I see no Dryads Here (2016) Dessin par Edwin Loftus

The "Unseen World" exists. It may not be what we or our ancestors thought it was, it certainly is not what contemporary skeptics, who reject all that is mysterious while investing "not-science" and "not-scientists" with the same sort of magical and mystical properties they reject in legend, tradition and religion. But it exists, whatever that may be.

Do any of you actually believe that it's possible to scientifically "model" climate conditions decades into the future? With no independent reproduction of results, no reproducibility of factors, no isolation of factors, no examination of alternatives, no subjection to critical review, the only science in current climate science is that some of the data used to support it is actually scientifically generated ... but not scientifically applied to the theory.
How many times have you heard, "scientific consensus" or "a consensus of climate scientists agree"? In true science, there is no value in consensus. Consensus is not a part in any way, of true science.
"The science is settled"? True science is never settled because there may always be some factor that has not yet been taken into account that could invalidate the previous findings.
"Peer Review? Peer reviews are precautions taken by publications to help insure that they don't completely embarrass themselves. A peer review has no place in science. it is not an independent researcher verifying the data and reproducing the conditions under which the conclusion was reached. it is easily 'fixed' by hiring sympathetic reviewers, (which in practice, are usually recommended by the article's author). They don not test the data, they look it over and pass on whether it looks scientific or not, not whether it is good science or junk science.
For the same reason, "Probability" has nothing to do with science. Science is about objectively determining reality to the best extent possible. Probability theory is only about determining what is most probably real. They are different disciplines. A 4% deviation from predicted results in science is a death knell, in probability theory it is still within the range of normal expectations.
And speaking of "discipline", that is what science is, a discipline by which more accurate predictions can be made. But for a proposition to be a scientific one, scientific discipline must be observed. Facts cannot be disregarded because they don't support the theory. Alternative theories and explanations and interpretations, likewise cannot be dismissed unless they can be disproven. Tampering with facts, invalidates those facts. Prejudicing factors in the interpretation of facts, invalidates those interpretations. There is no, "But just in case, I'd rather be safe than sorry," in science. Either it is currently indisputable, or it is not. And if it is disputable, it is not a scientific interpretation. Any violation of scientific methodology invalidates the interpretation of the data and renders it, Not Science.
There is science suggesting that the climate is getting warmer. There is no science that suggests that trend can be reversed or more than insignificantly effected by reducing the insignificant human-caused additions of carbon to the atmosphere.

This is not the first time pseudo science has been used to effect social changes:
- In the 19th Century, pseudo physiological science was used to prove the "superiority" of northern Europeans and inferiority of Africans and justify discrimination against the latter and in favor of northern Europeans.
As that began to be discredited, at the beginning of the 20th Century, pseudo genetic science was used to justify discrimination against and the mass murder of Armenians, Jews, Gypsies, the mentally retarded, the physically disabled, Koreans, Africans, American-Asians, (called 'Indians'), and many other supposedly "genetically inferior" people.
When that was discredited, the inheritors of the philosophy that claims that some people are superior and should have the power to rule over everyone else, picked up AGW, (Anthropogenic Global Warming), and Social Justice as their new banners to march toward power under.
If you believe in the religious submission to "science", you should have no problem believing in fairies and nymphs and other spirit influences in our world.
[Comparative Physiology was the science/pseudo science that drove theories of racial superiority-inferiority from about 1840 to 1960. Eugenic pseudo science was a driver from about 1890 to 1945. Malthusianism, the belief that the population will cause calamitous die-back unless we significantly glean out its less productive elements on a continuing basis, mixed with some of these other movements, died back in the 20th Century, but returned in the 1960s as "The Population Bomb/Overpopulation". It returned as Environmentalism, now focusing less on population directly and more on the resources that allow the population to grow without great catastrophe. Decrease resources like, nuclear fission, hydro-electric energy and fossil fuels and the population won't be able to grow ... it'll shrink and this will require a class of superior people able to coordinate internationally to manage the slow catastrophe and the inferior people it's happening to. After trying several approaches to increasing the need for highest level management, they finally invented today's crisis, in the 1980s and fed it with grants to anyone who would generate data that could be construed as supporting it, while suppressing any who spoke against it.
These were all, elitist, "Progressive" movements.]

Thèmes connexes

RealityScientific MethodologyPseudo-Sciences