Climate Change Truth

What happens when the scientists have excessive belief in their ideas?

These men are not only ill prepared for making discoveries; they also make very poor observations. Of necessity, they observe with a preconceived idea, and when they devise an experiment, they can see, in its results, only a confirmation of their theory. In this way they distort observation and often neglect very important facts because they do not further their aim....But it happens further quite naturally that men who believe too firmly in their theories, do not believe enough in the theories of others. So the dominant idea of these despisers of their fellows is to find others' theories faulty and try to contradict them. The difficulty, for science is still the same.

CLAUDE BERNARD, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, 1865
From Good Calories, Bad Calories, Gary Taubes

Certain things never change. 144 years after the above article was written, we are still plagued by the irrational scientists. Bill Brown talks about this lot in his article "Climate Change Truth" and the way it scientists should operate:

Scientists generally operate like the rational person described above. They work according to the scientific method, which enshrines the inductive approach. Publishing their findings in a scientific journal is supposed to be the beginning of the journey to knowledge as other scientists test the results and publish their own findings. This emerging consensus is then grist for causal explanation, which is then itself tested in new scenarios and experiments. This process is more rigorous and formal than the rational person’s due to its inherently social nature: the rational person really only needs to understand an issue in his own mind whereas a scientist must cast his understanding in precise, objective terms that are available to others.

At odds with both the rational person and the scientist is the man of faith. For him, knowledge once obtained is sacrosanct; his certainty is absolute and unshakeable. In contrast, the process by which he acquires such certainty is relatively effortless: he is told what to believe and he accepts it wholesale. His mind is literally closed off to contradictory information as he resolutely refuses to consider it.

Bill Brown talks about the episodes of shouting down of earnest dissenters by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). He points to a need for resurgence of reason and rational people and some positive signs on that front. Read his whole article for an informed and rational viewpoint of the issue.

Drive thru truth

I'll just post the picture of this Memphis-area Burger King franchisee’s. For the reactions around the world to the fur our this sacrilege (global warming is the new religion you know) has caused read about it on Tim Blair Blog.


(Pic via the Memphis Flyer)

I'll just quote J.J. McNelis, marketing president of the company running the Burger King franchise, who said:
"If someone wants to stand up and say “Global Warming is Baloney”, then I’m all for it. It doesn’t matter to me, whether I believe in it or not. They have first amendment rights to say whatever’s on their mind. And nobody dictates otherwise."

Carbon footprint-bigger the better

President Obama in his recent Town hall meet in Germany said India's carbon footprint is much smaller then America's. He also mentioned that the America is rich and India poor. Now the key question is that can he see the obvious that "bigger carbon footprint = rich" and "small carbon footprint = poor"? Does he is realise that what he is saying is that he wants to reduce the greatest, most prosperous country in the world to the level of a country barely coming out of abject poverty.

Freeman Dyson said at Tragedy Is Not Freeman Dyson’s Business
“The greatest evils are poverty, underdevelopment, unemployment, disease and hunger, all the conditions that deprive people of opportunities and limit their freedoms.”

With the reverse of socialism in India we have seen unprecedented prosperity and rise of people above the poverty line. It is only due to the opening up of the markets and giving people freedom to choose their destiny that this has been possible. Now the dubious science of global warming threatens to undo all that. When people in first world sit and sermonise and talk about curbing progress in name of dubious computer generated models, it amazes me.

What Ayn Rand said so many years ago still holds true:
Ecology as a social principle . . . condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates men’s return to “nature,” to the state of grunting subanimals digging the soil with their bare hands.
“The Lessons of Vietnam,” The Ayn Rand Letter, III, 25

There are so many ifs and buts in these theories but there are no doubts about the rise in living standards and the unleashing of the entrepreneurial energy in countries like India and China. Hopefully people can escape the devil with twin horns of socialism and environmentalism long enough to achieve decent standards of living.

Lets hope that the view “Humans, have a duty to restructure nature for their survival” prevails for the sake of billions who are finally getting to see glimpses of life as it should be - a celebration of human achievement and not a struggle for survival.