Big Sky Cairn

MT Politics has sparked an interest in the Dextrasphere on global warming - or climate change as they are most recently calling it. His 2-part (so far) original analysis of Montana’s Climate Change Advisory Panel (Part 1, Part 2) is worth a read - if for no other reason than the fact that it generated this gem of Leftist intellectualism.

And speaking of intellectualism, Craig’s post gets down in the trenches - and gives Jay a headache.

This sort of got me thinking a little bit about the players in this grand masquerade that I call crisis environmentalism. I am a skeptic. I am a denier. I am a non-believer. Ironically, I have been called all of these things - and none of them in a Church.

Here are some truths that I hold to be self-evident:

• Man-made catastrophic global warming, or climate change, is a scientific theory not an established fact, axiom or truism.
• Scientific theory is formulated over time via scientific method.
• Scientific method does not operate via consensus within any community; science is not democratic.
• Majorities are the province of politics. Politics are not constrained to scientific method. Scientists speaking on behalf of majorities are practicing politics, not science.
• Scientific method produces multiple hypotheses to be tested within a range of mutually exclusive possibilities.
• The media tend to report the most extreme - and most unlikely - possible hypotheses as if they are the sole possibility. And they report said hypothesis as fact.
• Political pressure reaffirms media reporting. The cycle is both self-fulfilling and self-sustaining.
• Man-made catastrophic global warming is not a hypothesis, it cannot be tested or falsified via experiment. Similarly, it cannot be proved true. Only time will tell.
• The acceptance of things unproven by scientific method relies on faith; faith is not restricted to matters of religion. Nor is faith a bad thing - it allows us to function in a world about which we do not know everything.
• Absent scientific method, global warming is accepted by faith. You “believe” in it or you don’t. The consequences of denial are primarily social.
• Faith can be bolstered by repetition politics and media, but it cannot be alleviated. Politics and media are not scientific proofs.
• Faith can be bolstered by claims of scientific proof, but such marriage of discourses is mutually abusive; faith described as science undermines providence of science.
• Transposed, therefore the political and media attention to the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming is bad for science - over the long run.

So shall it be written.  So shall it be.

I see you joined the RWCJ.

Yep. Sort of a combination of herd mentality and gang mentality. You want in?

I call it synergy!

I don’t know why, but we lefties don’t operate like that. We’re all doing our own thing.

Oh, make no mistake, I too am “doing my own thing” - it’s just that if someone starts a conversation that I’m interested in I like to chime in. It’s especially helpful for us here since we’re still a relatively new blog.

[…] the faith, brothers and sisters in Hot Air.  And don’t forget to tithe.  Until it […]

[…] I mentioned before, global warming is not a scientific hypothesis since it can’t be proven or disproven. A convenient side-effect of this reality is that […]

[…] how often global warming deniers equate belief in human caused climate change with faith. This post from one of Montana’s newer conservative blogs (and so far, what appears to be one of our […]

[…] over at Speedkill has responded to my Global Warming Axioms. His contribution is constructive and well-articulated - although I do disagree with some of his […]

[…] my Global Warming Axioms, I stated that the the choices that scientists (people) have made with regard to pseudo-scientific […]

[…] with regard to its application in the Catastrophic Global Climate Change debate. One of my biggest concerns with modern dogma of science is that matters of faith are conflated with matters of science. […]