Environmentalism
Religion used to be the most effective system of controls in which to govern the behaviors of a populace. In some parts of the world it still is. In the west, religion has gone by the way side. Many still practice, but for most that still practice the institutions of faith have become an accessory to their lives or a sort of therapy to help them feel good about themselves. It does not permeate every aspect of their daily lives. They are often religious when it is convenient to be so. There are some that are still very strong in their faith, but like in the previous post Doctrine they become too fundamental (in my opinion) which invariably results in such groups alienating themselves for all other group who now see them as hard-hearted, dim-witted, and perhaps bigoted, and while the media contributes to this perception the group in question provides them with plenty of ammo to use for this purpose.
By in large the masses are no longer behaviorally governed by traditional forms of religion in the west. Historically speaking, when one ideology fades another emerges. The emerging ideology is Environmentalism. Scientists in white coats have replaced priests in a new ideology of alleged truth, as if these men and women are any less corruptible that the priests of old.
What was originally a very necessary movement has become an ideology with little actual science behind its current political efforts (in the name of science and environmentalism), but plenty of money and political will.
If you don't believe me consider the reactions you get from the Climate Change Crusader's when you present an argument (no matter how good or bad) against their cause. You may very well be accused of being hard-hearted, dim-witted, and bigoted… or worse. Sound familiar? The media, politicians, and activists give them plenty of help with such ideologically-driven responses.
Science is, or should be driven by objectively-sourced data, unbiased analysis, and by impartial people. It is of course very difficult to avoid forming some sort of guess or wager on the outcome, which is why science has a useful tool called a hypothesis. Emotional outbursts, heated dialog, and name calling have no place in the laboratory… perhaps the courtroom or day-time talk show, but not the lab.
Environmentalism is now an ideology, comprised of people that are passionate about the environment, and that has been hijacked by political agendas. I am passionate about the environment and creating awareness to help to cease deforestation, polluting our waters, polluting our air, and poisoning our soil in the name of progress. This weighs on my conscious daily, what to do? But when it comes to identifying what we should not do, I look to the data and science. Where I see bad science I begin to question. When it comes to industrial farming the numbers and data should be all we need. It is easy to show how the pollutants get into our streams, the data is irrefutable. A garbage island in the middle of the Pacific is indisputable. Smog that lingers over cities can be easily observed. However, when it comes to anthropogenic global warming the data is no so conclusive. Good data can be fed into statistical modelling to produce and extrapolated prediction. I used to do a lot of this kind of work in the semiconductor industry. If you do not have good data, your model has a poor fit and while extrapolation is possible confidence in the prediction drops exponentially, especially with models with 4 or more variables. The more variables the more difficult it is to produce a good model. Why all this talk about models? Well their purpose is prediction. The currently used and referred to models regarding climate science can't even predict our past temperatures based on the factor of CO2.
Their models have not predicted the temperatures since ~1997. They have been consistently wrong and when that happens a true scientist has to re-consider the model and the hypothesis they assert.
Recently the extent to which this data has been "Cooked" has been exposed, by many researchers, journalists, activists, and scientists. I go on more about this in Climate Conspiracy
I guess it really gets me fired up when science get politicized or hijacked and used as a tool of control over the masses. Those that deny the Climate Change are regarded very much in the same manner as a witch would have a few hundred years ago. There is a certain Orthodoxy to it that regards skeptics as heretical non-believers. When one system of controls wanes another emerges.
Make your own assessments, here are a couple of interesting videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owm25OHGglk&spfreload=1
By in large the masses are no longer behaviorally governed by traditional forms of religion in the west. Historically speaking, when one ideology fades another emerges. The emerging ideology is Environmentalism. Scientists in white coats have replaced priests in a new ideology of alleged truth, as if these men and women are any less corruptible that the priests of old.
What was originally a very necessary movement has become an ideology with little actual science behind its current political efforts (in the name of science and environmentalism), but plenty of money and political will.
If you don't believe me consider the reactions you get from the Climate Change Crusader's when you present an argument (no matter how good or bad) against their cause. You may very well be accused of being hard-hearted, dim-witted, and bigoted… or worse. Sound familiar? The media, politicians, and activists give them plenty of help with such ideologically-driven responses.
Science is, or should be driven by objectively-sourced data, unbiased analysis, and by impartial people. It is of course very difficult to avoid forming some sort of guess or wager on the outcome, which is why science has a useful tool called a hypothesis. Emotional outbursts, heated dialog, and name calling have no place in the laboratory… perhaps the courtroom or day-time talk show, but not the lab.
Environmentalism is now an ideology, comprised of people that are passionate about the environment, and that has been hijacked by political agendas. I am passionate about the environment and creating awareness to help to cease deforestation, polluting our waters, polluting our air, and poisoning our soil in the name of progress. This weighs on my conscious daily, what to do? But when it comes to identifying what we should not do, I look to the data and science. Where I see bad science I begin to question. When it comes to industrial farming the numbers and data should be all we need. It is easy to show how the pollutants get into our streams, the data is irrefutable. A garbage island in the middle of the Pacific is indisputable. Smog that lingers over cities can be easily observed. However, when it comes to anthropogenic global warming the data is no so conclusive. Good data can be fed into statistical modelling to produce and extrapolated prediction. I used to do a lot of this kind of work in the semiconductor industry. If you do not have good data, your model has a poor fit and while extrapolation is possible confidence in the prediction drops exponentially, especially with models with 4 or more variables. The more variables the more difficult it is to produce a good model. Why all this talk about models? Well their purpose is prediction. The currently used and referred to models regarding climate science can't even predict our past temperatures based on the factor of CO2.
Their models have not predicted the temperatures since ~1997. They have been consistently wrong and when that happens a true scientist has to re-consider the model and the hypothesis they assert.
Recently the extent to which this data has been "Cooked" has been exposed, by many researchers, journalists, activists, and scientists. I go on more about this in Climate Conspiracy
I guess it really gets me fired up when science get politicized or hijacked and used as a tool of control over the masses. Those that deny the Climate Change are regarded very much in the same manner as a witch would have a few hundred years ago. There is a certain Orthodoxy to it that regards skeptics as heretical non-believers. When one system of controls wanes another emerges.
Make your own assessments, here are a couple of interesting videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owm25OHGglk&spfreload=1
Comments
Post a Comment
Please comment in good taste with respect to others (as well as yourself). Thanks for commenting...
-J