Once upon a time, science was what it was. Objective.
Scientists created objective hypotheses based on observations and invited their peers to have at it in terms of critiquing the hypothesis. Little by little, the hypothesis was tweaked, modified and changed until, for a short while, it seemed perhaps to have reached a sort of status quo. Then, abruptly, someone would come out with a hypothesis that destroyed the previous one altogether and the process started again. We even built predictive models that would throw out predictions that could also be tested against reality. Models became a real tool in the pursuit of scientific ‘truth’. But while some science may be accepted for a while, truth it is not and never will be… it is just a hypothesis.
Now, I will hear some say ah but planes fly and that is science – proven science. Well, we know planes fly but why they fly is always going to be open to debate of one kind or another – about the very nature of reality. We have a hypothesis as to why they can fly.
Also – before I get too deep into this. Let’s explore the difference between science and statistics. You see, the media and politicians love to quote statistical studies as proof. Yet, statistics never prove anything at all. Even the most complex multivariate model only approximates reality and if we overlook something – perhaps a correlation we would never even look for, then the model is actually nonsense.
For example, did you know that statistically there is a correlation between movies starring Nicholas Cage and deaths by drowning in pools in the USA. Does it mean anything? Nope. So next time you read something beginning with ‘scientists say’ only to discover it is a statistical study, you can more or less ignore it. I wish we had done that with the one that suggested margarine was good for you, for example.
About 40-years ago, the first articles about climate change began to appear. Back then it was global cooling or global warming – take your pick. Then someone suggested a correlation with CO2 and a whole lot of models were constructed to see if that worked. At this point, all was well.
Then politicians got involved. Pushing an environmental agenda they pounced on this possible relationship between CO2 and temperature. The UN’s political IPCC body started a study into the ‘science’ – climate science. They found a number of scientists to work with each had a hypothesis but one fit the political agenda very well and the young scientist proposing it was very ambitious. By the time the IPCC started coming out with its reports, Michael Mann, was the favoured scientist and his hockeystick chart showing a relationship between CO2 and temperature that, if continued, could be catastrophic, was just the message sought. Thus began the belittling of the other scientists with different hypotheses.
Suddenly, if you wanted a UN grant, you needed to agree with the hockey stick. As time went on, it became political suicide not to agree even though the hockey stick had been shown to be manipulation of statistics and quietly dropped from the IPCC reports.
Then, all opposition was made to look like ‘deniers’. Climate change deniers it was suggested should be jailed, lose their jobs, be banned. This took place over a 30-year period in which I was always part of the debate and watched in horror as things like wikipedia sided with one hypothesis and how people jumped on the bandwagon – for the money was now in green anything.
Entire alternative hypotheses were removed from the internet or from Google searches as ‘false news’ promoted by climate denier criminals.
Yet, here we are in 2020 and papers are being published daily that show that there is no greenhouse effect as it was understood (physicists), that CO2 has no or very minimal effect on temperatures and much much more. But it never gets reported because science has been hijacked by politics.
The very idea that humanity can control climate! Step back and think about that… it is ridiculous. The geological record shows that climate has always changed, sometimes dramatically overnight geologically speaking leaving wholesale destruction in its wake. CO2 has varied from a large percentage of the atmosphere to virtually nil over that time and apart from a short and fortuitous correlation (the hockey stick era), shows no relationship to temperature. In fact, the real planetary emergency seems to have been avoided and that is too little CO2 to maintain life on the planet.
Yes, at 180ppm plants start to struggle and at 120ppm suffocate and die. No plants means real trouble for planet Earth.
Anyway, my point isn’t to argue climate change but to say that the politicians learned very well from all of this. They developed a good model to get their way and add controls over us. So now we hear about science from politicians with regard to COVID and every thing else.
It’s funny to me that these people don’t seem to know that to an actual objective scientist, they come across as idiots. Science is about hypotheses. Science doesn’t prove anything. If there is a consensus in science then it has become religion or ideology.
Every day now I hear politicians use their version of science to promote their left or right wing ideology.
But it all started with the climate change issue. Science is now political. Post modernist. Rather than be objective, observations are selected that support the political objective and anything not fitting is ridiculed. Any opposition is ridiculed and can get you cancelled…. Models make predictions and rather than those predictions being tested against reality, they are used as gospel and the data ‘modified’ to fit.
This isn’t science.
This is stupidity.