Tuesday, December 21, 2010

When Science Just Isn't Enough

You may have read previous posts of mine on the current state of science in our society. Most of my writings on science explain how science, while a good thing, has become a priority for us that we now look to study of the physical world to also determine our moral and philosophical world views. Any attempts to question the 'final word of the scientist' on any grounds, is not only widely labeled incompetent, but any restraint of science, be it moral, simply rational, or even scientific, is ignored and lauded as ignorant as the person who offered it.

This mentality is dangerous with any viewpoint, but with science, we don't usually think we are allowed to question it because we believe it is so authoritative on truth. And it certainly has shown us much truth as to how the physical world operates. However, this controversy over the legitimacy of science did not spawn from the sciences that have shown us truth, rather, the 'scientific' views that have become something of a belief rather than solid truth.

Especially in regards to consensus of the origin of the world, our species, the 'verdict' on climate change, genetic determinism, psychological dehumanization, and naturalism. These are all topics that have no proof of what they claim. Yes, they may arguably have scientific consensus (in some form) as to belief in their truth, but no actual proof. Wouldn't our obsession with science lead us to reject what is not proven? Yet, we do not have this proof, which I do not need to cite or discuss here, anyone who knows about any of the above subjects knows they are at best theories without any conclusive evidence.

Conclusive evidence is not what has convinced so many people of their legitimacy, rather scientific 'consensus' has been enough to somehow be grounds for truth. Do I need to explain the absurdity of using scientific consensus as proof for something? Its a logical fallacy, a form of ad populum showing that there is not enough actual evidence to conclude anything, yet because a bunch of people believe in it (or want to believe in it), regardless of how well they know the evidence, we take that as truth. Scientists have been using fear-mongering and personal attacks to make sure their points get taken seriously instead of using proof. This is a form of imposing beliefs on people to make sure they agree with you, which is something that our society also criticizes, even if it is done constantly by those who criticize it. And now, we see a self-contradicting mentality manifest itself in a recent U.N. conference on climate change, where the ridiculousness of the conference and the agenda of our 'scientific consensus' can be viewed pretty clearly.

A Commentary by Chuck Colsen:

Who says that we live in a secular age? I'll have you know that a recent U.N. climate change conference began with a prayer that the delegates would receive divine inspiration as they went about saving the planet.

Of course, the deity being prayed to was not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ but, rather, a goddess who demanded regular sacrifices, including the occasional human one. Given what is going on at Cancun, this invocation seems oddly fitting.

The "invocation" was given by Christiana Figueres at the start of the conference in Cancun, Mexico. Perhaps inspired by the setting, Figueres invoked the Mayan goddess Ixchel. (EEX-Kell)

Noting that Ixchel was the "goddess of reason, creativity and weaving," Figueres "prayed" that the jaguar goddess would "inspire" the delegates.

This is the kind of self-parody that even the U.N.'s biggest critics couldn't make up. Ixchel is often depicted as a "fierce hag" who, in her capriciousness, is just as likely to cause devastating floods as gentle rains that make crops grow.

It's self-parody, but it's consistent with the whole out-of-touch atmosphere of the conference. For instance, as delegates met in Cancun, Europe is enjoying the start of its coldest winter in decades-what German meteorologists fear might be the "winter of the millennium."

It's not just Europe: the first three days of the conference saw record lows in Cancun. Activists will no doubt say "weather is not climate," at least when the weather outside is frightful. When it's hot, they cite as evidence for their argument.

Unfortunately for them, one of their number has let the cat out of the bag. Economist Ottmar Edenhofer, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told a Zurich newspaper what many climate change skeptics already knew: what is going on Cancun, and for that matter, in Copenhagen and Kyoto before that, has little to do with climate.

Edenhofer told the paper that climate policy "has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." Instead, meetings like the one in Cancun are about "global trade and financial policies." They are about a redistribution of the world's resources from the industrialized world to the developing world.

There is nothing per se wrong about talking about how to make poorer countries more wealthy. And there is certainly nothing wrong with discussions about more equitable trade and financial policies. What's wrong is doing under the guise of "climate change" with all the fear-mongering associated with the subject.

Not only is it dishonest - it's counterproductive.

Well-known environmental writer Bjorn Lomborg isn't a climate-change skeptic, but he convincingly argues that for a fraction of what activists propose we spend on curbing CO2 emissions, we could make a significant dent in truly-pressing problems like HIV/AIDS, malaria, malnutrition, clean water and sanitation. These kinds of investments could save hundreds of millions of lives.

But there's no indication that the U.N. climate change officials lifted up these concerns before their Mayan goddess.

Like I said: Out of touch.