Stormy Predictions
This blog has always focused on the culture and politics of the United States. I’ve never discussed climate science, or any other science, before and I don’t intend to make it a habit. Most conservatives already know how they feel about global warming or what they now call global climate change. However, sometimes a topic, or a rant, just seems to flow from my fingers onto the screen. Suddenly, everything is there and all I need to do is press publish. That is just about what happened with this post.
Kyle Pratt at home in southwest Washington State.
I’ve spent much of my life living close to nature. Today, I live on a small farm in rural southwest Washington State. I awake to rooster crows. My backyard is an apple orchard. Nearby is a berry and vegetable garden with two beehives. Because of the bees, and other insects, we don’t use pesticides on the farm. All the organic waste from the farm goes into the compost tumbler beside the barn. This is exactly the way I like to live and I would never do anything to harm it. All of us should be working to save the oceans, clean the air, and preserve habitat and wildlife. If there was a forecast of environmental disaster that I could believe, I would act.
However, I’ve lived long enough to remember forecasts of a coming ice age and freezing temperatures that would engulf much of the planet. This was soon followed by dire predictions of global warming. Coastal cities would be flooded and island countries like the Maldives would sink into the ocean. If you doubt any of these apocalyptic predictions check out the video with this blogpost.
When those predictions didn’t come to pass the sages of climate forecasting invented the term global climate change. Now when the winter is cold it’s because of global climate change and when the winter is warm that too is caused by global climate change. What does global climate change even mean? There is a global climate and it does naturally change over time.
In his book Hyperspace, author and theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku discusses reductionism, reducing complex data to simple terms, versus holism, viewing factors as an irreducible whole. While he is not talking about climate science in the book, toward the end of the book I found this very interesting statement.
“Know-nothing science goes to the opposite extreme, rejecting experiment and embracing whatever faddish philosophy happens to come along. Know-nothing science sees unpleasant facts as mere details and the overall philosophy as everything. If the facts do not seem to fit the philosophy, then obviously something is wrong with the facts. Know-nothing science comes in with a preformed agenda, based on personal fulfillment rather than objective observation, and tries to fit in the science as an afterthought.”
I believe that many climate scientists want to ensure they are funded so they embrace the current faddish philosophy even if they aren’t sure of the science behind it. Then as data rolls in during the funded project and they view it through the prism of the current agenda.
Have climate scientists or their friends in the media, cried wolf once too often? Let us know what you think in the comment section below.
