Pages

May 10, 2009

What's truth have to do with it?



"The distinction between a problem and a catastrophe is critical to the psychology of the environmental movement. A problem presents us with choices about its priority in relation to other problems. A looming catastrophe impels us to do whatever the 'experts' tell us we must do to avert it."

David Schoenbrod, New York Law School former lawyer with the Environmental Defense Fund,

I was reading a fascinating article at the Resilient Earth which I highly recommend everyone read. In a brief summary it is about an attempt by a couple of computer modelers to disprove the Svensmark theory of cloud formation and the effect on climate Change.

The the authors at Resilient Earth rightly explain that this is not really possible since a computer model is nothing more than a hypothesis in itself and you can not prove or disprove one theory with another theory. Or as they put it:

Climate models have failed to accurately predict the current downward trend in temperatures and now we are asked to accept a model as proof of how the Universe works. In truth, the paper cited is nothing more than a study of a computer program, and has nothing to do with the physical reality of how Earth's climate functions.

This is the truth both about this particular issue and the state of climate science in general. It is no longer about nor has it ever been about reality. It is about protecting turf and discrediting opposing science that may contradict the movement (AGW)
After a detailed explanation of the actual real science behind the Svensmark theory on cosmic rays, the Resilient Earth article concludes.

This is not real science, it is a parlor trick, a conjuring act using computer software to summon up mealiness data that is then spun into “facts” used to dismiss out of hand an inconvenient competing theory. A more truthful title to the report would have been “Computer Model Fails To Establish Cosmic Ray – Climate Link.” This model proves nothing about the real world.

It is one thing to construct a model as a way to gain insight to a larger investigation, I do not fault Pierce and Adams for that. I do hold them and the journals, who have reported their results as scientifically significant, in contempt as climate change spin doctors, on the same level as Gore and Hansen. As Wolfgang Pauli famously said of a paper submitted by a colleague, “This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.” To that I will add this is not science and it sure as hell isn't proof.


Dr. Martin Hertzberg both a Liberal Democrat and a skeptic of man made global warming opined on the state of the science of global warming :

"You can always tell the difference between a propagandist and a scientist. If a scientist has a theory, he looks diligently for facts that might contradict his theory so that he can test its validity or refine it. The propagandist on the other hand selects only those facts that agree with his theory and dutifully ignores those facts that contradict it."

Reality, truth, has taken a back seat to a movement. Some might call it an agenda which for some involved it is. The agenda being to reshape the governance both politically and economically of the way the world operates.

It can be argued whether this is necessary, whether mankind needs a new direction and a new way of interacting both with itself and with nature. But that is not the place of science and those motivations are not about truth. Reshaping mankind's role in his environment and the way in which we govern and partake in commerce is not in the sphere of climate science or any other of the physical sciences for that matter.

For scientist to use their respected place in society to promote an agenda not through political discourse but through the willful manipulation of data and results and the promotion of others that are favorable to their cause is beyond disgraceful, it borders on criminal.

That is a deception and manipulation of public trust to bring about a change you can not bring about by honest open dialogue with a belief that you know what is best, a progressive elitism of the most despicable type . The mindset of such individuals suffer from controlling natures that have countless times in the historical record laid waste to human freedoms and liberties. That is not science, that is not truth that is fascism.More...

Of course all those in the climate science and related community are not part of such an agenda and would be deeply offended to be thought of that way. They are in fact just members of the movement, sympathisers-deniers. They are the true villains of the drama being played out on a global scale.

These are those that have a conscious and realize that there is something wrong with the science but close their eyes to it. For recognition, personal gain or out of kindred ideological spirit, they go along with the charade. Worse they promote it in the belief that the ends justify the means, but again this has absolutely nothing to do with science and certainly nothing to do with truth.

One of my favorite articles on the subject is done by another whom you would not suspect was a skeptic, Danial Botkins who in his masterful essay Science and Soothsaying wrote:

Thirty years from now, we will probably not be interested in today’s specific computer forecasts, but we may have lost our faith in science, a deeper and, to me, a more important problem.

I know that my investigation of the science of behind global warming has made me far more skeptical of scientist, which is probably good. But on the other hand it has also made me very distrustful of them. Just in studying this issue I have been forced to look at science and it's history of misrepresentation, manipulation and politicization in the past that have left me with a sour taste in my mouth for the entire institution. I guess in a sense that like everything and everyone in life you really have to attempt to understand the motives and more importantly the character of those who claim for themselves a position of knowledge that can have such far reaching impacts on peoples lives.

Impacts that can not be underestimated. Beyond the obvious economic impacts that are about to be unleashed on the world with the unintended but very obvious consequences, there are the psychological and societal burdens that have been forced upon us.

Amy Kaleita explained it well:

"Apocalyptic stories about the irreparable, catastrophic damage that humans are doing to the natural environment have been around for a long time. These hysterics often have some basis in reality, but are blown up to illogical and ridiculous proportions. Part of the reason they’re so appealing is that they have the ring of plausibility along with the intrigue of a horror flick.

In many cases, the alarmists identify a legitimate issue, take the possible consequences to an extreme, and advocate action on the basis of these extreme projections. In 1972, the editor of the journal Nature pointed out the problem with the typical alarmist approach: “[Alarmists’] most common error is to suppose that the worst will always happen.” But of course, if the worst always happened, the human race would have died out long ago."


Far too many little ones will grow up and have grown up with these mad scientist's Sword of Damocles hanging over them. They live in and will continue live in a world of manipulated fear, rather than a healthy love of, the world they live in. A world that to us was big, adventurous and approached with a sense of child like awe is being taught to them as small and fragile on which they should tread with trepidation.

The irony of course is that a proclaimed love for the planet Earth is the supposed motivation as well as the manipulated tool used to scare the little ones and their parents into a sense fearful guilt ridden existence. An existence where man is not so much portrayed as the protector but the intruder on Mother Earth.

The goals of these scientist and their allies in the environmental movement, politics and the media are attainable with far less stress and fear than using these deceptive practices. A healthy love for mankind and the planet Earth would accomplish the goal far more effectively. Perhaps the little ones will learn this from their experience dealing with the consequences of the Woodstock Warriors of my generation.

1 comment:

  1. Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.

    Industrial Society is destroying necessary things [Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land] for making unnecessary things [consumer goods].

    "Growth Rate" - "Economy Rate" - "GDP"

    These are figures of "Ecocide".
    These are figures of "crimes against Nature".
    These are figures of "destruction of Ecosystems".
    These are figures of "Insanity, Abnormality and Criminality".


    The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.

    The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature [Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land].

    Destroy the system that has killed all ecosystems.

    Destroy the society that plunders, exploits and kills earth 365 days of the year and then celebrates Earth Day.

    Chief Seattle of the Indian Tribe had warned the destroyers of ecosystems way back in 1854 :

    Only after the last tree has been cut down,
    Only after the last river has been poisoned,
    Only after the last fish has been caught,
    Only then will you realize that you cannot eat money.


    To read the complete article please follow any of these links.

    Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

    Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

    Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

    Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

    sushil_yadav
    Delhi, India

    ReplyDelete