Big Sky Cairn

In my Global Warming Axioms, I stated that the the choices that scientists (people) have made with regard to pseudo-scientific issues like catastrophic man-made global warming runs the serious risk of undermining science (method) in the long run. My concern is that by politicizing something that should be apolitical, scientists undermine the credibility of science. The flaw is human; it always is.

And so when I read that large segments of the public have grown skeptical of science itself, I am not surprised. The left has commandeered the scientific throne for political exploitation. The Nobel Prize was awarded to a politician for his advocacy of public policy. This misuse has dulled the tool for its intended purpose - observation of the natural order of things.

And the scientific community (the people) seem intent on dulling the tool of their trade even further by increasing its political involvement. Great Nobel laureates - once recognized for their accomplishments in scientific method - recently invited McCain, Obama and Clinton to a great science debate, and then mourned their refusal. Unless science has become as much about politics as about scientific method, what business do three politicians have in debating science? Shouldn’t that be the providence of scientists?

Sadly, I find myself more skeptical of all science because I no longer trust the scientists who report it, and I think the damage may not be undone in my lifetime.

Perhaps more sadly is the fact that the real culprits may not be the scientists, but the media who seek out the most extreme positions and then portray it as the consensus.  This not only drives scientists to the fringes for recognition and federal support, but it feeds the monster with more and more attention.

Congrats on your new blog.

I was reading about this new Gallup poll on American’s concern over Global Warming. It shows (I’ll link) that our opinion hasn’t changed much over the last 19 years, maybe the lunatics are just shouting louder.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106660/Little-Increase-Americans-Global-Warming-Worries.aspx

1. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to an advocate of public policy. Isn’t that what it’s for? You’d have a point if Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize for physics.
2. ScienceDebate 2008 was about science policy, not science. It says that explicitly here.

It seems to me that you and others on the Right dislike certain scientific conclusions and are letting that drive your opinions about science into conspiracy and paranoia. Scientists and the Left aren’t doing the real damage here.