The little green men who fancy themselves as moral environmentalists enjoy gloating about the 97% of scientists who say man is causing his planet to warm. It’s their way of saying: The science is settled, the consensus is in and no further debate is allowed — now let us run the world so we can satisfy our authoritarian urges.
But not only is their 97% claim bunk, science is never settled and even a 100% agreement on any “scientific fact” is subject to change.
Consider the scientific understanding of gravity.
We feel say in saying that something very close to 100% of scientists believe in the prevailing explanation of why we stick to the ground and don’t go floating off into the ether.
But apparently even that’s changing.
Erik Verlinde, a University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute of Theoretical Physics string theory expert, has turned things, shall we say, upside down.
“A new theory from the University of Amsterdam further strengthens the fact that nothing is constant in this world, even gravity. According to the researchers, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature because it had not really existed at first,” says the University Herald of Verlinde’s latest work on the subject.
It doesn’t matter if we understand in detail what Verlinde is saying. What’s important is that we recognize that real science never sleeps, and what Al Gore and others claim today to be the immutable truth could actually be a fairy tale.
In fact, we already know that much of what the global warming alarmists are saying isn’t true, and we can start with the 97% nonsense.
It is not a statistical fact, but a point of propaganda put out by a researcher named John Cook who, yes, cooked the books. Other claims that 97% of scientists — or 75% or 98% or whatever number is being used by dogmatic leftists — believe man is responsible for warming the earth are equally as invalid.
As the University Herald says, there is nothing constant is this world. But global warming alarmists come close. For three decades they’ve predicted disaster and for three decades they’ve been wrong. Yet they can’t stop forecasting catastrophe or even generate enough introspection to consider that they might be wrong.
