Quasi-Scientific Dogma

by Sal on February 6, 2007

in Culture,Politics

One of the great frauds of liberalism today is their dogmatic adherence to Scientific Myths.  Ann Coulter touches on this extensively in her book Godless.  A prime example of this is the case of Global Warming.  Global warming was first postulated in the late 1970s/early 1980s (following the now-defunct hypothesis of Global Cooling, which stated that smog and other man-made pollution problems were causing the earth to cool.  This was based on the observable fact that the earth’s temperature cooled slightly between 1940 and 1975.  Since 1975 it has been slightly rising, but as Climatologist Timothy Ball states in this must-read article, it is as much a fallacy to blame the rising on greenhouse gases as it was to blame global cooling on smog. 

Despite what the Drive-By Media states, the scientific consensus on Global Warming is far from universal.  However, scientists who take a contrary point of view on this (and on any quasi-scientific dogmatic postulation, such as evolution) are ostracised and ridiculed.  This is such in opposition to the true scientific method, which is inherently skeptical on all theories and requires constant inquiry, testing, and validation.  Imagine the quasi-science Nazis if Newton’s theory of gravity were part of the scientific dogma, and then Einstein came with relativity to change everyone’s perception.  This is how contrarians who question purely from a scientifc viewpoint are treated today.  The inquisition is back, this time in the form of the media, quasi-scientists, and the left. 

{ 1 trackback }

Consensus Science Bunk « Axis of Right
February 14, 2008 at 8:08 am

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Anonymous February 6, 2007 at 11:08 am

I would not hate science so much if i were u. u see the very thing that u are using to blog comes directly from what u call quasi-science!u see semiconductors were once quasi-science!

Reply

Sal February 6, 2007 at 11:19 am

You misunderstand. I do not hate Science. In fact, I find science fascinating. What I do hate is the passing off of quasi-science as science. What I reject is that when some scientist questions a “dogma” of science and wants to prove it otherwise, he is attacked and his research ignored, no matter how much validity there is to the research.

Reply

Mike February 6, 2007 at 1:28 pm

I accept pro-global warming scientists as legitmate scientists PROVIDED they do not engage in blacklisting. The number of variables and complexity of the question almost make contrary conclusions in the scientific commumnity inevitable, especially at this relatively early stage in the research. Scientists who conclude man-made global warming probably exists, continue to test their hypothesis, and compare their findings with the findings of scientists who conclude otherwise are legitimate. It’s when they cross the line and quash inquiry which challenge their hypothesis that science becomes quasi-science. ALL of the quasi-scientists are in the “pro-man-made global warming” school.

It is those “scientists” who grant or deny research funding based on pre-tested conclusions. It is those “scientists” who threaten dissenters with having their certifications stripped. (Weather Channel babe). It is those scientists who blacklist.

In this debate, I see threats more than science. I also see that climatologists are more likely to question the validity of the man-made global warming conclusion. If the scientific conclusions of a particular school of thought are air-tight, why do they avoid debate like the plague? It’s blacklist before the conversation even begins. That is not science.

Reply

Ryan February 6, 2007 at 4:30 pm

I like breathing clean air and drinking clean water. Yet, I’m not willing to take a severe pay cut and serious increases in the cost of everyday goods due to a “consensus” that does not have an immediate detrimental impact. If we joined the party and adopted Kyoto with verve, the costs of everything will skyrocket as our businesses contract, leading to massive layoffs, and serious short-term inflation.

One of the basic points of theory is that you MUST leave room for the opposing point of view to be true. Why? Because NOTHING is absolute (after Einstein we learned that gravity is not even a sure thing as it is a Theory not a Law of nature anymore). All the self-righteous scientists on this issue that will not concede a thing on their air-tight theories strike me as insecure. Otherwise, let the debate ring true and open on this issue. If your argument is so intellectually tight, why fear debate or a postponement of decisive and detrimental actions to our nation?

Reply

The Dude February 7, 2007 at 8:07 am

The left rarely works with facts. They love opinions, polls and feelings. Science is the most wonderful tool to help mankind and has always taken big hits…..
Great Blog Site

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: