The twenty-second session of the United Nation’s climate change conference ended a few days ago in Marrakech, Morocco, and the proclamation went forth that the conference “successfully demonstrated to the world that the implementation of the Paris Agreement is underway and the constructive spirit of multilateral cooperation on climate change continues.”
All “well and good,” but with the incoming skeptical Trump train, the trundling of the Marrakech Express is going to become a bit more problematic.
A new era for atmospheric science may be dawning, as the likelihood for voices with a broader perspective on climate forecasting may be encouraged to speak.
The practice of science in general, and climatology in particular, is about the freedom to creatively synthesize scientific knowledge with individual skills and perspective to comprehend and predict the Earth’s complex climate. In this way, climate science can advance for the benefit of both people and the planet.
Regarding the practice and essence of this specialized field, bestselling author Matt Ridley, in his recent book The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge (HarperCollins, 2015), gives ample challenge to the status quo imposed by controllers of supposedly unassailable climate outlooks.
In his book, Ridley frequently gives contemporary climate science as an example of top-down, inapt scientific practice rather than a bottom-up, more effective, emergent-friendly system.
To Ridley, the advancement of science is more from a “procession of fascinating mysteries to be challenged” rather than a collection of facts for students and the populace to accept from those with a received wisdom. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that Ridley includes his extended exposé of pompous anthropogenic climate change assertions in his chapter on the evolution of religion.
Ridley points to several “characteristic features of a mystical and therefore untrustworthy, theory.” These anti-science characteristics include the fact that the theory is not refutable, appeals to authority, relies heavily on anecdote, makes a virtue of consensus, and takes the moral high ground. Specifically, much of climate-change science is: ….
Takes the moral high ground. Sadly, so many religious people have taken up the cause of saving the planet from the possibility of everyone living in comfort with a mix of affordable energy largely realized via fossil fuels. Unfortunately, religion and moral superiority seem to have inspired so many to vacuous activism, especially on this complex issue, which practically necessitates faith on the part of the vast majority of angry climate congregants.
So America must proceed with caution. For now, with all the rough track along the route of climate science, it’s time for the U.S. to hop off the U.N.’s Marrakech express.
James Peterson says
How is this a complex issue. It is simple and straightforward. Marx hated God, and thus hated man. Marx, therefore was a fool. Part of his foolishness is the denial of cycles. Cycles define all of creation. Marx denied such a thing as the business cycle. Consequently, millions of people were sacrificed to the knife edge of this lie. That same animus dominates contemporary Marxists, aka Progressives, Liberals, who are drawn to the lie, because they worship the father of all lies, Lucifer. In this case, it is the denial of the weather, climate cycle, as observed in the Sunspot cycles. Until, climate became politicized, the Sun was seen as the dominant climate player through its sunspot cycles. Whenever an issue is politicized, truth, and the pursuit of truth is sacrificed. For example, before abortion on demand took center stage, politically, every textbook in the land routinely taught that life begins at conception. Since the passage of R v Wade, the grace of God, that invisible armor shed upon America, has receded at an ever more rapid pace, so much so, that we are witnessing the doctrine of ‘ total depravity’ unfold before our very eyes. When R v Wade was made law, we as a people institutionalized human sacrifice, an act that ended our status as a Christian nation, and established ourselves forthrightly as a pagan one. Judgment was quick to follow. It took the form of the withdrawal of God’s grace which materialized in the form of the oil embargo eight months later, in October, 1973. The embargo began the massive transfer of wealth accumulated over four centuries in the West since the Reformation, and over the previous three centuries in America. It poured into the coffers of Islam, the religion of the anti-Christ. This wealth allowed them to buy power politically and academically, to gain an insularity for their fomented jihad, that allowed the Wahhabi to escape retribution for the 9-11 attack. The idea of Liberty, is a Christian idea. With the seeping out of our culture the spirit of the Holy One, the ability to even understand our Founders fight against the tyranny of George 3 has been increasingly lost. Absent a second Great Awakening (1740-1743), our country will be lost to just another cycle of history, just one more country cast upon the shoals, shipwrecked in their foolishness, in their attempt to navigate between charibdis and Scilla.
Janice Shay says
Right on; I do agree. And,this is one of the very few comments I’ve read that tells of how Marx didn’t NOT believe in God, but he HATED God and there has been evidence that he was actually a Satanist. From that comes all that followed, and the world listened to him and his like-minded thinkers, sadly.