February 13, 2007

Logic Deniers and Global Dumbing: greatest threat to planet ever?

There is an alarming aspect of the so-called “debate” about the constant, inevitable and unremarkable cyclical shifts in the earth’s climate over the past few billion years.

And that is the Logic Deniers cynical abandonment of the scientific method.

People who claim to be “scientists,” and who you might assume would know better, are actually leading the cartoon mob screaming about consensus and, (the most outrageous offense of all) calling for the end of "debate." As if science was a debate, anyway.

They sound like the mob at ye olde Witch Trials in England when a bunch of enraged village yahoos would gather for the traditional pastime of drinking, cavorting and burning a few women at the stake.

No matter what the poor females accused of “witchcraft” said or did, proved that they were, in fact, witches. The mob found signs in everything to prove their idiotic ravings. Does that sound familiar?

"See, the witch has a Cat. Burn the witch.... See, she floats when we drown her. Drag her from the village pond and burn the witch.... See, she has a mole. Burn the witch."
I’m referencing Sir Karl Popper: the English/Austrian big brain widely recognized as one of the greatest scientific philosophers of the 20th Century.

Now, while I have many problems with his Open Society thesis, so beloved by George Soros and other one-world globalizing lefties, his critique of the scientific method seems eminently reasonable...

According to Popper and supported by many, the researcher should begin by proposing hypotheses. The collection of data is guided by a theoretical preconception concerning what is relevant or important. The examination of causal connections between phenomena is also guided by leading hypotheses.

Such a hypothesis is scientific only if one can derive from it particular observation statements that, if falsified by the facts, would refute the hypothesis.

A statement is meaningful, therefore, if and only if there is a way it can be falsified.

Hence the researcher should strive to refute rather than to confirm his hypotheses.


Refutation is the real advancement. And why? Because it clears the field of a likely hypothesis and let’s us move on.
You get that point of brilliant clarity?

Science can only be “science” if it is open to refutation or falsification – according to one of the top minds of the twentieth century.

Yet the Logic Deniers and the Global Dumbers have perverted Popper's assertion. Instead they have turned it on its head to propose that scientists seeking to refute the "theory" of man-made global warming should be banished to the outer darkness of defunding and perpetual shame.

Yet it is they, the Logic Deniers, who have perverted the progress of science and infused “research” with dogma.

It is their minds which are closed to refutation and falsification. It is they who should be attacking their own hypotheses with vigor so as to strengthen their case.

Yet they are not. This is truly a Stalinist level of scary for those of us who had assumed we had left the Dark Ages behind.

Why, you might ask, would any scientist seek to ignore inconvenient observations that may, in fact, falsify their theory that man is the prime agent in any alleged rise in average global temperatures.

  • The observation that in Earth's past CO2 levels were at least five times what they are today.
  • The observation that higher than today CO2 levels predated not only industrialization, but mankind by millions of year.
  • The observation that sea levels have risen 400 feet in the past 18,000 years as part of the natural cycle of Ice Ages.
  • The observation that no one can actually state what are the “correct” levels of carbon dioxide.
  • The fact the carbon dioxide is not a "pollutant" (as I have heard "environmentalists" erroneously state), but is essential for all life on earth.
  • The observation that the vast nuclear furnace known as the Sun has massive, profound effects on weather and/or climate.
  • The fact that climatologists can’t even predict weather 14 days into the future.

Observations like that-- and so, so much more, are out there. You would think that this should all cause a reasonable "scientist" to pause and say, hang on...

“How does all this support MY theory that it is man who is having the major effect on our apparently small rise in the recent average global temperature.“

But then, we aren’t really dealing with science here. It’s that old time religion. Plus a grafted on dose of the same old neo-communist/ neo- socialist/watermelon politics.

“Green” on the outside. Red through and through.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home