or whatever is the ‘politically correct’ term currently – let’s say AGW for short), these pseudo-scientists have benefited enormously by both manipulating and suppressing debate while at the same time conducting a chorus of AGW ‘believers’.
This ‘chorus’ includes most of the main-stream media, and those from the Far-Left of the political spectrum. These ‘charlatans of science’ have capitalized on their support of a catastrophic man-made climate disaster scenario which, in turn, politicians use for political gain.
A true-scientist would never use such terms as, “the science is settled” or “a consensus of scientists say…” these are the methods used by politicians or religious leaders to justify a belief; however, these tactics are used extensively by the pseudo-scientists who are front and center of the man-made Global Warming catastrophe predictions.
A true-scientist would never utter such comments! To be sceptical is what real science is about.
True-scientists question everything!
Sadly for science we have seen nowadays the increasing spectacle of pseudo-scientists denigrating any true-scientist who might dare to question them and/or the august institutions supposedly filled with a pantheon of noted ‘climate scientists’.
Anyone involved in science, especially in a discipline as overwhelmingly complex as our chaotic climate proclaims absolute knowledge on this subject and avoids any contrary opinions can be compared only with either carnival barkers or ‘snake oil’ salesmen.
When these ‘charlatans of science’ tell us ‘little people’ just to believe them because they said so, as a sceptic I say: “No I will not!”
Any argument made from the basis of such assumed authority is not science but demagoguery. The long history of science is filled with such anti-science, a theme upon which I shall expand on later.
In this very complex and confusing climate debate we have to rely upon scientists for our information, and when only the second type – the pseudo-scientists – are being heard, something is wrong.
What are we to make of ‘catastrophic’ scientific pronouncements, which seemingly have become more and more shrill, and are seemingly linked with Far-Left politics?
More people are starting to speak out and express their doubts about the supposed science behind an ever-increasing litany of more and more bizarre climate scare stories.
As a consequence, the pseudo-scientists are losing their credibility because they have adopted an increasingly authoritarian tone rather than presenting any factual evidence. Further, they have shown themselves to be co-opted by politics. This is revealed in more recent opinion polls showing a continuing decline in public belief in climate alarm.
Nature itself has been ‘giving the lie’ to ‘alarmist’ pronouncements, which is why we see increasingly contradictory statements to support claims of impending disaster!
These claims are often made by the same people who only a few short years ago were claiming the opposite; for example, claims of worsening drought are now replaced by shrill cries of drought-breaking ‘flooding rains’ with both being ‘evidence of climate change’. They want it both ways!
Likewise, extremely cold winters and the resulting large snow amounts throughout the Northern Hemisphere have replaced dire prediction from only a few short years ago that snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event” and “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is!”
Can it be that the supposedly overwhelming numbers of ‘expert’ climate scientists could be wrong and maybe, just maybe, the so called Climate Change sceptics could be right? Not according to the alarmists: “No, it cannot be so! A consensus of scientists throughout the world cannot be wrong!”