Although I may sometimes express ideas that are not inline with others, I will not use the term denier, idiot, a mis-informer, or stupid, just because they don’t agree with me. I am the first to say, I could be wrong about what I believe. Besides the fact that it is downright rude, calling people you disagree with names does not make your point of view more valid. Remember that the next time you make a comment in Facebook, a blog or newspaper article.
However, it really doesn’t matter what you or I believe. What does matter is, if allowed to do it’s job and produces evidence instead of conjecture, if it is not hijacked by politics, if done properly, that science will in the end reveal the truth.
One of the things I have learned is that science is about posing an idea or hypothesis. As one scientist said, making a guess about what might be. Then, the next step is to try your best to disprove it. I know that may seem somewhat weird and backward, but in essence, that is what science is about. You try as hard as you can to disprove something, and if you can’t disprove it, then it is most likely true.
Someone came up with the hypothesis that C02 has caused catastrophic warming of the planet and mankind is responsible. It is not that the hypothesis was bad, it just that instead of allowing science, and scientists, to do their job — test and test until it is proven one way or another — some people have set out to prove that the hypothesis is correct, and anyone who disagrees with them are less then human. And, it has yet to be proven to be true.
From my research, I have come to the conclusion that man-made catastrophic global warming is unsupported by the facts, and there is no solid evidence in it’s favour. Maybe someday it will be otherwise, but presently, I am not convinced.
I came across this article by Michael Crichton which expressed so well what I am trying to say. I would ask that you take a moment and read it. I would like to know what you think. Don’t be thrown off by the title of the article. When you read it you will understand why.
A key point that Michael Crichton makes is that the way we now do science is rife with bias, and if we created an independent body to study science, we would be more productive. As he says:
“The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations that all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.
Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups.”
If there were such an organization that was free to do real science, and while supported by government, business, special interest groups, etc, were not slave to these groups, maybe we could stop wasting time with petty arguments and get some real answers, and solutions, to the many challenges we face.