12/21/07
If
we review the history of human conduct, we can identify a series of hoaxes
that, although phony, served to secure money and power for the hucksters who
hatched them. Hoaxes work best when the public has no detailed knowledge of the
scam.
Steven
Milloy of junkscience.com, aka the junkman, has debunked many phony
‘scientific’ scams in the past and lists a series of phony science articles,
fraud and such on his website. We all are aware of the history of the flat
earth loonies, Cool-aid drinkers in the jungle, snake charmers in the Nevada
How
do these farces succeed in light of ‘education’ and scrutiny from knowledgeable
watch dogs? The answer to this is motive: It is not necessary for any intrinsic
‘truth’ or any elements of veracity to be associated with a good hoax if enough
willing true believers are willing to celebrate the promised disaster. We would
suppose that if many of these schemes could be exposed as such that reasonable
people would reject the wild claims. We note that the Coney Island Effect works
because people know that the freak shows are mostly counterfeit, but enjoy the
entertainment. They understand that the ‘freaks’ on the Island
are actually skilled performers and some actually do swallow swords or have
hundreds of tattoos on their bodies. The same philosophy may be used for magic
shows as all ticket buyers know that magicians are not real wizards or warlocks
or even remotely associated with the dark arts. Truth is not an essential
factor here.
Clearly,
education or even knowledge is not the central factor in many cases of
successful frauds. In the current Global Warming frenzy, we can return to the
education theorem above since the consensus of the phenomenon is formed by
well-educated scientists with advanced degrees and prestigious chairs in famous
universities. In science, data may be collected, analyzed and a hypothesis
proffered that is conditional upon future modifications and new research and the hypothesis remains fluid until a law
is discovered or precise experiments have verified the result. The observations
must always fit the theory or the theory is defective. Eric Hoffer warned us
about the insanity of mass movements and the individuals who populate these
peculiar groups.[1]
He showed that frustration with the status quo
was the prime mover for people to buy into such follies. Can we ask if the far
left are frustrated with the current state of politics in the US
In
a previous blog, I[2]
reviewed the hypothetical difference between science and politics.[3]
Clearly, scientists ought to rise above the usual emotional defects that define
the average rabid political agitator or activist. But, this is not the case. We
have only to review certain celebrated scientific icons such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring [4]
in which one of her chapters reads like a Lillian Hellman play and was
entitled: “A Fable for Tomorrow” that outlined how “life had been silenced” by the
pesticide DDT.
Or we could mention Margaret Mead’s crass political stunt[5]
in the infamous and phony Coming of Age
in Samoa replete with maudlin theater and
‘definitive’ research that was limited to an interview from a single couple. We
must note that these two pieces of phony science are still celebrated by many
so-called scientists in the best traditions of Lysenko. There is no science in
these two examples, but science is implied and the correct political message is
loudly touted. That is enough for a political crusade.
Clearly,
we cannot accuse many scientists of adhering to the mandatory scientific method
or even limited quantities of reason in the Rachel Carson and Margaret Mead
cases and we find this same disease inherent in the Global Warming Farce. We
can excuse the politicians for not having a sufficiently effective cluster of
neurons to inspect the details and hard data from the ‘research papers’ and
such. They grope for support and never reject and ally. Many of us depend on
the ignorance and arrogance of politicians for voting recommendations. We can thank many politicians for that.
We
read:
“Over 400 prominent scientists from more than
two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of
the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These
scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made
by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.” [6]
Now,
we reach the outer barrier of science where politics becomes the grand overlord
of reason: How many authentic scientists can buy into a theory when 400 other
scientists are in firm disagreement? Isn’t this the point where this status of
‘fact’ is now subject to suspicion and more research is needed to clarity the
current situation? Some apparently treat this political exercise as a settled law
of physics. How many of us can accept the use of tree rings to correct
thermometer readings? No, it is done deal.
The
reason for the partition among the scientific community is based on the
formation of two platoons: one waves the political flag and the other calmly
demands good science. We can also note that verbal abuse, political pressure
and such are hurled against those who do not blindly accept this notion and we
must wonder how many other authentic scientists have been shouted down and
intimidated into silence. We can now safely state the facts: many scientists place
political goals over the basics of science. This is essentially Lysenkoism [7]
where some necessary political outcome is predicted by warped (or nonexistent) science.
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was celebrated as a hero by the Soviets as he
promised to force wheat to grow in the spring and thus, miraculously, create
huge crop yields. He did this by trashing proven genetics. This crop
enhancement project failed. Lysenko had
no basis in science for his wild claims and became a state-sponsored propagandist
while the authentic and verified science of genetics was
officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience"[8] The failure of the
promised crop increases did not negatively affect the politics of the time.
Can we learn from this?? Is Al
Gore our new Lysenko?? Neither were ever (or are) accused of being scientists; they were both political animals. Many colleagues who disagreed with Lysenko
were arrested or removed from their academic chairs. Can we now wonder if
Global Warming is a Marxist or far-leftist pseudoscience? How many scientists in the
world are in jeopardy for not celebrating this political action? It seems many
have had their names listed on letters and reports against their knowledge or
will. Is this science or politics? Silence, apparently, is not acceptable to
this massive poltical movement.
If this farce proceeds, it will become the biggest
tax-whoring movement in history exceeding the most expensive projected variants
of HillaryCare. Many in third world are excited about getting money for the
mere believe in this stuff. Can we say that the United Nations is rational or
above simple money grubbing or politics given their history? Is the UN mostly
leftist in view?
The proper approach here is to wait until some firm and
more extensive data can confirm that the temperature of the earth is actually
rising and also that this is not just a normal cyclic phenonenon driven by
variations in the sun’emissions. Such a stance, however, defeats the
poltical thrust here and is
‘unacceptable’ in political terms. This all means that the Global Warming
Follies will blossom forth with new ‘studies’ and demands for more ‘research’
and rabid speeches foar curtailing
growth in the United States while the Marxists and third world get a pass. Al
Gore is not a scientist and neither was Lysenko.
Think about this.
rycK
[1]
http://www.erichoffer.net/.
[2] I am a retired scientist
and inventor with 25 peer-reviewed papers, 6 patents and numerous presentations
world wide.
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa
[6] U.S.
[8] Ibid. Quote.
No comments:
Post a Comment