London Calling
The Real Way to Save the Planet
It is a pity Karl Popper did not live to see that Global Warming fitted perfectly into his model of a pseudo-theory.
The Copenhagen Summit was bound to fail if only because politicians are beginning to realize that ordinary voters do not believe in man-made Global Warming, as polls plainly show. They did not believe in Marxist Dialectical Materialism either, or Freudianism. These three pseudo-sciences have a lot in common, not least their ability to inspire a religious kind of belief in highly educated people who lack a genuine creed.
When I was an undergraduate the philosopher I studied most carefully was Karl Popper, especially his writings on the evaluation of evidence and criteria to distinguish a genuine scientific theory from a false one. He made two key points. First, a theory must include the falsifiability principle. It must be susceptible to empirical tests and, if it fails to meet them, be scrapped. He gave as an example of a genuine theory Einstein’s General Relativity of 1915. Einstein insisted that it must survive three practical tests, and if it failed any one of them be dropped as untrue. In fact it passed triumphantly all three, beginning in 1919, and many other since.
Popper argued that prima facie evidence of a bogus theory was the practice of altering or enlarging it, by its authors, to accommodate new evidence since its original formulation. This, he argued, had happened in the case of Marxism and, still more, Freudianism. Scientific theories, he argued, must be very precise and scientific to be of any use. Marxism and Freudianism were just portmanteau notions into which virtually any kind of phenomena could be made to fit. Hence Marxism led to political and economic disaster areas like the Soviet Union, and Freudianism to a stupendous waste of time and money.
It is a pity Popper did not live to see that Global Warming fit perfectly into his model of a pseudo-theory. It is vaguely and imprecisely formulated. It fails the falsifiability test, because all new evidence is made to fit by enlarging the theory. When originally formulated in the 1980s, Global Warming produced by man-made emissions would lead, it was argued, to much higher temperatures and desiccation. There would be a huge drop in rainfall and an imperative need to build seawater desalination plants. I recall an unusually dry summer (1987) in the English Lake District, normally rainy, was triumphantly presented as “absolute proof” of the theory. This autumn, the Lake District had an unusually wet spell, culminating in floods that engulfed the delightful town of Cockermouth, where Wordsworth was born. This was pounced upon by Global Warming “experts” as “absolute proof” of their theory, and paraded as such in Copenhagen.
The fact is that the theory has now been expanded to include any unusual form of weather, anywhere. Hot summers, warm winters — global warming. Cold weather at an unusual time of year — global warming. Drought, storms, floods — global warming. No snow on the ski slopes, sudden snow, out of season snow, very heavy snow — global warming. Of course in countries like Japan or the UK, where unusual, unpredictable, and tiresomely variable weather is the norm (it was first commented on in the UK by the Venerable Bede in the eighth century), the public does not swallow global warming, and polls show majorities of 55 to 60 percent reject it.
Of course vested interests accept it. It is regarded as a splendid way of damaging the American economy, by the same kind of left-wing intellectuals who supported the Club of Rome in the 1960s, which argued that world resources were on the brink of exhaustion. It is a form of pantheism and a useful emotional outlet for people who have renounced Judeo-Christianity. If someone is anti-American, left-liberal, and atheist, it is virtually certain he (or even she: women are notoriously more skeptical about it than men are) is a Global Warmer.
THEN AGAIN, GLOBAL WARMING NOW HAS a powerful, worldwide institutional substructure. If a media outlet has an environment correspondent, or a university a Department of Climate Studies, or a government a Ministry of Global Warming, those involved are certain to be not just believers but fanatical propagandists for the cause. Their livelihood depends on it. I calculate that the lobby now includes over 20,000 full-time, well-paid professionals whose entire life is spent in pushing “proofs.” The existence of this enormous phalanx of well-placed, articulate enthusiasts has inevitably led to the capture of powerful institutions — in Britain, for instance, the Meteorological Office, the Royal Society, and the BBC, together with many universities and newspapers. It used to be supposed that scientists, or those calling themselves such, were incorruptible and guided purely by genuine convictions based on objective evidence. But scientists behave just like politicians if the pressure and prizes make it worth their while to conform.
So vast sums of money will continue to be spent on an unproven and unprovable theory, predicting a global catastrophe from the realms of fantasy. The money could be much more profitably spent on space exploration. This is a genuine science and could turn out to be useful, even vital. The planet Earth, though not threatened with destruction by man-made global warming, is by no means indestructible. There are many unpredictable events within our solar system, and still more outside it, that could make Earth uninhabitable by humans. A meteorite of sufficient size could destroy it entirely. A giant sunspot could produce precisely the catastrophic climate change the lobby falsely claims is being created by man’s “emissions.” There are hundreds of fatal possibilities astrophysicists can imagine, and thousands more, no doubt, that could occur.
In the long term, it is desirable that the human race, faced with the prospect of extinction on Earth, should prepare an escape route for itself to another inhabitable planet. In order to do this we must explore the universe far more thoroughly and exhaustively than we have done up till now, and equally important, develop the concept of mass space travel and colonization schemes. Mankind has done this before, notably in the 15th century, when the threat of plague and starvation in Europe led to the successful crossing of the Atlantic and colonization in the Americas. We need to repeat the imaginative effort of the late medieval Spanish, Portuguese, and Genoans in navigation, technology, and courage, but on an infinitely greater scale. This would be a worthy cause for the united resources of the human race to combine in furthering — the colonization of the universe.
It may be a distant goal, but it is a practical one, and in pursuing it we would do more to unite the human race in purposeful activity than anything else so far proposed. By contrast, combating a largely imaginary threat of global warming is just as costly, as well as scientifically unsound, technologically impossible, and, not least, divisive.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (134) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Paul Johnson
More Articles From London Calling
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/03/the-real-way-to-save-the-plane
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
michigander_sandusky| 2.3.10 @ 6:14AM
I was going to comment on this article, but I have six inches of new snow to shovel off my driveway. Damn global warming...
John3| 2.3.10 @ 6:07PM
Washington DC is forecasted to have anywhere from 12 to 20 inches of snow with this forthcoming snowstorm--something that is quite unusual for the Washington DC area. Maybe this will open eyes....well, probably not......I hope the Obama kids have fun with this snow!
Brubaker| 2.7.10 @ 11:01AM
I'm having a great time (?) shoveling the roughly 24 inches of snow that inundated my Fairfax, VA home, just 15 miles from the White House. With each shovel full, I mumble another comment about Al Gore and all the looney global warming fanatics.
For my part, I'd welcome a bit of warming right now.
amily| 2.3.10 @ 10:23PM
so many years, experts tell us global warming always.
but now the fact tell us these experts are stupid !
http://www.udtek.com/laptop-battery-c-1.html
Jim | 2.5.10 @ 6:15PM
AGWT is very robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it at the 100% (0r greater) confidence level.
Alan Brooks| 2.7.10 @ 12:33AM
ALL intellectuals are a bit devious-- liars (and lawyers) figure and figures lie.
Data is mined to fit hypotheses. Perhaps winters will get colder, summers hotter; and ... eventually?
Another ice age decades from now?
MikeD| 2.7.10 @ 8:17PM
I'm not sure if Jim is being humorously sarcastic; or expressing a truly felt thought. I'd like to assume the former because only a true mental defective idiologue could make his statement with a straight face. Man-caused Global Warming is a joke, and has been for years. As a meteorologist with an advanced degree as well as an engineer who has been fortunate to work in 78 countries; I can honestly state that, in all those countries, over the past 20 years or so, no person of average, or superior intelligence has ever uttered a serious statement like Jim just did in writing!
It's also interesting that back in the 70's, just after Paul Ehrlich told us all we were going to die from the 'Population Bomb' and Rachel Carson effectively condemned 100 million third world residents to death from malaria; we were being told by 'Time, 'Newsweek' and the New York Times that we were all going to freeze to death from the rapidly approaching ice age.
Any time a Liberal tells me that ANYTHING is 'settled' that contains the tiniest bit of danger or damage for the United States of America, I NEVER believe a single word. Algore should be arrested for treason and fraud for all the damage he has done to our Country; and, if Obama continues to spew forth his absolutely false noises about 'Cap and Tax' being the salvation from Anthropogenic Global Warming; he also needs to be impeached and arrested for fraud, theft, and, possible murder for any person that dies as a result of his knowingly false assertions. The Global Warming scam has been discovered. It needs to die a quick and unlamented death.
NOZZLE | 2.14.10 @ 9:52PM
Not anymore they don't. Seen the latest story on this? The so called scientist who was compiling all of this dramatic data himself now admits the planet has not been warming since 1995.
Its over, find some other cult to spend time with, you are lucky we let you live after putting us thru this.
Appleby| 2.3.10 @ 6:38AM
The best news for space exploration is that the government is getting out of the way. Richard Branson and others of like mind will finally take us into the 2001 that was imagined in 1968, if they can keep the Greenies and bureaucrats out of the mix...and give the Glitterati something to focus on besides making the rest of us miserable. Think of the news stories when the first Celebrity Bimbo gives birth in Space!
K.Hunter| 2.5.10 @ 12:46PM
If you believe that the U.S. government is abandoning space exploration to private industry perhaps you should examine the latest federal budget. Look for the amount(s) budgeted for 'private' space programs and remember what's happening to the financial institutions that accepted federal funding. For that matter look at educational institutions that receive federal funding and note the federal influence on their policies and carricula.
Trust me, so long as the federal government is funding any field it will retain or gain control of that field and use that control for political ends i.e., reelection of the same corrupt politicians who bestowed that money in the first place.
Diane Katz| 2.3.10 @ 7:35AM
Unfortunately, the dynamics that created the global warming lobby--particularly piles of money from the government--would have the same corrupting influence on space exploration. Government simply doesn't belong in science.
Alan Brooks| 2.9.10 @ 12:43AM
What about DARPA, Diane?
Only libertopians think Defense will be privatized.
Scott M.| 2.3.10 @ 7:37AM
Please see for an informed perspective on global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#g/u
LiveFreeOrDie| 2.3.10 @ 12:28PM
What a joke. This guy picks and chooses his data and is very obviously bias. Why don't you just give us the link to Al Gore's site?
SC Mike| 2.3.10 @ 7:38AM
Support for the AGW theory may be waning, but there will be plenty of mischief afoot for several years to come. The massive Obami budget is counting on cap-and-trade fees for income, and the favored climate scientists will continue sucking on the federal teat until the next administration.
Some states will continue to spend outlandish sums on funding AGW mitigation researchers and programs.
The stake has not yet been pounded through this monster’s heart; continued vigilance and continued pressure on the purse strings are essential.
SC Mike| 2.3.10 @ 8:07AM
Scott M’s site is hardly informed. I see nothing there about the games Jones and Wang played with the China station data, nor the sad news that New Zealand climatologists can no longer find the algorithms they used to adjust (make warmer) their temperature set.
The new man-made global warming theory is simply this: Starting around 1990 a small band of climatologists started monkeying around with the global temperature data to prove temperatures were on an inevitable rise, were higher than they’d ever been, and would seriously damage Earth’s ability to sustain life unless carbon output was dramatically reduced.
Among the challenges they took on was erasing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age by reducing or increasing values in the temperature record because if MWP was warmer than today and was followed by the LIA, today’s warming turns out not to be unprecedented.
Starting in 1990 they cleverly reduced the number of temperature stations used in their calculations, eliminating in particular those at high altitudes and near the poles. That alone produced a fair amount of warming.
What they did not anticipate was that private individuals on their own would become curious and begin to suspect shenanigans, nor that someone inside their organizations would make public their emails, data, and algorithms. Their plans to hide their data and methods and prevent competing research from being published has failed. The rest is hysteria.
We owe much to this small band of warriors who spent their own time and considerable resources pursuing the warmist miscreants. While they did not ensure our future liberty and prosperity, they did bring one sizeable threat to a standstill.
ncatty| 2.3.10 @ 9:27AM
The Medieval warming period is a major stumbling block to AGW, isn't it? Even if they fudge the temperature record, the contemporary human accounts make it clear that it was much warmer then than now.
Tony in Central PA| 2.3.10 @ 10:17AM
I'm not a writer, but if I were, I would consider writing a conspiracy novel about global warming. The baddies in this novel would be a small group
of extremely powerful, wealthy men convinced of the reality of the most dire predictions coming from the scientific community.
Individually, they would have come to the conclusion as per the many alarmists in the scientific community that windmills, hybrid cars, biofuels, etc. aren't really going to make any difference. Their solution ? Eliminate about 90% of humanity as a way of seriously curbing CO2 emissions and saving the planet. Much of the story could be devoted to the evil group trying to figure out a way of causing this cataclysm without leaving any fingerprints. The " final solution " would be some combination of engineered viruses made to look as if they were naturally occuring, apparent natural catastrophies and nuclear war. There would be an elaborate scheme to immunize certain people from the deadly viruses who would form the leadership ranks of this postcataclysmic world.
To me, the scary thing is that from what we observe in the media, I think there are persons out there who would actually like to see this sort of thing happen. Some of them are standing on steetcorners, holding signs and shrieking at " breeders " walking by with their children. Some of them are probably celebrities. Some of them might work for the UN.
SC Mike| 2.3.10 @ 10:33AM
Tony in Central PA -
Michael Crichton beat you to it. Acquire and read “State of Fear.”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ.....SG4DAQV8RD
Here's more about the late, great Crichton:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net.....raphy.html
K.Hunter| 2.5.10 @ 12:52PM
Tom Clancy as well in the first of his Rainbow Six stories.
St. Thor| 2.3.10 @ 10:35AM
As Robert Heinlein pointed out, mankind should not put all of its eggs in one basket.
Hydraulic Tools | 2.3.10 @ 10:40AM
Manufacture Hydraulic Tools, offer from hydraulic crimping tool, cable cutter, pipe bender, gear puller, hole digger and hand pumps.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 10:41AM
Karl Popper should have also listed the granddaddy of pseudo-science -- Darwinian evolution, along with Marxism and Freudianism.
Darwin's bogus theory started the whole ball rolling.
axbucxdu| 2.3.10 @ 12:56PM
I believe that initally Popper did indeed consider natural selection as untestable. But alas it seems he came later to reconsider his first position in something like a death bed conversion. Or so the story is related by darwin's defenders of the faith...
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 1:34PM
axbucxdu,
Thanks for the info.
I appreciate it.
K.Hunter| 2.5.10 @ 12:57PM
Can you offer an alternative theory with anything like the availability of evidence, preferably one that does not require that I believe in some omnipotent, white-bearded gentleman in the clouds, that explains the alternating dearth and plentitude of species in the various fossil records?
Becky| 2.3.10 @ 10:44AM
I am currently reading Mr. Johnson's book "Heroes" a lot of whom had great failings as well as achievements.
Why would anyone assume scientists are less human than say, a famous athlete who throws a game? And why in the world do we keep listening to people like Al Gore? A lot of farmers know more about climate and the weather than he does.
I just took a psychology class where we learned that in determining if something is a psuedo science, falsifiability is used. We didn't learn it was Popper, which now disappoints me because we learned about a lot of other philosphers and founders of different branches of psychology.
Evolutionary psychology was easy. Everything we do is for survival. You don't even have to study this branch to get the answers correct on tests once you learn that one thing. Emotions, picking a wife with big boobs and a husband with big bank accounts are for survival.
Elhombrelibre| 2.3.10 @ 10:55AM
For anyone who cares about science, I recommend Michael Crighton's website and his book - THE STATE OF SIEGE.
See the link:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net.....rming.html
Faffnir| 2.3.10 @ 2:13PM
Should be "State of Fear".
Good read.
Viva Cuba Libre!!
Pingback| 2.3.10 @ 11:02AM
Spend climate change money on space travel for an eventual exit, if necessary | CLIMA links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
George True| 2.3.10 @ 11:03AM
Tony (and Mike): There was also a Tom Clancy novel, "Rainbow Six", that explored the topic of a fanatical group of environmentalists who planned to wipe out 90% of the human race with an engineered airborne virus.
Tony in Central PA| 2.3.10 @ 12:38PM
Maybe I should start reading fiction.
Jerry| 2.3.10 @ 5:38PM
Just read any of the IPCC's Assessment Reports.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 9:17PM
Jerry,
Ha-ha-ha-ha!
Good one!
K.Hunter| 2.5.10 @ 1:01PM
If you want to read some fiction that will truly stretch you faculties I recommend almost anything by Larry Niven.
Pingback| 2.3.10 @ 11:03AM
New Jersey Real Estate | Massachusetts Real Estate links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
elhombrelibre| 2.3.10 @ 11:05AM
In addition, it's worth noting when Crighton wrote the insightful words on his website. They were long before the scandal at East Anglia.
SC Mike| 2.3.10 @ 11:23AM
Crichton passed away in November 2008, about a year before the Climategate emails broke. "State of Fear" was published in 2004.
In recognition for Crichton's contribution in popularizing paleontology though his blockbuster “Jurassic Park,” a dinosaur discovered in southern China is named after him. "Crichton's ankylosaur" is a small, armored plant-eating dinosaur that dates to the early Jurassic Period, about 180 million years ago.
It was hotter then.
elhombrelibre| 2.3.10 @ 12:08PM
Yes, STATE OF FEAR, was prescient. So, too, is the opinion piece on his website dealing with the corruption of science.
Pingback| 2.3.10 @ 11:40AM
The American Spectator : The Real Way to Save the Planet Image links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
SunnyvaleKen| 2.3.10 @ 11:49AM
Thank you for a well conceived and well written article. We are truly blessed to have easy access to such excellent thinking and writing.
Mr. Xyz| 2.3.10 @ 12:01PM
"We've told so many lies, young scientists are totally confused"
http://climaterealists.com/?id=4960
(a video spoof of climate science)
ACynic| 2.3.10 @ 12:01PM
Let's not forget the mother and father of all pseudo-sciences, economics.
None of their theories are exposed, or can be exposed to testing under controlled conditions.
Economists use complex (as in very difficult, not as in the use of imaginary numbers) mathematics to prove economic theorems, that, when not shown to work in the real world, they invent a myriad of reasons why the theory did not work out as hoped; of course, the theory is never questioned; it is assumed to be correct.
Thus we have the notion of Keyesian pump priming to "end" a recession. As far as I know, it has NEVER worked in the real world. Of course, if it appeared in Keynes' General Theory, well , it must be right.
The New Deal spent and spent and spent, unlike any period in American history. It did not work.
Japan has a higher level of indebtedness relative to GDP of any nation of earth -and they are now entering about the 20th year of stagnation/deflation - notwithstanding spending billions and billions to pump prime the economy.
In both instance cited above, economists will provide dozens of reasons why their theories failed, but they will NEVER QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE THEORY.
Talk about a "cargo-cult" science
Faffnir| 2.3.10 @ 2:20PM
We do have an economic theory that has been tested and found to be reliable: "the Free Market System", a.k.a. "capitalism". The combination of low taxes, low regulation and the rule of law works every where and every time it has been tried. It has been the greatest engine of prosperity that mankind has ever seen. It fails whenever politicians decide that they know more than the populace and can more wisely spend the proceeds of their (extorted) taxation.
K.Hunter| 2.5.10 @ 1:11PM
You invalidate your own premise by citing Keynesian "pump priming". That particular theory was tested by, and failed, the FDR administration. Supply side economics was tested and proven correct by both the Kennedy and Reagan administrations.
Both were tested under real world conditions in the only labortoray available. Surely you must realize that the controlled conditions that you seek were actually present in the Soviet Union and cannot be imposed upon any free society. Even the ChiComs realize that econimic fascism and free market capitalism are mutially exclusive.
Pat| 2.3.10 @ 12:20PM
Karl Popper may have been this author's boyhood hero, but modern scientists have long consigned him to the dustbin of history - Popper set the bar too high, his qualification tests for scientific theories were much too rigorous to be at all practical for obtaining govt. grant money and, in fact, could leave a scientist and his lab workers high and dry without funding - and where's the fun in that?
What was needed as we passed into the last half of the 20th century was a kindler, gentler means for testing the robustness of a scientific theory and the evolutionary biologists found the answer - simply make a theory logically impossible to falsify - take away any ability to prove it wrong.
Evolution works through genetic mutation and natural selection - prove it doesn't - can't can you? - ha, ha, gotcha, now can I please have my taxpayer funded stipend to study early mammalian mutation.
Global Warming is simply the latest "theory of evolution" - you can't prove it right, you can't prove it wrong and the only test of its validity is to poll scientists and let them vote on it. Like elections in Chicago, where the long departed vote side by side with the living, scientific elections can be rigged, scientific research can be bogus and, hey, don't look so shocked, the same falsification of supporting evidence occurred with the theory of evolution. Yet, today evolution reigns supreme so there's still hope for Anthropogenic Global Warming - and it has a real catchy scientific name, so how can it lose?
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 1:33PM
Pat,
Excellent post.
Let us not forget, evolution takes millions of years to happen. Also not testable.
Except, Darwin didn't know about how complex bacteria were. We have 20+ years of bacteria reproduction, with millions of generations. Not one has evolved into a different species of bacteria.
Pat| 2.3.10 @ 2:19PM
"There are 8 million stories in New York City, this is just one of them" - signature opening phrase from an old TV crime drama. If there is a "Theory of Crime" in New York City, basic postulates would be: 1) there is crime every day, 2) we know who the criminals are or most of them at least, we know their names, we know their victims' names. But let's claim there is no crime in New York City -pretty easy to falsify that theory, we can name names, dates, locations, etc. - and we call that empirical data.
There are an estimted 6 billion members of our species on this planet and which species do we scientifically study in the most voluminous and exacting detail - our own of course. And Charles "The Darwin" himself made several alliterative statements about how evolution is working every second of every minute of every hour of every day - evolution is a tireless worker, never taking a coffee break, never faking sick time or experiencing a bad hair day.
So, who exactly is evolving this moment and as we speak? Names please, which of your neighbors has mutated lately, which unfortunate ones were downchecked by natural selection? Despite assurances from the eminent Charles himself, you can search the govt. grant databases from one end to the other and not find a single grant application to scientifically identify who is currently in the throes of evolving - scientists seem decidedly uninterested in investigating that one area of evolution.
Of course, busy as evolution is, the claim is it will take 700,000 years before we know how we are evolving and before we can identify the next evolutionary leap - therefore, next to evolution, Global Warming has a very short shelf life, we can know in 50 years or so - and should our scientists be wrong about man-made global warming, they won't have to give the money back, heck, they don't even have to say they're sorry.
K.Hunter| 2.5.10 @ 1:16PM
So what, the bearded gentlymen to whom I referred earlier created all that we observe including a billion years of fossil record as some kind of cosmic jest? How long ago do you date the creation event anyway?
Russell Seitz| 2.3.10 @ 1:38PM
though an admirable historian, Paul Johnson has done nothing to falsify the hypotesis that those who can't do science tend to inflate philosophy of science to conceal their disability.
axbucxdu| 2.6.10 @ 2:09AM
Pithy. It's too bad though, that logic can be such a tedious task master. You see, your statement has done nothing to falsify the hypothesis that those who "can" do science either remain unaware of, or ignore altogether the philosophy of science and its warnings. They tend to do so to inflate their capabilities, their fields of study, and by consequence lo and behold, their pocketbooks.
It would be one thing if ClimateGate episodes in science were statistical outliers, but events like the mistreatment and professional destruction of Pons and Fleischmann occur with more frequency than should be of comfort to real scientists.
In fact, the boorishness among scientists is apparently so common that another scientist was
compelled to write about it. I am reminded of Brush's paper "Should the History of Science be Rated-X? and his comment that "The way scientists behave (according to historians) might
not be a good model for students."
Indeed, so let's be fair in future, shall we, and make certain that both the pot and kettle are called black.
And now so you can't claim ignorance, you can get reacquainted with your limitations:
http://www.santafe.edu/media/w.....01-001.pdf
Humility, it would do modern science a lot of good.
gearjammer| 2.3.10 @ 2:27PM
Mr. Crichton called himself a political " agnostic". He questioned everything, continually , and let us be honest this is discomforting to many of you true blue conservatives who are the bulk of those here. Yet, he was most threatening to the left. He was one of them at least at first glance, being a Hollywood guy and all, and when he wrote State of Fear the wrath and scorn was heaped upon him. The condescension, sheer hatred,and disrespect heaped upon him by people so clearly and utterly not his intellectual equals tells you all you need to know about our so called " elites". There is video floating around of him testifying before the Senate a few years back on this issue. At the end those two renown geniuses Boxer and Hillary tear into him and try to rip him apart. What a sad thing to behold. Crichton was respectful and modest in his attempt to shed a little reason into this issue. But, these two lefty twisted sisters were nothing but perverse and ugly in their behavior. All of this proving our so called " elites" couldn't recognize a true elite if one were sitting in front of them. Where is the person willing to make a movie or series from State of Fear? For all this talk about Fox being bold and independent, they show zero inclination. A State of Fear presented in a "24" format would get some ratings. And, it'd drive the enemies of America , and freedom nuts. By the way in one on line interview Crichton had said he had some suspicion that mankind was predisposed to live in a totalitarian society. The Obama types clearly are betting on this.
TomB| 2.3.10 @ 3:17PM
I've been watching local (Oceanside, CA) temperatures with great interest the last few days. The daily highs have been exactly average, and the daily lows within 2-3 degrees of average. Proof positive of global warming right here in O'side.
On the more serious side, were we not cautioned about too much reliance on anectdotal evidence of anything, especially scientific theories?
bob| 2.3.10 @ 3:30PM
Great post, thank you.
Karl| 2.3.10 @ 3:31PM
First off, evolutionary psychology can easily throw up some unexpected results (acts of altruism, risking your own life for others), basically throwbacks to the days of small family units where the genetic payoff of saving someone was much higher.
Next up, evolution is genetic mutation and natural selection (and other forms of selection that we now learn of), very falsifiable, show me a hippo and an insect with 100% matching DNA, and it's disproven. Unfortunately the mechanics are pretty well known, so we know DNA encodes for proteins, we know a combination of environment and DNA/RNA/protein leads to certain results, and we know that the replicating machinery isn't perfect. We know mutation occurs, and we know some of it is positive mutation.
There are many instances of bacteria evolving into new species, more interesting are the larger species, such as mosquitoes.
Sorry if scientists can run a 10 million year simulation yet. But we can see the large differences produced in dogs over a few tens of thousands of years, using mutation, and human selection (more immediate than natural selection, but still just another form of selection, we could only choose from what mutated).
Crichton was a good author, some rather unbelieveable stuff, some poor scientific knowledge in places, but still, very enjoyable fiction.
And as for whoever it was wondering if anyones neighbour had mutated into something else recently, well they just need to learn how evolution works at a basic level.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 3:59PM
Karl,
Are breeds the same as species? I'm not a scientist, and could never get the classifications straight in biology. "Species" might have been the wrong term.
But, breeding dogs over thousands of years has never produced anything other than a canine. Any "mutation", like a missing or extra leg, is detrimental to the survivability of the dog in the wild.
Millions, hundreds of millions of generations of bacteria have not produced a new, never before seen bacteria. It's still the same old bacteria.
Darwinian evolution is a fraud.
John3| 2.3.10 @ 6:19PM
You are quite right. The more common experience is that "mutations" over time lead to a deterioration of the species. Human kind for example, is now ravaged by more diseases, more infections (especially sexually transmitted ones) over our entire history. We are obviously not evolving to a more superior "breed" In fact, we are deevolving to a less superior one. If smart people read Darwin for what he actually says, he is not only a fraud, he is a eugenicist and the father of racial cleansing as he writes in his treatise: "Descent of Man."
"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
John3| 2.3.10 @ 6:23PM
Some of the readers of this article may have received the smallpox vaccine. Well, Mr. Darwin's opinion is that you should have been to allowed to die of smallpox and not allow "his worst animals to breed."
Margie| 2.3.10 @ 11:28PM
No wonder both Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud liked Darwin.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 11:23PM
John3,
Thanks for the compliment. And for the quotes.
Margie| 2.3.10 @ 11:37PM
FYI Nick, (and all), for some great reading from a Christian point of view on the subject, I know of 2 websites that are great. Creation Moments.com and Answers in Genisis.org.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 11:49PM
Margie,
Thanks, I'll check those sites out.
God Bless!
K.Hunter| 2.5.10 @ 1:34PM
"The more common experience is that "mutations" over time lead to a deterioration of the species."
I am unable to find any scientific support for this assertion.
"Human kind for example, is now ravaged by more diseases, more infections (especially sexually transmitted ones) over our entire history. "
You don't seem to take into account the profliferation of both dignostic tools and what the late Frank Zappa called "imaginary diseases" like, oh say, "acid reflux", which is a condition. A fully preventable one as well with the application of some minimum of intelligence regarding one dietary habits.
Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 10:56AM
The increase in disease is often traced to chemicals, excessive use of antibiotics, and hormones, etc used in food production. Or is proven science a fallacy to you?
K.Hunter| 2.5.10 @ 1:25PM
Prove it. Or admit that your own assertion is just as likely fraudulent.
Pat| 2.3.10 @ 4:29PM
It's a free country, at least for the next few months anyway, so it's ok to believe evolution theory and, in many enlightened quarters, evolution isn't a theory at all, it's just plain fact as several Dawkins type scientists have repeatedly claimed. And, some of us have actually read the Holy Books of Evolution and do understand how it 'works", at least how scientists claim it works for the next 10 minutes, until it needs to be changed based on recent and conflicting evidence.
But do you actually understand how it works? Do you think natural selection doesn't work on specific members of a species? Not your good freinds and neighbors of course, but perhaps on specific individuals in a more evolution prone area of the planet. Or, are you a member of one of those primitive evolutionary sects who believe in "invisible natural selection" - believe in those positive mutations that aren't detectable in individual species members, but somehow occur anyway and then go immediately dormant only to pop up in some future generation through a mysterious and undefined natural selection process? Some folks do believe in evolution's "look ahead" ability, but you should be aware that orthodox scientists consider evolution as a "natural" and "unintelligent" process lacking any planning capability and therefore must be occurring in the present moment and it must, by definition, be working on specific members of our species. You see "natural selection" must have something to work on at the physiological level, it can't "select" dormant genomes and "de-select" others without environmental factors interacting with your physical body - this is complicated stuff, don't let it throw you.
And if evolution is a purely natural process, possessing no intelligence of its own, it must be a heck of a lot smarter than we are (which doesn't say much for us intelligent apes) since we can breed dogs with big ears, small ears, good eyesight, fast sprinters, good swimmers and not such good swimmers who prefer to hang out in after hours clubs isntead, but we have yet to breed a dog that isn't a dog in every meaning of the term. Apparently, despite our boasts to superior intelligence, dumb old evolution, the purely natural process, knows a thing or two we obviously don't.
Don| 2.3.10 @ 3:53PM
I have often marveled at how like a cult Marxism is.
Suddenly, I had a new vision, which probably means many have been saying it for a long time, but....It occurs to the that now the Marxist can simply blame any and all bad weather on...and you can simply take your pick, the West, Capitalism, White people, or any combination of the above.
Gadfrey Daniels. :: ))
Pingback| 2.3.10 @ 4:12PM
Missouri Real Estate | Iowa Real Estate links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
tracy| 2.3.10 @ 4:24PM
Another scientific area that exhibits this condition is Cosmology.
Theories about black holes, dark matter, dark energy, string theory, alternate universes, etc. They are all not falsifiable.
Read the NASA press releases, they are always "surprised" by some new data. They then proceed to "tweak" their existing theory to adjust to the new data.
It also has the same same basic funding model, relies heavily on peer review, etc.
PolishKnight| 2.3.10 @ 5:10PM
Even moderate weather is used as proof of global warming. "The winters are mild this year! It's a sign of the apocalypse!"
The left has tied themselves to this boondoggle similar to what they say the Iraq war has become. Oh, and healthcare. Another tar-baby they stuck to.
Now they get quiet when I make fun of global warming and try to change the subject.
Marc Jeric| 2.3.10 @ 5:48PM
The conspiracy to enslave us and reduce the world's population from 6 to one billion people is the aim of our eco-nazis. The latest conspiracy started in 1970's with the globaloney cooling scam. When that did not work the conspiracy became the globaloney warming hoax. With the considerable cooling over the latest 11 years we are now faced with the climate change flimflam. The latest "evolutionary" progress is seen in the cap & trade power grab.
By the way - the proof of evolution states that there are naturally evolved mutations in the existing species; some of them survive, others perish. Which mutations survive? Well, of course, those that are more evolved. Or, one can say also logically that a particular mutation was more evolved and that is why it survived.
Hold it - did not Aristotle warned us against circular reasoning? False!
That is like saying I am stronger than you because you are weaker than me; or, you are weaker than me because I am stronger than you.
That, Sir, is no proof of anything!
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 12:00AM
Rick Osborn's Continuing Education Blog: A lean Tennessee budget … | Educational Tenn links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Yosemeti Sam| 2.4.10 @ 1:20AM
" ... Scientific theories, he argued, must be very precise and scientific to be of any use...."
In short - honest!
An Oxford Edition Dictionary definition excerpt -
free of deceit and untruthfulness, sincere.
Owen McShane| 2.4.10 @ 3:18AM
Seven years ago I closed my paper "That Kyoto is a Fraud" (2003) with the following:
The Fourteen Frauds of the Kyoto Protocol.
1. The Consensus Fraud: – It claims that we have certainty when there is none and
claims scientific consensus when there is none. Furthermore there is absolutely no
consensus on the economic inputs to the models.
2. The Averaging Fraud: – It translates global averages into local events.
3. The “Warming is Bad for Us” Fraud: – The benign period of the middle ages
was warmer than today and civilizations flourished.
4. The “Climate Change is Unnatural” Fraud: – the Kyoto protocol assumes that
climate change is unnatural, is caused by human action and hence will response to
human intervention, and used the Hockey Stick to support this argument. In reality
climate change is normal and natural, and the Hockey Stick is a fraud.
5. The Economic Inputs Fraud: – The IPCC models are driven by economic inputs
as well as climate change theory. The economic inputs are so wildly improbable,
and theoretically unsound, as to be fraudulent.
6. The Intergenerational Equity Fraud: – Future generations will be wealthy
beyond our dreams and will be able to adapt to climate change; poor people today
should not suffer today to improve the lot of the wealthy populations of tomorrow.
7. The Population Fraud: – The population implosion is well underway and will
achieve Kyoto type reductions in emissions at no direct cost.
8. The Energy Fraud: – The IPCC models assume fossil fuel use rates which deny
historical records and reject all known trends. Carbon dioxide emissions are falling
– not rising, as the IPCC fraudulently claims.
9. The End of Technology Fraud: – Technological changes and impacts, now under
way, will allow us to live wherever we choose and with greatly reduced
environmental impacts, and greatly reduce our use of fossil fuels.
10. The Gross Emissions Fraud: – The Kyoto protocol focuses on gross emissions
rather than net emissions. This makes the US look like “the great polluter” rather
than a net carbon sink – which it probably is.
11. The Roots not Shoots Fraud: – The Kyoto protocol focuses on carbon credits in
the trees rather than the carbon absorbed into soil organisms.
12. The Great Flatulence Fraud: – Our New Zealand farmers are the most efficient
ruminant farmers and should be telling others how to match our own performance
rather than being cast as the villains of the methane world.
13. The Puritan Guilt Fraud: – There are no grounds for requiring
people today to suffer on behalf of future wealthier generations. Wealth facilitates
adaptation and humans are uniquely adaptable.
14. The Hockey Stick Fraud: – Finally, the IPCC’s “Hockey Stick” is based on
fraudulent manipulation of the data. The graph attached as Appendix I below
shows that the medieval benign period and the mini-ice-age and the subsequent
warming all actually happened. The “Hockey Stick” is the greatest fraud of all."
So now I must start ticking them off.
I avoided any of the issues that demanded considerable knowledge of science.
I included the Hockey stick because other scientists had done the job and the informed lay person could figure out that the Medieval Warm Period and LIA actually happened without knowing any chemistry or physics.
The full paper is here.
http://rmastudies.org.nz/documents/Kyofraud.pdf
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 3:39AM
Off-planet Life Forms; Where Will We Find Life and How Similar Will They Be? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Maria Laurence| 2.4.10 @ 6:56AM
I agreed with everything in this article... until you took a swipe at atheists. I'm an atheist and an AGW skeptic. We atheists are by nature skeptical. For example, we don't accept the many 'unfalsifiable claims' contained in the bible. Do you?
Margie| 2.4.10 @ 1:07PM
I was possibly the world's biggest skeptic at one time. :^) But what I chose to do was to honestly humble myself, ya know, knock off the stubborn proud attitude, and get on my knees, admit I was a sinner, confess that I believed that Jesus was the Son of God, and asked Him this: "If you are really real, and would prove yourself to me, I promise to follow you for the rest of my life." Well, He did just that. Flooded with His love and mercy and forgiveness in my heart, I gave my life to Him. That was 35 years ago. Since then, I have failed Him, but He has NEVER, not once, failed me.
~The lesson: If you truly want to know, ask. If you don't want to know, you won't humbly ask. And that is your "choice."
Mat 7:7 "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."
Don| 2.5.10 @ 4:28PM
Ya know Marge,
Satan pretty much advised Jesus to do the same thing you did, but Jesus declined.
Margie| 2.5.10 @ 9:51PM
Really, Don? Do explain. Inquiring minds want to know.
axbucxdu| 2.4.10 @ 1:15PM
Very good points. However, in the case of human spiritual experience you are aware that Popper's scientific recommendations simply do not apply.
IOW, falsifiability is unecessary because the subject at hand, religious experience in this case, is by the definition of science non-scientific, so can never be "represented rationally". Consult Immanuel Kant's Antimonies (I believe it's #4) for further details.
Bottom line: Human science and human religion are mutually exclusive systems of thought, so it should come as no surprise that the methods of one do not apply in the other and versa vice...neither system is any less genuine to humans...and humans are what counts, not martians.
Margie| 2.5.10 @ 11:02PM
Science: (Dictionary)~ Knowledge. Especially that gained through experience.
If God Himself reveals Himself to an individual, that is proof enough. And besides, the Creation itself is indeed proof of the Creator, who is blessed forever and ever. Amen.
Pingback| 2.4.10 @ 12:04PM
The Daily Bayonet » Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Feb. 4th 2010 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 2.4.10 @ 8:25PM
George True:
The part I like was at the end where the murderous enviro-weenies are stripped naked and told to survive in the jungle by "Ding" Chavez as he and his team re-board their helicopters and leave. That this would be possible in real life. Sigh.
Jeff| 2.5.10 @ 11:55AM
"In the long term, it is desirable that the human race, faced with the prospect of extinction on Earth, should prepare an escape route for itself to another inhabitable planet. In order to do this we must explore the universe far more thoroughly and exhaustively than we have done up till now, and equally important, develop the concept of mass space travel and colonization schemes."
This is, simply put, moon-bat lunacy. What is so pathetic and Kafkaesque about the deniers' tactics is that if we could reallocate a relatively small fraction of the amounts of money we use to subsidize space exploration, big oil, fast cars, highways, sprawl etc., and instead subsidize the technologies and practices that reduce our ecological footprint as a species, we wouldn't have to worry about finding another planet to colonize for at least a few million years, if ever.
You can attack, obfuscate, blow smoke, falsely accuse, twist the science and create shitstorms of idiotic, reactionary babble here and in other forums, but the science (and CO2) keep building up, and the resulting (un)natural changes in global climate keep accelerating. Decades from now, people will look back on this period as a type of intellectual Dark Ages, during which the same corporate tactics that resulted in the deaths of millions of people from tobacco smoking were used to delay full understanding of the dangers of unlimited burning of fossil fuels and other GHGs.
MikeD| 2.7.10 @ 8:39PM
Jeff: Go back and read what I wrote to 'Jim'. Ditto for you, only in spades. I find it amazing that a person who can apparently construct coherent sentences can exhibit such abject stupidity. Just a thought.
Richard Baker| 2.5.10 @ 1:26PM
Jeff:
So I guess the numerous worldwide frauds in the "global warming" consensus are evidence of the correct use of the scientific method? The only science that is building is the fraudulent use of the term. Used to be a High School Science teacher. If my students had come to me with this sort of intentional data and analytical manipulation, I believe my red pen would have written F. Obviously, elevated sunspot activity is to be ignored, eh? As that same sunspot activity has declined of late, I suppose that is to be ignored, as well? Don't confuse you with the facts, you know what you know? Is that your scientific method?
Jeff| 2.5.10 @ 2:12PM
Richard, there is no fraud, there is no scientific conspiracy. You're listening to people who are doing their best to confuse you. And if your political persuasion has had something to do with who you are listening to, then that confusion is probably doubled.
Richard Baker| 2.6.10 @ 9:19AM
Jeff:
Do you get out much? This is not, for me, about politics. I've always been suspect when apocalyptic pronouncements come from the "scientific" community. Too often political science has replaced scientific inquiry. That's the scandal with the global warming hoax.
Jeff| 2.6.10 @ 12:14PM
Richard, I get out quite a bit, talking to scientists and policymakers in many different countries as a large part of my job. I'm sorry that you're convinced that the global community of climate scientists is pushing a grand conspiracy on AGH. BTW, you do realize that you contradict yourself, saying first that this is not about politics, then that political science replaces scientific inquiry. I would in fact agree that for the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, it is indeed not about politics. It is about the science.
Jeff| 2.6.10 @ 12:40PM
*AGW, not AGH
Nick| 2.6.10 @ 3:23PM
K. Hunter,
You should not mock God, you endanger your soul. Now, I'll try to answer your questions.
Darwinian evolution is a fraud because Darwin had no proof. He made numerous observations and offered only speculation as to the cause of what he observed. Speculation that was not testable by other scientists.
I offer no explanation as to how creation happened, only that God did the creating. I wasn't there, and neither were you. Nor was Darwin.
Regarding the fossil record, where are the intermediate species? As you've conceded, there are huge gaps in the fossil record. If macro evolution is true, there should be evidence of transitional life-forms. Evidence in the form of actual bones, not artistic drawings.
The study of the natural world is "science". The study of God is "theology". God created the natural world, so He transcends it. He is super-natural.
The only "evidence" for God is either anecdotal or by man's reason. He does use miracles to defy the laws of the physical world. But unless you witness the miracle, this again is anecdotal, not proof, to the unbeliever.
So, belief in God takes faith. As does belief in Darwinian evolution. There is over 3000 years of written anecdotal evidence for God's existence, compared to 150 years for evolution.
Darwin claimed, wrongly, that the evolutionary process takes millions of years to happen, so you could not observe it in nature. He didn't know about bacteria, as I wrote about earlier. What he asserted would take millions of years, can be observed in two decades with bacteria.
The bacteria have not evolved.
Finally, I don't have to prove evolution is false, which I can't. I can't prove a negative. It is incumbent upon you to prove Darwinian evolution is true.
Which you can't, since there is no proof. That is why you attack God.
Richard Baker| 2.7.10 @ 11:33AM
Jeff:
Obviously, you hang around with the same loons who believe this twaddle. I believe that's called a closed loop? Enjoy your associations.
Jeff| 2.8.10 @ 11:23AM
And you yours.
Hydraulic Cylinder | 2.8.10 @ 4:09AM
Fivestar Tools,a professional china Hydraulic Cylinder manufacturer,we can offer hydraulic cylinders,hydraulic jack and double acting hydraulic cylinders.
Nick| 2.25.10 @ 6:58PM
Have you got any lube?
Discount gucci bags on sale | 7.27.11 @ 10:32PM
good post
explosion proof light | 11.15.10 @ 9:04AM
Actually, Abraham Lincoln was just as radical but in a different way. Ditto FDR.
potty training | 2.26.11 @ 10:39PM
I totally agree your point of view
Converse | 8.12.11 @ 4:02AM
is good