8:23 AMReal Science or Junk Science
How can you tell the difference between real science and junk science? How do you know when you are being conned?
A good scientist will ask questions about everything. For them, all things can be questioned. All things are open to investigation. Different points of view are tolerated and welcomed because they could add to the body of knowledge.
However, when investigation is shut down. When people are told "this is the version of the truth they must believe" or "these are the facts that can no longer be questioned" or "the evidence is incontrovertible" and you are no longer able to openly question their version of the truth, you usually start to think you are being conned.
Don't believe me? Watch this real scientist and how he explains the need to be able to question everything.
When you are not allowed to discuss an issue openly, when you are excluded, marginalized, ignored, insulted, your job threatened and so on, you know that someone stands to gain from the issue and they don't want their interests to be challenged.
A good scientist will stick to scientific method and not introduce their own approach to science.
What is scientific method? I will look at just one aspect of it right now – the language.
What are the words used? Lets go through some scientific terms.
Hypothesis – the dictionary says this is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. In short, given that how something works is not understood, a hypothesis is a first guess based on available evidence.
Theory - a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something. In short, when more evidence is in and the hypothesis has been revised, amended or replaced so that it explains all evidence available.
Law - a scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions. So in short, a law is something that should apply in all places and explain all known evidence.
(The above definitions were largely taken from Wikipedia.)
Notice that the word 'Fact' is not used. And note that even the term 'law' is carefully defined to suggest that under different conditions the law might not apply or work.
In short, behind all the above scientific terms stands the assumption that people must inquire, test and prove what they think is happening and test their explanation of what is happening.
When people talk of "fact" or say "the evidence is incontrovertible", you know you are being conned. A good scientist will always inquire into what is going on. Their inquiry will be appreciated and valued. When they are 'shut down' by ridicule, insult, intolerance, their job is threatened and so on, you know that someone does not want to hear what they have to say.
You will notice that when Global Warming is discussed, it's proponents come out with statements like "the evidence is incontrovertible".
No, the evidence is not incontrovertible. It could easily be wrongly understood or wrongly interpreted. It is always open to question.
Saying things that suggest inquiry is no longer necessary is not good science. In fact, it is not science of any type.
You will notice that knowledgeable people who disagree with climate change are typically ignored, insulted, excluded, etc.
What is more, suggestions are made that THEY have hidden agendas. For instance, those who disagree with climate change dogma are often described as being advocates for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Business, or big something. All this suggests that they have an ulterior motive and stand to profit personally by advocating a dissenting view. When this suggestion is made, what is implied is that no one should listen to them.
This is not science of any type. It is simply intolerance and arrogance -- arrogance to think that some people know the truth so well, and so absolutely, that no criticism will be tolerated. Any anyone daring to criticize what you believe, must be ignored as being essentially dishonest or corrupt.
You will note that in the YouTube video I link to above, the physicist Ivar Giaever calls global warming a religion.
That it may be true. But I prefer to think of it as a cult. One reason is that a lot of research has been done on what constitutes a cult and this research makes the links between global warming and a cult much clearer.
By looking at several web sites that discuss what a cult is, I was able to obtain the following bullet points.
The major points they make are:
Sign #1: All your friends believe just like you do
Sign #2: Nobody questions authority
Sign #3: The source of authority is vested in a person.
For global warming, authority is vested in a panel of scientists, the IPCC, several of whom now say they were misled, misquoted or coerced into compliance and now wish to disassociate themselves from that panel.
Sign #4: There is no independent evidence of that person’s authority
Certainly no contrary evidence is tolerated. No matter how good it is, it will be dismissed as: not being accepted by the IPCC or; being funded or put forward by big oil, big pharma, etc. or; the character of the scientist will be attacked.
Sign #5: Doctrine must not be questioned
I watched the Bolt Report once where two climate change proponents debated with Andrew Bolt. The did not answer any of his questions, they talked between themselves and essentially ignored Andrew Bolt's questions. Andrew was very polite at the end and commented that he would have liked his questions answered. The climate changed proponents talked around Andrew Bolt, over him, through him and did everything they could to avoid answering his questions. In my view they did not want their beliefs to be challenged by someone who would present some pretty strong evidence and reasoning.
Sign #6: Secrecy and excommunication
Sign #7: Discerning real faith from a cult
One website suggested that real faith should allow scrutiny and questioning. The cult of climate change allows next to no questioning and attacks all evidence to the contrary by attacking the character of those advocating it.
Sign #8: True faith is supported by reality
Remember how 'Global warming' had to be re-branded as 'Climate Change' simply because the globe was not warming?
Do you see the similarity between the advocates of climate change the the behavior of a cult?
Ivar Giaever and Andrew Bolt refer to it as a 'religion'. I prefer to think it is more as a cult.
To say that climate change advocacy follows scientific method is an utter farce. Their tactics are actually those of the thug and the bully.
Most people can see they are being conned by these frauds and thugs.
And who does not see this? Who has swallowed this junk science hook, line, and sinker?
That is right. Manningham Council has.
While most people are highly suspicious of climate change, Manningham council rushes to implement everything these bullies and thugs have to say – and squander our money in the process.
Please see the next article below regarding Manningham Council's fanatical adoption of this climate change junk science.
|Views: 418 | Added by: Blogger|