Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

A couple of months ago I posted on, among other things, the religion of those involved in the human caused global warming crusade. One of the problems of late modernity is that they have rejected much of the rationalism of early modernity. This in itself isn’t problematic. What is, is that in its place they adopt the Nietzschean admonition of the will to power. Thus, they deem it fair to use any method they think useful in order to obtain their ends.

They take advantage of the fact that much of society is bewitched by the word “science” but that many knowing little about science’s limitations. Thus, late moderns will appeal to science when it suits them. In that they cannot debate on the level of science, they will deny the credibility of those who present opposing scientific evidence. They rarely debate the evidence but rather seem to go straight to ad hominem.

A recent lecture by S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, takes on the emoting of these pseudo-scientists on the issue of human caused global warming. Looking at the claims of the global warming promoters, Singer notes that it is possible that global warming is not even a real phenomenon. For example, he shows that temperature have not risen over the last eight years although the rise in CO2 levels has increased. This suggests to him that last 30 year warming trend is due to more to other causes than to human causes. He also notes the failure of measured data to validate greenhouse computer models which also points the finger toward natural causes for the trend.

He also clears up misstatements about so called scientific consensus on this issue. He first shows that there is no consensus. Explaining that only a relatively few scientists have been consulted on this and that estimates are that well over half of the members of American Meteorological Society disagree with the so called “consensus” position. He goes on to explain that science does not proceed according to democratic means of establishing truth claims. Rather, science proceeds by validation of theories with empirical evidence that goes beyond simple trend correlation. I suppose that the media is so used to using their truth by poll method that this error could not be helped.

The irony here is that the claims of scientific obfuscation by those who oppose the will of the late moderns is what they themselves are guilty of. It is these same folks who know little about thinking and usually less about modern science, who use their scientism to justify their unbelief.

The next time you hear Christopher Hitchens railing about the inanity of Christianity in this age of science, think Al Gore and his scare mongering “documentary.”