Global Warming Causes…Homicide(?)
When someone accuses another of a misconduct or wrongdoing, the accuser often is guilty of that very thing. SJLewis
One of our recent articles made the case that the current “global warming” scare is not true (a lie) and therefore unethical. When its advocates claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that man is responsible, and that “a tiny minority of shoddy scientists…and extreme ideologues compete with scientific fact,” they are lying (and unethical). What is true is that “a tiny minority” of self-aggrandizing politicians, consensus scientists and ideologues seek to profit (in both money and power) from the lie.
Now the advocates of global warming are finding even more support for their cause. To wit:
Center for American Progress board member Christie Hefner claims that warmer climate is driving a dramatic increase in gun violence (MSNBC). Her concerns are ‘substantiated’ in the L.A. Times, which is promoting a new study by research firm Abt Associates, a public policy and business research and consulting firm. Abt finds that “(b)etween 2010 and 2099, climate change can be expected to cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft,” ostensibly brought on by warmer climate(?). How did they come up with that? Computer modeling, I’ll wager. Talk about junk science…
President Obama has declared that “The debate is settled,” a statement substantiated by climate experts(?) Al Gore and John Kerry. Notice any similarity among these sources? Hint: they’re all progressive, supported by government, and none have any background in climate science (or any other science, for that matter).
Segue to facts:
Charles Krauthammer speaks the truth when he says that “There is nothing less scientific than the idea that science is settled, static, (and) impervious to challenge.” After noting that scientists consider nothing to be absolute in scientific conclusion, let’s back that up:
Science (from the Latin scientia) is defined as a systematic method that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the Universe. So it should be no surprise that science employs the scientific method, a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning requiring systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses (definitions by way of Wikipedia, also the major source of those that follow).
A major strength distinguishing the scientific method from other techniques of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Reality is, simply, WHAT IS, not what someone may think or wish it is. As Bishop Butler put it in the 18th Century: “Everything is what it is, and nothing else.” (I quote him a lot, because it’s so simple.)
This is part one of two parts. Next up: Science, social science and reality speaking for itself…