Posted on 08/30/2011 3:23:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Hurricane Irene story ought to, but won't, shed light on our prejudices regarding science.
The favored liberal Democratic narrative -- we've seen it trotted out against Rick Perry in the past two weeks -- goes like this: Democrats are the party of the enlightenment. They believe in science and facts. They know that Darwin was correct about the origin of species, and that human beings are responsible for potentially catastrophic global warming through production of carbon dioxide. Republicans, on the other hand, are the pre-modern party of superstition, religious explanations for natural phenomena and global warming denial.
Gov. Perry played to type when he told a young questioner that "evolution" was "a theory that's out there," but "it's got some gaps in it." That's why, he said, "in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools." Well, he's right that the theory has some gaps in it, but it remains the best explanation yet propounded to explain biological changes. He's wrong, embarrassingly enough, about Texas. They don't teach creationism in the public schools.
But Perry's critics, who've been eager to lump his skepticism about manmade global warming into the same category as his openness to creationism, look equally foolish. Again and again, those who believe in anthropogenic global warming declare that, "The science is settled." But science is never settled. At the heart of the scientific method is openness to data and testing. And while creationism cannot be said to be an alternative scientific theory to evolution (because it cannot be tested) there are countless competing theories for observed changes in global temperatures over the past century. And there are many reputable scientists who dispute that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are wholly responsible for those changes.
There are even more scientists who agree that carbon dioxide is warming the planet, but firmly oppose the hysteria and catastrophism of Al Gore and his acolytes who demand dramatic (and hopelessly unrealistic) changes in our way of life to counter it.
Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, observed in 2009 that, "the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally -- such as for the last dozen years or so -- it does little that can be discerned. Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre." Professor Lindzen was referring to the inconvenient fact that there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998. This is utterly inconsistent with the computer models that predicted steady and relentless warming if we did not radically reduce carbon emissions. The famous "hockey stick" graph offered by University of Massachusetts professor Michael Mann, which became the emblem of global warming panic, has been shown to be a fraud (see "Technology Review," Oct. 15, 2004).
Speaking of computer models, consider the recent attempt to predict Hurricane Irene's path and strength. The New York Times's Henry Fountain analyzed the meteorologists' failure to predict the storm's strength. "Forecasters had expected that a spinning band of clouds near its center, called the inner eyewall, would collapse and be replaced by an outer band that would then slowly contract. Such 'eyewall replacement cycles' have been known to cause hurricanes to strengthen. While its eyewall did collapse, Irene never completed the cycle." A hurricane expert consulted by Mr. Fountain noted that the Hurricane Center had done well in predicting the path of the storm. "But it was not surprising that the strength forecasts were off -- the accuracy of such forecasts has hardly improved over the past several decades."
This is not to mock or castigate meteorologists. There are so many factors that influence storms -- wind shear, ocean temperatures, fluid dynamics, drier air masses that drift into a storm's path and other things. It's difficult to predict a storm's intensity. Let alone next week's weather.
It's even harder to predict the overall direction of global climate. In addition to the factors named above, global climate is affected by solar radiation cycles, La Nina and El Nino, the Pacific Decadal and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations, the amount of algae in the seas, and seismic activity, to name a few. Yes, most climate scientists believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening, but the rate, the degree and the effects are all still very much in dispute.
The pro-science posture then, is to recognize the limitations of what we can currently predict and to remain open to evidence. Shrieking your insistence that the "science is settled" only demonstrates an unscientific and dogmatic orthodoxy.
As long as they can blame it on human activity, and therefore can propose laws to control that activity, real facts will be invented, lied about and sworn to.
Since they believe in no God, mother ghia and her protection becomes their religion, and as with any religion, facts don't matter to the true believer.
In the cases of global warming and evolution the science is settled as well as it ever gets.
The settling of the science for global warming is described here.
The settling of the science for evolution is described here.
Both theories are basically dead, the only thing which either has going for it at this juncture is inertia and the thing which Hitler said about big lies being impossible to ever totally kill.
My experience since leaving the US Army is that the Democratic Party is the Party that sold its soul to Satan for political Power. It is the Party of the beguiler. Like the
old Soviet Communist Party it pretends to give a voice to and to represent “the People” hence the peoples Party -yet it reserves Power and support to only the “true Believers “ the Party favorites. Like the homosexual The Democrat will turn and attempt destroy ANY who question Party Politic.The Democrat reads the US Constitution like a Ku Klux Klansman reads the Scripture. Come to remember the KKK was established and maintained by the Democratic Party as a sure weapon against Republicanism. The are after all the Party of the domestic Terrorist.
One thing I have learned about scientific research in the US - it is funded by the government and political activist foundations.
Politicans and their political appointees decide what and who will be funded and what and who will not be funded. Universities are also political animals and decide who can rise in science and who may not rise in science. In addition, a researcher can be crushed by producing any results that go against the status quo scientific beleif and stars of research. Although we like to pretend that science is all based on “fact and merit”, it is not. We just have a different church directing science.
For example, in reviewing the “science” of global warming, you will not find Andy Watts and others like him producing and publishing science that would preclude Algore’s watermelon agenda. They will not get funded and if they slip in with politically incorrect results, they won’t get published. People who worship science won’t look beyond professionally published data which makes the claim that carbon is warming the earth instead of the sun. Climategate demonstrated that. Only because of free speech, Andy Watts and others exposed their man made global warming “research’ with a blog on the internet.
So we don’t ever know as much as we think we know when it comes to “science.” It is an unholy temple and it’s priests are preaching political correctness and proping up the status quo if they want any alms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.