By Rob Meyne
- Nov. 8, 2021
- 1-min read
Those who went to a liberal arts school or just had a good general education know a little bit about the scientific method. Under the broader banner of “science,” it is used widely in today’s political discourse.
The scientific method relies on continuing experimentation, testing, and confirming hypotheses. Scientific “proof” must be made public, the data shared, and the test replicable.
How do we know 32 degrees F is freezing? We know it because we have evaluated it thousands of times and, in the absence of mitigating factors, gotten the same result.
Last weekend there was a story on aspirin. New studies suggest aspirin may not be a good tactic for preventing heart attack or stroke. For many years, it has been considered unchallenged “fact.” Millions of people have been advised, by their health care professionals, to take small, daily doses of aspirin.
As more and better information is developed, we revisit established beliefs and, if justified, revise them. That is a good thing. Especially on something like the effects of a drug. We have real evidence, tests, and experience on which to rely.
Climate change panic is based nearly entirely on projections derived from “models,” not evidence. That is why there have been so many climate disaster predictions made over the years that proved wrong. Climate doomsaying is based on educated guesses, estimates, at best.
The climate panic crowd pretends that climate “science” is settled and there is a consensus. Scientifically, “consensus” is the dreaded “c word.” Count on this: when people use the word “consensus,” the point in discussion is not proven at all, but is just an opinion.
This just in: science is not driven by opinion. It is driven by facts. If it were a fact that we are experiencing a climate disaster, caused by us, then the consensus would not matter. Science is not determined by popular vote. When you hear “consensus” it is the tip-off that you are not hearing facts. It can be fact, or it can be consensus. It cannot be both.
Yet the climate Nazis tell us we are not even allowed to ask questions. They say shut up and do what you are told. BS.
At the recent Glasgow climate confab, a theme was that the science is “settled.” You are no longer allowed to ask for the evidence or challenge assertions. We are only allowed to do what they want us to. Unsurprisingly, climate has become the all-encompassing justification for implementing a global economic revision, growth of government, and reduction of freedom. It is dressed up as something they all the “Great Reset.”
The alleged climate threats are excuses for governmental, corporate, and non-profit elites to do exactly what they have always wanted. If you believe that the leftist/socialist agenda just happens to be what we need to combat climate change, you are, with respect, naïve beyond belief. When a nation discourages discussion, diversity of opinion, and debate, we are in trouble. If you are comfortable with living in a nation where you are not allowed to question government, you have got it.
