Pages

Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Saturday, 30 October 2010

Keeping Science Out of the Political Process

Scientific American has an online survey about the climate issue which has produced some very interesting results, which have upset the bedwetting liberal establishment.

To the question “Which policy options do you support?”, 65% of respondents have answered “keeping science out of the political process”. These respondents are very wise! Science is good in certain places, and bad in others.

These are places where science is good and can help humanity a lot:

  • Industry, e.g. inventing flying cars.
  • Military, e.g. inventing flying tanks.
  • Museums, e.g. assembling dinosaur skeletons.
  • Michael Crichton’s books and movies (Jurassic Park, State of Fear etc)

But these are places where science is bad and can do great harm to humanity:

  • Policy, e.g. worldwide DDT ban.
  • Al Gore’s books and movies (An Inconvenient Truth).

So why is science bad in policy? As experience has shown, science in policy usually results in:

  • Regulations
  • Taxes
  • World governance.

So it should be obvious to any freedom- and prosperity-loving person that we need to keep science out of policy. Nowhere else is it as blatantly obvious as in the case of the alleged climate change.
You see, science is useful if the scientists are ordered to do something useful, like inventing the atom bomb (one of the great master-pieces of creative capitalism). So I’m all for science, yes I’m very pro-science as you all know, when science is used the right way and not the left way.
However, the scientists not working for the captains of industry and war are in general a naïve bunch of leftist day-dreamers who don’t understand the complexities of the real world outside their labs. They will make things up in order to get more fat grants and live in luxury on the tax-payers’ expense. They are activists, trouble-makes, meddlers in peoples’ lives.
A case in point: quantum mechanics – completely useless and nobody understands it. It’s just a lot of spin. How dare they tell me whether I can poison my cat or not! It is preposterous!
Therefore, this kind of scientists cannot be trusted. They will use their fancy titles and their perceived authority to try to influence the gullible masses and to pursue their feverish dreams of eco-communism. It will just end up as in Stalinist Russia where Dr Lysenko’s mad science ideas caused millions to starve to death!
Fortunately, there are many politicians that have realized what they are up against, and have taken a brave stand against the corrupting influence of science, such as Republican tea-party senate candidate Christine O'Donnell.
As retired House Republican Sherwood Boehlert (himself a fanatic eco-fascist) says about these open-minded climate-realistic politicians: “They haven't been exposed to the science all that much.” And a good thing is that! Then they can do what is best for humanity and prosperity, instead of following the leash of the corrupt and power-drunk scientific establishment.
Science is a wonderful thing, but whenever I hear the words “science says”, I reach for my Luger. No smart-ass scientists are going to tell me what I can or cannot do!

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum.

Bonus: Australian journalist Tim Blair writes that Al’Gore is a fat, pompous, greedy, horny, envious, angry, and lazy moron! A must for the well-informed reader!

Friday, 24 September 2010

In which religions scientists must believe

His Great Lordship, the indomitable Lord Mockton has weighed in on the proper relation between science and religion.
This is his powerful conclusion:
Why did so few true scientists speak out against the eugenic slaughter perpetrated by Hitler, or the famines caused by the Lysenko nonsense, or the millions of deaths from AIDS and malaria and yellow fever that could so easily have been prevented, but were not? And why do so few true scientists today have the courage to stand up and be counted against the cruel absurdity that is “global warming” theory, a theory that is now killing millions in the Third World because, while we can afford to pay $2 rather $1 for a burger, they are below the breadline already and simply cannot afford the doubling of food prices which, according to the World Bank, has resulted directly from the belief that “global warming” is a “global crisis” – a belief gladly fostered not only by the State but also by academe, by the media, and by the commercial world, for all imagine that they can profit greatly by it at our expense.

These dreadful and continuing episodes of careless, callous mass slaughter of innocent people by the governing class have one factor glaringly in common: they occurred because scientists lacked the moral fiber to stand out publicly and persistently against the bastardization of natural philosophy itself. They did not thunder: they cowered. Too many are cowering now, when they should be courageous enough, and true enough to their disciplines, to speak, speak out, and speak on until the truth is heard.

And why? Why this widespread, serial cowardice on the part of the scientific community? Yes, that community is now heavily, indeed almost exclusively, dependent upon the taxpayer for its funding. Science is a monopsony, with the State more or less the only paying customer. Yes, that community may legitimately say that most of its members do not specialize in the increasingly narrow fields in which the scientific debate about “global warming” is taking place. Yet there is another and more terrible reason why our scientists have so often and so catastrophically let down the millions whose deaths their cringing passivity has allowed.

Precisely because the worst sort of scientists are prone to say, intolerantly, that religion is not a legitimate pastime for any scientist, many scientists have come to the view that they no longer need to adhere to any moral precept at all. Morality, they say, is the province of religion and not of science. We, they say, can do what we like as long as we can get away with it, and there is no such distinction any more as true or false, right or wrong, just or unjust.

Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.

That is right: evil in the world exists because too many scientists are Godless and spineless atheists. They hate God, and as humans are created to His image, they also hate humans. But if you hate God, then He will be wrathful and he will mess up your experiments, like in Quantum Physics. And the Lord Monckton has the answer: only those who believe in a religion may practice science, so they will have the moral compass (as given by God) to do good and avoid doing evil.
But what religions would be acceptable? Here I say that we need consider each religion carefully. Not just any religion will do. As a renowned expert both in science and in religion, I have separated the wheat from the chaff:

Christianity – obviously, as this is the outstanding religion when it comes to morality. And to science – just look at how many great scientists were Christians: Galileo, Newton, etc etc.

Judaism – well, Einstein was a Jew, and I’m not prejudiced. So Judaism is also acceptable.

Catholicism – no, the papists persecuted both Galileo and the Lord Monckton. They also invented the Inquisition.

Orthodox Church – no, orthodoxy is the opposite of scepticism. And they are heretically wrong about the Filioque.

Islam – no, a religion of oppression and terrorism. Need I mention Usama bin Laden? Need I mention Barack Obama? Need I mention Obama bin Laden?

Hinduism - no, they believe in a lot of weird gods. They believe in holy cows. And need I mention Pachauri?

Buddhism – no, they don’t believe in reality, so how can they then do science?

Atheism aka Humanism– no! This is also a religion, because to not believe in God is also a religious position. But the absence of a punishing but loving God makes it utterly amoral.

Liberalism – no! The Godless religion of Liberalism (aka Communism aka Fascism) is just like Atheism. Actually, they are the same thing. Thus spoke Ann Coulter!

Environmentalism – no! This is a religion of Gaia worship that believes that mosquitoes are more valuable than humans. No other religion has caused more deaths in the history of mankind.

Anthropogenic Global Warming – no! This is also a religion, and their god is CO2. They believe that CO2 has supernatural powers which allow it to control the climate, and that they must appease the wrath of the CO2 god by living in discomfort and misery. Also see Environmentalism.

Witchcraft aka Wiccaism - no! Ritually practiced at the NASA compound, according to information from credible sources. A religion of evil, mocking God!

Pastafaranism aka Flying Spaghetti Monsterism - no, this is not even a real religion. It is just a mock religion invented by atheists in order to make fun of respectable religions (i e Christianity). Pathetic! Has many supporters in academia, but do not let that fool you! They will not fool me again, that's for sure!

So in summary, to be a practicing scientist, you should prove that you either are a Christian (obviously) or a Jew (I'm not prejudiced).

Wednesday, 5 May 2010

20 definite disproofs against global warming

According to IPCC, the world is getting warmer and this is due to human emissions of carbon dioxide. Dear reader, I have to admit that also I once believed in the IPCC dogma, until I started to independently investigate the science. I soon discovered that the AGW theory (ie hypothesis) can easily be disproved by a number of indisputable scientific facts supported by thousands of scientific articles, blog entries and youtube videos which for obvious (nudge nudge) reasons didn’t make it into the IPCC propaganda reports. Learn these facts verbatim, and you will emerge victorious from every debate with the warmist scum!

  1. Temperatures have never increased – global warming stopped in 1998.
  2. We cannot accurately measure temperature. A single thermometer has an error of plus/minus several degrees Kevin, and if you use a thousand thermometers, the error is magnified to plus/minus several thousands degrees Kevin (law of large numbers).
  3. The level of carbon dioxide has not increased.
  4. We cannot measure carbon dioxide in the air with any meaningful accuracy – the atoms are transparent, and the amounts are too small (parts of billions).
  5. Carbon dioxide is an insignificant trace gas.
  6. Human emissions of carbon dioxide are dwarfed by the emissions of nature, in particular from volcanoes and fish.
  7. There is no way emissions of carbon dioxide can change the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That level is determined by other factors, such as temperature.
  8. There is no correlations whatsoever between temperature and carbon dioxide.
  9. Correlation is not causation.
  10. There are thousands of natural factors that control the climate much more than any human activities and we know very little about these factors. The uncertainty is gargantuan!
  11. There is no proven physical theory that supports the notion that carbon dioxide can cause warming.
  12. AGW theory is based on quantum mechanics, which was disproved by Einstein: God does not play dice (alea iacta est).
  13. If carbon dioxide hypothetically would have any effect on temperature, it would have been saturated by now.
  14. The greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics.
  15. The greenhouse effect is a misnomer – there is nothing like the glass panels of a greenhouse.
  16. It was much warmer during previous historical periods when there was no carbon dioxide. For instance, it was several degrees warmer during the medieval warm period (MWP) when Greenland was green and covered by grape vines.
  17. The computer models which are the only support for the AGW hypothesis are nothing more than glorified computer games, which only do what you program them to do. Garbage in, garbage out as any programmer can testify!
  18. Computer models of the climate do not take into account clouds, water vapour, the oceans, geothermal energy, the sun and that Earth is spherical. Therefore, they are completely unrealistic.
  19. AGW theory cannot explain the medieval warming period, the little ice age, the big ice age, the Roman warming period, the Minoan warming period, the ice on the Themes and the extinction of the dinosaurs.
  20. AGW theory is not falsifiable, and hence not a scientific theory according to Popper!

Cognito ergo sum!