It warms my heart

For quite some time I have wondered why I am so up in arms over the whole global warming nonsense. It really, really gets under my skin because it has all the earmarks of political science. Political science = bad science.

Case in point: German science circa the 30s and early 40s was "junk science" whereas those who politically opposed them saw their views unquestioningly accepted. Interesting. How did that work out? Well...German "junk science" produced jet power....before the vaunted U.S. After the war, what was the primary aim of the U.S., Britain, and Russia? Was it making sure the various nations got self-determination? The Phillipines, Vietnam, Korea, and various parts of Africa tend to lead me to believe...no. Was it making sure there was equality everywhere in the world? Was it...getting as many of the top German scientists to their respective country? Ding ding ding ding....we have a winner.

You see, while the papers of the German scientists were dismissed because of their political persuasions and/or associations the results they dispensed were invaluable. (see bomb, atomic)

One wonders what could have been done if Einstein and Poincare cooperated instead of competing? Perhaps they could have actually found a unified field theory. Or maybe something even greater. It is sad that Einstein ended up dismissing some of his own theories about quantum mechanics BECAUSE of the politics surrounding it.

Global warming has reminded me a lot of that. Certain people insist it is real and must be real because they say it is real. They claim it for political reasons and thus it often gets dismissed out of hand as being bad science or political science.

The real irony here is that you would think someone who believes A) there is a God B) that God created the earth and C) therefore it would behoove said believer to be somewhat protective of the earth said God created would therefore be among the most ardent of environmentalists.

Now, there are several bleed-over issues. One would be that many, though certainly not all, environmentalists also are animal rights activists. Part of that body of belief, speaking in broad terms, is that man is just a highly evolved animal and therefore animals have the same rights and indeed are the same level of importance as people. This is not a thing I believe. While certainly I do not believe in mindless torture or abuse of animals neither do I approve of treating them the same (or better) than people. No, that does not mean there is room for abuse. The idea that animals = people therefore has in my mind a very strong association, for good or ill, and that comes a cropper when it enters the environmental debate because like it or not if you come down on the side of any particular "pro-environment" issue...or one framed that way....then your vote is involuntarily cast alongside those of other issues you may (or in this case, definitely don't) not agree with.

Well, yet again we are being given "indisputable proof" of global warming...a "proof" that is neither proof nor beyond dispute. And this time someone referenced an article that I think hits at why I have never (and probably never will) jump on the "Oh, the world is coming to an end, global warming is here, the ice caps are melting the temperature is rising things are coming to an end and it is all because of co2 and spray cans and..well, you know the drill.

Only problem is...it is based on politics, not science. They don't just use non-existence facts...they run directly counter to established facts.

And here is where the overlap I referenced at first comes. A few parallels:

Evolution: Every few years some new, indisputable proof of macro-evolution (change from one species into another) is found, trumpeted, held up as "yet more" proof that creation is impossible, evolution is now proven and all scientists believe it. Then a year or so later some new, indisputable proof of macro-evolution is found, trumpeted, held up as "yet more" proof that creation is impossible, evolution is now proven and ALL scientists believe it.


Wait a second...did they not ALL believe it before? Why is it NOW proven when it was proven before? Oh, yeah, that's right....because that indisputable proof is later shown to be a fraud (Piltdown Man is one of my favorites but there are so many to choose from), something normal to the world (Nebraska Man), or some ridiculous extraploation (just research how far apart and how many layers apart Lucy was found. One of the saddest frauds perpetrated on mankind ever. It makes Ponzi look legit). Since there ends up being no new (or, for that matter, old) actual evidence, the proof has to be from repetitious assertions and claims. And by claiming, despite commonplace and vociferous opposition, that "every scientist believes it" they can obfuscate the truth...that when the evidence is examined very few scientists believe it and most realize there is no, zero, zip, nada evidence whatsoever for macro.

Let's see if that sounds familiar when discussing global warming?

"Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."

If you take the time to read the entire article you will note it is rife with examples of "Well, this is what we think should be happening so even though there is no proof for it...and, in fact, there is some evidence the opposite is true...we will say it is what is happening and because the situation is so serious then you will ignore truth and accept what we say. If not, we will say it again and louder and tell people you don't exist."

That is the real reason I have never gotten on board with global warming. Not because I don't believe it isn't real...(which I don't....though I would still work towards conservation because it is the wise, intelligent, and, I would argue, Godly way to go) but because of the inescapable link the approach many of its proponents have which inextricably links it in my mind with evolution...both are based on political desires and ignore science while accusing the opponents of doing the same thing.

Of course, I could be wrong...maybe people reacting to objections to global warming as if they were denying the Holocaust have it right....