Five Minutes To Midnight
(the stifling of scientific inquiry)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Liberals — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
General Secretary Gorbachev was forced to "tear down this wall," but we are told that it is "five minutes to midnight" anyway. You see, Bush didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. (The Senate rejected it, but that's of no moment.) The board of directors of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) have set our clocks:
"The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival."
BAS sponsor Lawrence M. Krauss, professor of theoretical physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, hisses: "In these dangerous times, scientists have a responsibility to speak truth to power!" (Those of us familiar with that meaningless phrase know from where he is coming.)
But anyway, the capitalists are heating up the planet, we're told, and everything is going to melt and we're all going to die if the workers are not soon given control of the means of production.
Not exactly, says academic scientist James Lewis in rebuttal:
The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-dependent. We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or thousands.
All our models of the earth climate are incomplete. That's why they keep changing, and that's why climate scientists keep finding surprises. As Rummy used to say, there are a ton of "unknown unknowns" out there. The real world is full of x's, y's and z's, far more than we can write little models about. How do you extract the human contribution from a vast number of unknowns?
That's why constant testing is needed, and why it is so frustrating to do frontier science properly. [emphasis mine]
Who is worrying about doing this sort of science properly? There are people to frighten, money to be made, political careers to be furthered, and ownership of means of production to be transferred. Marx wrote that "the struggle of class against class is a political struggle." The unproven "science" of global warming is about the struggle of poor nations against the wealthy nations. There is no cooperation in it, no time for diplomacy,
And so the main problem to be found with James Lewis's arguments is that he's using a pseudonym. Why would a real scientist, unashamed of his views, hide behind a nom de plume?
Well, "Lewis" is a blogger, and some bloggers, especially academics and professionals, use pseudonyms for protection.
Protection against dangerous – nay!, disgusting reprehensible shackles like this:
The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
The Holocaust was a genuine human atrocity, while this "manmade catastrophic global warming" is a politically-inspired hypothesis. Heidi Cullen is comparing the systematic slaughter of millions of Jews and others described as "undesirable" by twisted and evil regime to those who'd advocate scientific inquiry. Hypotheses are to be questioned, proven, not blindly accepted in pursuit of a political goal. Any legitimate scientist, I imagine, holds this concept dear.
Dr. Lawrence "Speaking Truth to Power" Krauss, cited above in support of five 'til midnight, wrote an essay last September: Beware Government’s Creeping Censorship of Scientific Inquiry. Indeed. But, of course, he was writing about "government restrictions on the use of embryonic stem cells," when that's not even the debate. The question he should have been discussing was whether or not taxpayers should be forced to pay for such experiments. But does he advocate censorship of scientific inquiry regarding global warming? Who knows?
Either way, it's Five Minutes To Midnight, folks. It's a cute gimmick, and we'll all hopefully be scared of gremlins in the closet soon and give up our private property. It's a great media story: Scientists predict capitalist doom! Read all about it.