Post-Modern Beliefs vs. Science and Climate Research
In recent decades, we have seen the term post-modernism bandied about as a reason for strange beliefs and unverifiable ‘truths’. What this scientist has seen is a gradual denial of verifiable facts when they are contrary to the directed herd’s view of politically or socially correct belief systems. A recent public essay by Australian scientist Garth Paltridge contains his defining statement:
And there is this from the quick and reasonably trustworthy Wikipedia on post-modernism:
So what does that have to do with scientific climate change research? It’s really the bottom line on this declining issue. A number of shakers and movers found that they could manipulate world society into a universal world control through guilt of consumption, an attempt to flatten down societal dominances to a common denominator, a forced redistribution of wealth, world-wide, the collapse of the industrialized nations.
To do this, a few caused dumpster loads of money to be dumped into any research which showed a need to alarmingly reduce the human caused output of carbon dioxide related to industrial success and improved quality of life. The action was based on computer models and man-assumed correlations. Basically a GIGO (garbage in-garbage out) approach to policy making.
To date, we only have models with very little if any direct observational supporting data to advocate an alarming situation. We do have many confounding points such as human observational and paleontological data like the human success stories of the Roman (warm) Climax and the Medieval Warm Period (and here). And don’t forget Roy Spencer’s continuing chart of real data showing no current warming. This is past when Jim Hansen and Screaming Al Gore, and fellow traveler and equally screaming John Kerry, have said we would be in a catastrophe.
The slippery slope of post-modernism fact denial is also manifested in the policies of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They admit to, and have been caught in, using erroneous, non-peer reviewed literature as a basis for their assessments and policy statements. What a travesty! Establishing a clearing house for all the world’s governments to make societal policy decisions and admit that not all of the basis is factual.
The US EPA has taken this sham body’s output as the defining basis for rule making, particularly for energy generation control of carbon dioxide emissions. For whatever one may think, the Heartland Institute’s commentary on EPA’s Utility MACT is well worth reviewing. There are numerous observations and presentation of fact contrary to what is the IPCC recommended basis for EPA rule making. We have a trickle down-escalating conservatism approach without rationale. The outcome will be a loss of economy, a reduction in quality of life, and likely an actual increase in carbon emissions as the energy industry tries to maintain service.
It behooves all of us to be skeptical of what is politically correct, since there are lots of hidden agendas in the post-modernism world of societal control.