Politics, science, and religion

Another pre-election Lancet ‘statistical study’ is published with an ackowledged US election influence attempt. Sen. James Inhofe is getting lambasted for have any skepticism about human caused global warming. And then there are the ever present complaints about how this particular administration is anti-science.

Where are the lines and the boundaries?

RealClearPolitics – Articles – Inhofe, the Apostate

Global warming is a religion, not science. That’s why acolytes in the media attack global-warming critics not with scientific arguments, but for their apostasy. Then they laud global-warming believers not for reducing greenhouse gases, but simply for believing global warming is a coming catastrophe caused by man. The important thing is to have faith in those who warn: The end is near.

Global warming even has a martyr, NASA scientist James Hansen, who told O’Brien in January that under the Bushies, “you’re not free to speak your own mind.” It’s amazing that a scientist can complain that he is being muzzled — while appearing on CNN and “60 Minutes.”

In some ways, it is a crass concern about money. Federal research is a cash cow for many in academia and the main art and science seems to be that of preparing grant and funding request proposals. If the government decides not to fund a particular area of research, or to fund it to a level that makes it easy to get grant money, then attacking the administration is both easy and avoids the appearance personal greed.

But that doesn’t explain a medical journal taking a jaunt into other fields in a manner that destroys its credibility. It doesn’t explain the outcries about censorship that couldn’t exist if there really were censorship. It doesn’t explain the lack of rigor, skepticism and intellectual integrity in pushing findings towards policy that occurs in many ‘green’ areas.

Comments are closed.