Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unsettling “Settled Science”
Townhall.com ^ | March 23, 2014 | Derek Hunter

Posted on 03/23/2014 6:58:30 AM PDT by Kaslin

I was making a Costco run with my friend George on Friday, and the subject of the weather came up. It was a nice day, relatively speaking, but Saturday was going to be nicer – nearly 70 degrees. This was a nice change of pace from the polar vortexes and dump trucks full of snow we’ve been hit with here in Maryland for the past three months. Then I looked at my iPhone and noted the forecast calls for another possible large snowstorm Tuesday.

George said that seemed a little far away to predict such things with any certainty, and he’s right. Considering meteorologists rarely can tell you with any accuracy what happened yesterday, why should they be believed on what will happen next week? The fact is they shouldn’t.

What drives me nuts, as I told George, isn’t that they’re wrong so often. It’s the certainty with which they make predictions knowing they don’t truly know and so often are so off-base. It’s at this time that George, a medical doctor with a master’s degree in biology, a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and minor in chemistry, laughed, saying, “Nothing is absolute in science, except maybe in physics.” (Another area he spent a lot of time studying. He’s an over-achiever.)

It’s true: We know very little about the world in which we live or even our own bodies.

The Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Bleedings were prescribed for healing at one point by science. But we don’t need to go back that far to find confusion and contradictions in “settled science.”

Smoking causes cancer, but not in everyone and we don’t know why. Why eating a diet of fried foods makes one person fat but with normal blood pressure and someone else can be incredibly fit with a healthy diet but have high blood pressure remains an unknown. Science, at it’s most certain, is probability – sometimes extremely high, but still not 100 percent. And it’s changing all the time.

A few years ago, we were told saturated fat caused heart disease, and polyunsaturated fat was a “good fat” that was great for the heart. Labels were changed to highlight the absence of one and the presence of the other. Diets were launched. Cookbooks were written. Lives were altered. And it may all have been for naught.

The UK Telegraph reported this week, “Scientists have discovered that saturated fat does not cause heart disease while so-called ‘healthy’ polyunsaturated fats do not prevent cardiovascular problems.” This wasn’t just a 180-degree turn from what we “knew” to be true, it’s a full 540-degree loop from what used to be orthodoxy.

The fact is we don’t know which fats are good, if any, and which are bad, if any, with any certainty. What two months ago was known to be true, beyond any doubt, is now known to be false.

The true nature of science is truth-seeking, rarely finding. But in that seeking, some truth can be found. That smoking is unhealthy, even if it doesn’t cause cancer in someone, is beyond question. That a bleeding is not the best treatment for pneumonia seems obvious, even though it once was the treatment for it. It was the consensus, it was “settled science.”

The concept of “settled science” based on majority vote is the mantra of the climate change industry. Were pro-lifers to flood the field of biology, become the majority and vote that life unequivocally begins at conception, they’d reject the notion by a show of hands.

Science, by its very nature, requires proof. And proof is the one thing the hierarchy of the environmentalist movement hasn’t provided. Newsweek once wrote, “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth.” (Emphasis added.) Quite a few qualifiers in that sentence, don’t you think?

This was from an article in 1975 entitled, “The Cooling World” about the consensus among scientists that we were on the verge of a new ice age. (Read the whole thing here.) The science was settled. The vote had been taken. We were doomed. Only someone forget to tell the planet because the ice age didn’t happen.

Yet the solutions proposed then – more government control of the economy and us, higher taxes, less freedom, etc. – are nearly identical to the “solutions” proposed for global warming decades later. Since the planet hasn’t warmed in 18 years, despite consensus that it would, the catch-all term has been updated to “climate change.” This empowered progressives to blame anything on it – cold, hot, storms, droughts. But the solutions are constant – the same governmental power expansion they’ve been seeking for nearly a century.

Their faith, if not their facts, remains unwavering.

They believe in “science” – just ask them – but they hide their data from skeptical scrutiny and coordinate efforts to “hide the decline” in temperatures. Science is the seeking and understanding of provable fact – it’s knowledge, precisely what these progressives and academics seek to keep from the masses.

Ironically, the very people who attack anyone who dares question their faith is labeled a shill for “big oil.” Meanwhile those progressives control the bureaucracy that oversees the government spigot from which flows billions of dollars in grants to academics to study more “climate change.”

This leads to an obvious questions: If temperatures are rising, and it’s an irrefutable fact that humans are to blame, why does it require hundreds of millions of dollars to continue to prove it each year?

The answer is simple – scientists and academia is every bit as addicted to the money that flows to the belief in manmade climate change as they accuse skeptics of being to money from oil companies.

Progressives have their agenda. The American public rejects it – at the polls, when they run on it in campaigns, or later when they are again found to have concealed it. But they don’t care. What they can’t get at the ballot box, they seek from the courts.

What they can’t get in the courts, they seek through regulation. When they can’t win an argument, they create a moral imperative to justify it (ironic considering they’ve spent decades telling conservative “you can legislate morality”).

“Save the planet,” “For the children,” and so on have been the battle cry of the greatest affronts to liberty this country has ever seen. And it’s all funded by the very taxpayers who oppose the end result – against their will and without their knowledge.

It’s the ultimate article of faith, a religion based not on a Supreme Being, but the supremacy of certain beings – progressives. But while there’s no proof God doesn’t exist, there’s ample proof their agenda does not work. Undeterred, they press on … ever “forward.”

The Holy Church of Global Warming (a wholly owned subsidiary of Climate Change, Inc. and its bureaucratic and political clergy in the progressives movement) are every bit as much a religion as any church you can name. It’s a religion based on faith not in a higher power but in a better, smarter group of people who know better how you should live your life than you do.

Just like those who tell you what’s good to eat, drink, etc., progressives would like people to believe science is on their side, and that once a vote is taken it is settled. Of course, science isn’t consensus. It’s not about a majority vote. And unlike the reality of their failed agenda, it rarely, if ever, is settled.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: globalwarming; science

1 posted on 03/23/2014 6:58:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

OK!! Everybody pay attention!

Lesson for today:

1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.

2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.

3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.

4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.

5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?


2 posted on 03/23/2014 7:08:49 AM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The true believers are allowed to use isolated weather events to “prove” their belief, but tell us we can't use even a 6 month span (like this unusually cold and long winter) as evidence that they may be wrong.

On the food examples my favorite is eggs. A while back we were told that eggs will kill you; too much cholesterol. This devastated small egg farmers putting many out of business (the big corporate ones could weather the storm). A couple years later, after many families had been ruined financially we were told that eggs were ok after all.

3 posted on 03/23/2014 7:09:22 AM PDT by logic101.net (How many more children must die on the altar of gun control?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
And to make matters worse , Nothing spouted by the government can be believed.
4 posted on 03/23/2014 7:10:47 AM PDT by mongo141 (Revolution ver. 2.0, just a matter of when, not a matter of if!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Of “global warming” was “settled science” and threaten to kill all mankind very quickly:

1. Why did the main scientists of global warming, when they found errors in their models pointing it was less severe issue, not jump for joy and celebrate? And not share this joyful news with the rest of the world in celebration? Instead they were sad and and tried to hide their new data from the public.

2. Why are not the main scientists of global warming not pushing 1000000% for replacing all energy production with nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the greenest of all power production and dwarfs all wind/solar production. Despite all the bad side effects of nuclear power - it is the only viable way to reduce greenhouse gases if adopted on a massive scale.

Yet the main scientists of global warming are crazy anti-nuclear.

So basically - it is all fake science to grow government.


5 posted on 03/23/2014 7:12:19 AM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
This leads to an obvious questions: If temperatures are rising, and it’s an irrefutable fact that humans are to blame, why does it require hundreds of millions of dollars to continue to prove it each year?

This is a great question. I have a proposal. If this is all settled, why don't we tell the climate scientists to put their money where there mouth is. All money now going to climate research will be diverted towards their climate 'solutions'.

6 posted on 03/23/2014 7:19:45 AM PDT by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net

There is no such thing as “settled science”, as by its very nature, every hypothesis presented in explanation of some observed cause and effect, is subject to later modification or even abandonment, when a substitute explanation can be framed and put to rigorous testing, with the intention in every instance is to disprove each hypothesis in its turn.

Some practical observations, and conclusions about its relationship to the whole of the universe, have stood the test well. Others are subject to so many caveats and exceptions as to prove to be almost useless on a pragmatic basis. “Climate change” is one of those postulations that has not yet proven to be either consistent with other known facts, or reproducible by objective researchers in other venues and programs.

Real science has probed to be too difficult for these climate cultists, and left untried.


7 posted on 03/23/2014 7:25:25 AM PDT by alloysteel (Obamacare - Death and Taxes now available online. One-stop shopping at its best!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
coordinate efforts to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

This incorrect statement has been corrected many times. The decline refers to the decline in the proxies (tree rings) which was erased and replaced with the rising temperatures from surface thermometers. They did not hide any decline in temperatures since there has been no decline in temperatures just a halt in the rise.

8 posted on 03/23/2014 7:27:12 AM PDT by palmer (There's someone in my lead but it's not me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Oddly enough, the so-called “I love science” left thinks that being gay is genetic with no scientific proof, and that unborn children aren’t humans but a “glob of tissue”.

And dont forget that DDT causes cancer, despite all of the science that never found that to be true.


9 posted on 03/23/2014 7:29:07 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer

there has been no decline in temperatures just a halt in the rise.

You obviously do not live in WI!


10 posted on 03/23/2014 7:29:43 AM PDT by logic101.net (How many more children must die on the altar of gun control?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The UK Telegraph reported this week, “Scientists have discovered that saturated fat does not cause heart disease while so-called ‘healthy’ polyunsaturated fats do not prevent cardiovascular problems.” This wasn’t just a 180-degree turn from what we “knew” to be true, it’s a full 540-degree loop from what used to be orthodoxy.

Right out of Woody Allen's "Sleeper".

Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he requested something called "wheat germ, organic honey and tiger's milk."
Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?
Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
Dr. Melik: Incredible.

11 posted on 03/23/2014 7:36:01 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net

you must have forgotten about March 2012, 15.5 degrees above average in Green Bay. This month is -8.5 so far.


12 posted on 03/23/2014 7:39:49 AM PDT by palmer (There's someone in my lead but it's not me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

Classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory could probably be called “settled”. Everything else in science is developing and changing over time.


13 posted on 03/23/2014 7:45:35 AM PDT by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

>http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/16-03-2014/127115-global_warming-0/<

How modern global warming science took form


14 posted on 03/23/2014 7:46:07 AM PDT by G Larry (There's the Beef!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I suggest that at the top of every page of every science book should be the warning label “All science is theory”. Any scientific “fact” is only a fact until it is scientifically contradicted.


15 posted on 03/23/2014 7:54:36 AM PDT by rexiesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The current theory among the “higher minded” is that Mother Earth is a benign, nurturing and unchanging environment for all her creatures. They also believe that all geologic and climatic history began around 1979 and that any event that threatens Earth’s creatures is unprecedented and has been caused by humankind who is thought to be some form of extra terrestrial virus. Their proof of this is in their computer models and the words of their prophet Al Gore. — Captain
Compassion


16 posted on 03/23/2014 8:02:56 AM PDT by Captain Compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It seems to me that East Coast weather forecasts this winter have been pretty accurate a week or so out. They may not be 100% on where the storms might dump their snow but the predictions that the region will get cold and snow somewhere within a given time frame has been pretty good.


17 posted on 03/23/2014 8:11:14 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Do The Math)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Future Science
18 posted on 03/23/2014 8:14:13 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Bookmark.


19 posted on 03/23/2014 8:37:05 AM PDT by SunTzuWu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

bkmk


20 posted on 03/23/2014 11:21:06 AM PDT by AllAmericanGirl44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
 photo LanguageGREENMotivesRED2_zpsa053de7e.jpg
21 posted on 03/23/2014 6:32:16 PM PDT by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer
So why did they have to hide them, anyway?
22 posted on 03/23/2014 9:43:30 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
They hid the proxy data because it pointed to a recent temperature decline (starting 1950 or so). They mainly wanted remove the embarrassing downtick in the graph which undid earlier 20th century "warming". Lots of posts about it here: http://climateaudit.org/page/2/?s=hide
23 posted on 03/24/2014 1:40:30 AM PDT by palmer (There's someone in my lead but it's not me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson