Climate Science - Philosophically Irrational
An American poet, essayist, and journalist, Walt Whitman, who died in 1892, before he could be exposed to contemporary climate science, would not have said, “I like the scientific spirit—the holding off, the being sure but not too sure, the willingness to surrender ideas when the evidence is against them: this is ultimately fine—it always keeps the way beyond open—always gives life, thought, affection, the whole man, a chance to try over again after a mistake—after a wrong guess.”
The late Dr. Karl Popper was born after Whitman died, but Whitman’s quote essentially followed the direction of Popper’s assertion relative to empirical falsification. Popper said, “A theory in the empirical can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can (and should) be scrutinized with decisive experiments.” This naturally precludes and falsifies a science called, “consensus”.
In the paper “Russell and Karl Popper: Their Personal Contacts” authored by I. Grattan-Guinness, was the declaration that while Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell, the most esteemed philosophers of modern times quite often disagreed on several philosophical matters, “in the role of induction in science, they held each other in high esteem”.
Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, and even Walt Whitman would all be saddened by today’s activist climate science or in many cases illogical, impulsive, and ideological science. If science is permanently immunized from falsification then it is no longer a science, but a religion of unjustifiable faith, bias, and intolerance of any scientific opposition or debate.
I take you back to a “Spiked” article from September 2020 entitled, “Science is now just another wing of politics” which brings the politicization of science so clearly into full light. When the magazine Scientific American broke its 175-year tradition of never backing a politician, it lost the true objectivity of science to prejudicial politics. That would have been the same irrespective of which presidential candidate was chosen.
The linked story covers this monumental mistake and clearly illustrates that Scientific American no longer can produce scientific documentation with any degree of dependability, integrity, objectivity, or trustworthiness. The story asserts, “The truth is that institutional science has willingly politicized itself and prostituted itself to power to such an extent that it no longer understands the difference between politics and science.” If you do not believe this, then you don’t believe in empirical science but simply embrace their brand of prejudicial politics.
In the fully politicized science of anthropogenic climate change, the eco-politicians and their lapdog scientists capitalize on presumptive morality exploiting a sense of compassion and care in a colossal battle to stop a global disaster. They further contend that climate skeptics on the other hand are callous and cold-hearted and have no concern for humanity. This really points to the heart of the battle – the electorate.
The climate change skeptic or refuter is not trying to prove anything, but merely invalidate the proponent’s declaration of the hypothesis and further identify why the issue indeed exists. The skeptic’s position is behind the eight ball – it’s a relatively difficult situation and, from most perspectives, he or she is currently not winning. The circumstances are made all the more arduous because if the science has “prostituted itself” then their pimp is the marketing of the legacy media. And, despite decades of science showing no observable truth of anthropogenic climate change and despite constant predictions of devastation and the relentless moving of goalposts, the mutual harlotry continues.
The climate change dissenters arduously continue with the challenge and campaign because they see the fallacy of climate change mitigation as the pending disaster, and eradication of freedoms and liberties, for all of humanity and especially the least among us.
