Never mind that climate change is the single most complex scientific question of human history. Human nature has managed to morph politics and science together into a repulsive, philosophic monstrosity — half science and half religion — specifically designed to reduce multifaceted, chaos-based theory and its inherent, profound complexity to absurdly simple computer modeled abstractions.
This was accomplished for a reason, of course: specifically so that billions of dollars in global taxes may be levied at the point of a gun against the specter of anthropogenic climate change. It was carefully planned that way from the outset, and it was successfully leveraged upon a single event embedded within Western thought: the undetected collapse of the most fundamental understanding of the philosophy of science itself. This is not a complaint against anthropogenic climate change — for the jury is certainly still out on that question. But there is a full-frontal attack against science itself that has been mounted in its name.
Science’s first line of defense against encroachments of ignorance, superstition and error is its own base of scientists and technical field experts. It is the task of every scientist to be on the alert for failures in basic philosophy and to defend the integrity of the scientific method when necessary. Science is not built upon its aggregate hypotheses — but the hypotheses are built upon and supported by science. Reversing this simple tool of philosophic understanding always results in serious error. But when that base has been so dumbed down by the wholesale collapse of a fundamental philosophic education prior to the awarding of degrees, it is inevitable that the institution would eventually be overrun with devastating but tell-tale errors in its most elementary philosophic tenants.
The task is made even more difficult by an across-the-board failure of ethics within the profession, created by the billions of research dollars poured into anthropogenic climate change by a government that is entirely biased against any approach, study or theory except the one championed and paid for, solely reflecting the government’s predetermined, ethically conflicted, politically and economically motivated, self-serving theories. For a scientist whose professional standing, and in some cases tenure, is based on research funding and publications, it is nearly impossible not to accept the government grants and just take the money. With this money comes the published reputation of a true believer, and thus professional security is enhanced by not taking a stand against the anthropogenic climate change religion — basic philosophy be damned! Therein lies the problem that is resulting in the ongoing collapse of science, increasingly subsumed by the government’s unyielding enforcement of its official doctrinaire religion.
Anthropogenic climate change is philosophically defined as a religion for the simple reason that it is based on faith and miscarried dogma. It is based on faith because nearly all of its modeled predictions grounded on various abstruse hypotheses of atmospheric dynamics have failed spectacularly, almost without exception. And in the most recent full frontal assault on scientific integrity, in a single sweep, the United States government changed (increased) 15 years of recorded temperature measurements specifically to match its version of the state’s faith. All the data was altered in a single day. Thus, when the data fails, the government simply changes the data set as a veneration of the king’s faith.
Supporting the central argument of this essay, when the data alteration happened, there was very little outrage from the scientific community. It was, and is, simply accepted as business-as-usual in this brave new world of government enforced scientific faith where anyone who speaks against the creed is labeled, ostracized, marginalized and defunded. We now live in a world where the change of a massive data set involving a decade and a half of accumulated information is as simple as altering a single line of code by fiat. To refuse to accept this surreal level of open fraud and enthusiastically join in the religious assembly, or to criticize in any way, is to invite vitriolic personal attacks against professional standing and personal character. Such is the practice of the true believers. Indeed, the faithful supporters of this government underwritten religion of anthropogenic climate change often mimic the Westboro Baptist Church activists.
One of the many tools used to manage the true believers and keep them from drifting into certain skeptical apostasy is called consensus — the numbering of the faithful. The term itself belies the failure of the most basic tenet of the philosophy of science, which argues forcefully against consensus seeking. Unlike religion, science is specifically designed to disallow the forcing of absolutes. Instead, the process of science is unambiguously intended to manage an ever changing understanding of truth. Science is purposefully designed to argue against itself, and even disprove itself, through a constructive intercourse of internal skepticism. Indeed, it is that skepticism that comprises the energy that drives science to a new, always evolving understanding of truth. Thus, the true scientist is ever the unsatisfied skeptic, never the defender of the faith, and certainly never the policeman of the State’s consecrated dogma.
Therefore, when an authentic scientist hears the amorphous, antithetical, oxymoronic term “scientific consensus,” it is immediately clear to anyone having a most elementary understanding of science that the discussion has drifted out of the scientific arena and into realm of social politics and religion. The term scientific consensus is thus a conscious, premeditated tyranny mounted against the very bedrock philosophy of science itself. For scientists to actually join in this mantra immediately and explicitly exposes their lack of fundamental knowledge of the process of the philosophy of science. In so doing, they have exposed themselves as card-carrying members of the government’s cult.
The idea that one can simply use popular poll results and prevailing opinions to define science-by-consensus is not at all new. In 1931, a book was published titled “100 Authors Against Einstein” refuting Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity. In the publication, there were not just 100, but 120 scientists, engineers and laity who all attempted to repudiate Einstein’s theories and promoted the book as the consensus view against relativity. Their aim was to prove by their sheer numbers and academic credentials that Einstein was not just spinning an outrageous fantasy in the name of science, but by simple virtue of their consensus numbers, he was overwhelmingly wrong. Einstein’s response was characteristically brilliant. He said simply, “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” The book, and each of its 120 signatories are now, of course, relegated to the scientific Hall of Shame. This consensus-based, adolescent pile-on of Einstein historically backfired in a rather spectacular way, as all consensus schemes are wont to do.
The damage thus far inflicted to the scientific process and the profession’s integrity by the religion of anthropogenic climate change and its relentless tyranny of consensus, is immense. Like Diogenes seeking about the wilderness for but one honest man, it is becoming rare to find a scientist who will refuse to be counted on the list of the faithful, or speak up as a courageous, honest skeptic, challenging dogma, therefore fulfilling the duty of a true master of scientific philosophy. It is truly difficult to identify many who are not apprehensive for their careers and the inevitable assault of the zealots for daring to speak out of turn. Or else they are afraid to lose out on increasingly scarce taxpayer funded research dollars and career opportunities by the rigged system, now fully commandeered by an archetype whose scientific integrity has long been forfeited in the name of the new faith. Indeed, it is a distorted, weird-science-religion whose doctrinal proof is based upon its characteristically bizarre 21st century scientific raison d’√™tre, “Because everybody says so.”
Dr. Dennis Chamberland is a Bio-Engineer, scientist, writer, explorer and aquanaut. His professional career spans working as a Nuclear Engineer to developing advanced life support systems for Moon and Mars bases, as well as many scientific articles, papers and journal publications. He is a leading expert on undersea habitation, has spent over 30 days living and working undersea, and is the author of “Undersea Colonies.”
