February 9, 2017
Scientists are worried about the Trump administration: His pick for the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t seem interested in protecting the environment, his energy secretary lacks the publication record of his highly academic predecessors, and the president himself once tweeted that global warming is a Chinese hoax. In light of such issues, they’re planning a march to advocate the use of scientific evidence in political decision-making. Was there ever an alternative to evidence? -Bloomberg
The march is going to take place on April 22, and chances are it will receive a great deal of coverage, much as the protest by women did. The march is not going to divorce science from political decision-making, only advocate its proper use.
The article says that people in the march may not understand the difference between fact-based scientific evidence and marketing material. “Along with a march, maybe we need better education on the difference between science and politicized pseudoscience.”
Additionally, the march is scheduled for Earth Day , which comes with its own set of confusions. The article tells us that the first Earth Day was less of a celebration and more of an obituary. This was because researchers at the time were very firm that human being were about to deplete the earth’s remaining resources and “wipe themselves off the planet.”
Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death. Nobel Laureate George Wald estimated that civilization would end within 15 or 30 years unless humans took immediate action.
Life magazine ran a terrifying cover story, saying that “scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to predict that “by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect the earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”
It was more hype than science. None of the predictions had testable hypotheses. They simply coupled historical population growth rates with an absurd doomsday model. Ridiculous as the claims were, no one really wanted to refute them or argue against the conservation of natural resources.
The article goes on to point out that statistics can be used by both sides to make points about an industry. Cigarette manufacturers were assaulted by lung cancer victims accounting for 3.3 percent of over 15,000 deaths but only .9 percent of 3,726 deaths among non-smokers.
But the cigarette companies turned this around and claimed that because the number was very low, there actually was no causation. The larger point of the article is that science is not always conclusive but that it doesn’t have to be to communicate a possible dangerous trend.
For us, this is a controversial notion. We tend to believe that just because science indicates something doesn’t mean that the result should be an inevitable legal tarnishing or outright banning of the product in question.
The first Earth Day is a good example. It is probably true that human beings have used up or diminished at least some resources. But in a market place, other resources will be discovered to take their place.
The insistence of trying to control these resources while not allowing their continued use makes it difficult for an industry to move from one resource to another in a somewhat seamless fashion. Additionally, such resources often do not run out. They are simply banned even though they are in existence, perhaps plentifully so.
Coal is a good example. Not only is it plentiful, it is easy to get. For this reason many people like to use it. One could argue that its very popularity makes it unacceptable to globalists who want to ration energy.
Likewise, the kind of energy that is popular today requires vast “farms.” These farms are not easily available to individuals, and that is part of the larger plan. The idea is to deprive people of the wherewithal to take care of themselves. Whether it’s food, water or even air, the idea is that the individual will have to turn to the state or a state affiliate for a properly purified and legal alternative.
Companies are so swollen these days as a result of court decisions that they are virtually part of the state. So companies provide what the state dictates.
And the state dictates the use of resources it can control for whatever reason. As the state makes more and more less available, people’s living standards decrease. That too is part of the plan.
Science really has very little to do with it except insofar as science can be used to diminish what is available. And often this sort of science is downright shoddy.
Conclusion: That’s the real problem with science these days. It’s often inaccurate and configured for certain purposes. In other words, it’s not real science at all.