ETHICS and POLITICAL SCIENCE

THE POLITICS of SCIENCE

The threat of ‘global warming’ has been transmogrified into the earlier established and more acceptable term Climate Change in response to a general inability of its adherents to explain the extreme cold temperatures of the past four winters. Specifically absent from current Warmer arguments are any mention of the beneficial effect of fossil fuels on global progress:  The use of coal historically reversed the devastating effects of deforestation of Europe.  Oil from wells effectively saved the world’s whales and seals.  Fertilizers manufactured using gas doubled the yield of an acre of land, feeding a burgeoning population while at the same time providing more land for natural development.  Coal-fired power plants provide power to large parts of Africa [and elsewhere] that previously lived in darkness.

But what anyone thinks about climate change is not the issue.  At issue is the credibility of science itself resulting from the politically-motivated ‘global warming’ panic.*  Proof that it’s political lies in the obvious split between Global Warmers [liberal] and climate changers [others], and the tactics used by the Warmers [the “It’s final—there’s no reason to investigate further” approach—distinctly unscientific because science is never final.].

Valid Climate Change science has been damaged by relatively recent partisan claims that man’s activities—specifically, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels—is responsible for destructive global warming that will cause irreparable damage to Earth’s natural environment.  Their solution to this non-problem?  Governmental funding of political ‘solutions’ and halting economic progress by limiting development.

One of the most obvious untruths championed by the Global Warmers is the result of a questionnaire to earth scientists purportedly showing that 97% of them agree that man’s activities are causing damaging global warming by amplifying CO2 levels. A seriously-faulted assumption that water vapor ‘feedback’ somehow amplifies the effects of CO2 remains in nearly every mathematical model in spite of recent work by some of the original 97-percenters who now find that climate sensitivity to these factors to be much lower than originally predicted—specifically, 40% of original predictions.  All predictions of warming and rising ocean levels since the last warming episode [1978- 98, the only period IPCC attributes to CO2 emissions] are much higher than has actually occurred.  These later observations support a much reduced/essentially harmless climate response to atmospheric CO2.

In the first place, it should be obvious to any rational observer that any claim of 97% agreement must be bogus simply because it implies that 100-percent of the world’s climate scientists were canvassed—an impossible claim on its surface.  Additionally, it is virtually impossible to get 97% agreement on any scientific subject.

But more important, IPCC had predicted that Earth’s surface would warm 2-4 degrees Centigrade per Century, or more while, in fact, warming has increased less than 0.2 degrees and has in fact slowed to virtually nil in the past 20-years.]

The fact is that the effects of water [especially in the vapor phase] cannot be accurately modeled because the mechanisms of phase changes and migration [not to mention solar radiation] are less than imperfectly understood.    http://www.extremeethics.org/ethical-issues-climate

Political Science? Hardly.  We are part and parcel of Earth—as it goes, so do we—and in spite of what we currently believe, we are in fact not responsible for it!  EARTH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR US!  Of course we should treat it with respect as our progenitor and means of life, but Earth and its inhabitants are evolving constantly (and that evolution includes extinction), just as the Universe has been evolving for nearly 14BILLION years.  What makes anyone think that we’re responsible just because we’ve recently become aware? Mankind is not in charge.  The whole of nature is, and we’re just a miniscule part of it.  We are guests—not hosts. Nor will political science change the situation…

 *IT’S POLITICAL

If you still have doubts that the Global Warming issue is political, read on… “Individuals and organizations highly vested in disaster scenarios have relentlessly attacked scientists…who do not share their beliefs.  The attacks have taken a threatening turn.” (from the Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2015):  Congressman Raul Grijalva launched a hunting expedition into anything said or written by selected objectors to alarmist claims about the climate, sending letters to the universities employing them.  While acknowledging absence of any evidence, he demanded all details of their outside funding, communications, consulting and speaking fees, travel expenses, compensation and more while, even accusing some of disagreement with John Holdren [President Obama’s Science Czar], forbidding them to present testimony to Congress.  After The American Meteorological Society objected to singling out individuals for their scientific opinions, Congressman Grijalva withdrew his threat, admitting “overreach”.  It’s political, folks…

For more information on this subject, GoTo any/all of the following:

http://www.extremeethics.org/ethical-issues-climate

http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=1539

http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=1527

http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=1337  [Global Warming—Science Speaks for Itself]

http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=1294  [The Importance of Water]