“Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.” Thomas Henry Huxley
Now I would count myself as being a bit of a scientific sceptic and agnostic to boot, so I’m officially sceptnostic I guess. Oh I know, I just made up a word but I really like it. My mistrust of science and religion is deep rooted and another story all together but suffice to say I am prepared to believe in both biblical and scientific hypotheses/faith and those two terms are interchangeable. You see lots of science is based on faith despite reasonable evidence to the contrary and lots of religious belief is founded in facts, again despite evidence to the contrary. So who can we believe? Actually you probably should make the choice to either back both or neither as history has taught us choosing one side or the other usually ends up in a conflict resulting in a horrible death. You see both sides have so much to lose they will do nearly anything to preserve their place in the world.
“The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models” Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office
So where was I, oh yes Global warming. It’s such a huge issue with so many competing sides who could possibly doubt the authenticity of what we are told with such enthusiasm and urgency? Well I can, you see I started out studying science and have seen first-hand the scale of government cover ups of properly gathered scientific data, even worse pretty much all the data you get presented by the scientific bodies has to be paid for, nothing in life is free, ever. The people who pay for the scientists to research anything are the very people you don’t want paying for it if you want at least a fighting chance of getting unbiased results. The worst of the lot are governments who will always have an agenda that involves scamming as much as they can out of everybody else as the recent expenses fiasco demonstrated. The corporations and banks are no better, they fund all the other research into products to scam the remaining copper from our pockets after the governments hefty cut.
Not all scientists are crooked I hear you cry. No you are wrong, very few are crooked I’m sure but at the end of the day if you don’t want to be vilified, cast down and demonised then you don’t dare release results that aren’t what the government expect, as David Nutt found out to his cost.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome 121–180
Other recent events have done absolutely nothing to further the sweaty planet cause, a recent theft of climate data and emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and subsequent resignation of Professor Phil Jones the unit’s director have cast doubts on the very data being presented after he admitted he had used a “trick” to “hide the decline [in global temperatures].” The speculation is that this research group have been cutting the data to ensure the advertised trend of global warming appears to be continuing when in actual fact all the evidence seems to be suggestion something different. The University of Alabama at Huntsville temperature data set suggests that 2008 was not only cooler in general but it was only very slightly warmer than 1983, a remarkable accomplishment considering billions upon billions of tons of greenhouse gases have been pumped into our atmosphere. In a span of 25 years, when more and more cars clogged the roads, temperatures have made a full circle.
Now before you all get on your various hobby horses I’m not siding with one or the other, as I said I’m a sceptnoistic and am simply making an example of why scientists, governments and corporations can’t be trusted. I think what is more interesting is the question of who stands to lose the most from being right or wrong?
- All the scientists get to make silly faces and shout neer na ner naa naaa at the skeptics shortly before the oceans boil and we all die.
- The corporations will make bazillions selling us masses of save the planet goods and services, mostly of dubious benefit.
- The governments will make bazillions raking in extra cash from taxes and charges for making everything ecofriendly and saving us from ourselves with laws to back up their scams.
- We may actually save the planet, although given the un-skeptic scientific predictions I seriously doubt we could ever reverse the process so we all die.
- The sceptics get to make silly faces and shout neer na ner naa naaa at the governments and scientists shortly before the oceans _dont_ boil and we all _dont_ die.
- The governments look like plonkers and get ousted by voters or rioters, the scientists already look like plonkers so no change there however they now begin producing the figures their new masters require.
- We will have seriously improved our planet by being much more conscientious about its welfare.
- The income source for governments and corporation dries up and they would lose bazillions of potential income.
I guess the real question is who is right and who is wrong… well of course I can’t answer that but I bet almost every single person out there will have the answer one way or another and no matter how they got their grand conclusion I would also bet they are wrong.
Science is a funny thing, it’s only ever right until it’s wrong! Ian Wilson, sceptnostic
What do you think? Add a comment to let me know.