CARPE DIEM has a great summary on The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Age (referring to global warming). The lies have long ago been exposed, but it took a hacker to get some traction on a scientific community that has given up on it's own true value and become a bunch of hucksters trying to swindle the world.
What makes this an even more eye opening situation is the implications beyond global warming. Scientists are supposed to be impartial discoverers of new things, using an impartial scientific method to ascertain new knowledge. But apparently they can't hold themselves up to that level. Politics, corruption, personal subjectivity all play a part in their modus operendi. As a community they should be bending over backwards now to fix their image if they EVER want to be taken seriously again. Otherwise they will be regarded with the same skepticism as lawyer, used car salesmen and politicians.
Which brings us to the broader implication. If they are supposed to be impartial, what does that say for other supposedly impartial groups within society - like say judges who, rather than being what they are supposed to be - referees - decide that they need to be activists, moving the interpretation of legislation in a direction they might personally desire?
What does it mean for terms like revenue neutral when applied to health care reform? Who determines that neutrality? Do they have political agendas as well?
Of course they do. Everyone has views and preferences. Might I suggest that anything that goes on from a national interest perspective, from legal interpretations, to carbon taxes to revenue neutrality be subject to a burden of proof if it passes? How about making legislation subject to verification? Failure to meet agreed upon benchmarks should mean revocation of any legislation. Wouldn't that be novel?
Which brings us full circle to global warming. If there's doubt that the validity of the problem exists (and there's plenty), shouldn't the burden of proof lie in the case for legislation and not the case against it? Never mind this 'insurance policy' business if the claims are a hoax. And the burden of proof, given the suspicions of the scientific community must be a little bit more than a peer review as alarmists want to push. This is putting the fox in charge of the hen house, and that makes all of us a bunch of drumsticks.
Very well said. These guys are like the televagelists of the scientific community. Though while televangelists tell you if you send money you'll be saved, these guys work to just take your money without giving you the choice to donate or not.
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it, I have way more respect for televangelists than for these lientists.
Televangelists is a pretty good analogy if you throw in the idea of mandatory contributions.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's more like the forced payments the Romans demanded from areas they conquered. In the case the conquest is the forced suppression of opposing ideas.