The far left of the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly enamored of socialism. Examples include Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other self-described democratic socialists. What has been missed is that they appear to be increasingly enamored of policies that in actuality involve junking the scientific method too. Their current favorite agendas, such as the Green New Deal, always include the climate alarmist agenda. As discussed last week, in the links from it, and previously on this blog, the scientific basis for climate alarmism is not just weak, it has been convincingly shown to be invalid. So in actuality, the left wing socialist agenda effectively includes ditching the scientific method despite their protestations to the contrary.
As many have pointed out, socialism does not have a good record as an organizing basis for societal economics (see Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the Soviet Union) but abandoning the scientific method has never been shown to help anyone except charlatans. But the left wing has managed to get climate alarmism adopted as an official part of the party platform of the Democratic Party. But the scientific problems of climate alarmism are almost never described by the mainstream press or the democratic socialists. It is only blogs such as this that describe the problems. Socialism has a consistent record of making most people worse off economically compared to modern capitalism. But there are people who strongly support it. But I have yet to find serious arguments that abandoning the use of the scientific method promotes public welfare.
As pointed out last week, unofficial abandonment of the scientific method by the left wing of the Democratic Party is what is going on, and they have gotten the rest of the Party to endorse their positions in this regard. I believe that supporters of the scientific method should abandon at least the left wing of the Party and maybe the entire Party as long as long as they do not vigorously support the scientific method both directly and indirectly by insisting that public policies be based on the use of the method. Use of the scientific method and fossil fuels are two of the major reasons the US has had such spectacular success economically and scientifically in recent centuries. Neither are consistent with the current agenda of the far left of the Democratic Party.
Some socialist/Communist governments such as the Soviet Union have had similar problems both economically and scientifically. The results have been disastrous. Is that what we want? The climate alarmists and their “friends” in the far left of the Democratic Party do not dare to openly attack the scientific method, but support for junk climate science that does not satisfy the scientific method shows what their beliefs really are, and they should be judged by the policy ideas they advocate. Yet many academics, even those in scientific fields, reportedly support climate alarmism. They at least should know better.
How would the socialists even express a hypthesis?
We hypothesize that our initial assumption that 97 percent of climate scientists agree co2 causes very harmful changes that our forecast in our poor predicting models are actually correct and a rational basis for shoveling money to poorer nations?
A hypothesis admits the possibility is climate is not easy to explain all over the globe and across long periods of time. A hypothesis is not an assertion of knowledge in order to prevent politically inconvenient debate.
NASA scientists have championed pictures of melting ice as though indicative of a problem. Melting owes to summer warming. Seasons do change and have from time immemorial.
CO2 meanwhile enables life on earth via photosynthesis.
It’s no surprise that Mad Jim Hansen’s nasa office was in New York. That’s where the UN is, plus the New York Times ready to fawn over every mad utterance.
What is surprising and revealing is the NASA office was in the same building where there was a cafeteria where Jerry Seinfeld, George, Elaine Benes, and Cosmo Kramer met, on the ground floor. A building devoted to Larry David farce on the ground floor and mad Jim”s farce science on the upper two floors.
The Larry David helped Al Gore make an Incinvenient truth. This accentuates Gore’s film is entertainment, not rigorous or credible science.
How come the UN, the New York Times, lots of alarmist academics, and other socialist propagandists have never heard of the scientific method or do not practice it?
This is the first step in science, yet they are unable to meet it and this glaring elementary omission is ignored by the mainstream media of the US?
Probably also worth mentioning the impact of biofuels policy on food prices (estimated by the previously hidden world bank report to be about a 75% increase in food prices that preceded the riots in Middle East and North Africa that addle-headed liberals like to affectionately call the “Arab Spring”.
And then there is the World Bank chief who (fortunately now resigning) presided over a policy forbidding investment in reliable fossil fuel or hydroelectric power for Africa and Asian nations desperate to develop. Yes a bit of adherence to scientific methods and objective evidence would be nice, especially for those who live without electricity, adequate food, or economic opportunities.
Great points. My last lecture (I am an infectious disease physician and lecturer) was on scientific process abandonment and highlighted the horrible outcomes in Stalinist USSR and Maoist China when official socialist policy was to erect pseudoscience over real science as a guiding light. My lecture tomorrow takes on false prophecies of infectious spread due to global warming and shows that either the predicted changes occurred in a setting of cooling/not warming, or where there was warming things actually improved. I highlight how much better things have been for human society when it was warmer rather than cooler (think Plague, Irish potato famine, winter time excess deaths from influenza).
Climate alarmism is mere left wing politics plus intimidation, silence, and cowardice among any who superficially profess to respect science, but do not feel safe to do so.
The intimidation is enforced by what Doc calls the climate industrial complex of socialist mindless news media.
Party members goose step behind Gore and Obama in mindless tribal loyalty like lemmings.
And this is credible science? Not to a true blue whistleblower in favor of the scientific method, like Doc Carlin!
Doc, you are only getting better, like a fine wine. I feel like you incrementally attack the topic each week and from your relentless pursuit of science, arrive at better insights.
They have models of a reality that fits their story. It has been said, all models are wrong, because simplifications, though some are useful for their insights. However the UN models are merely poor and thus wrong and useless in terms of thoughtfully guiding the political leaders of nations.
If the United States can drop out of the Paris climate process, then perhaps the United States could bar its citizens from entering UNEP offices within or near the IUN building in New York? Designate UNEP as sort of persona non grata or as eco terorists with the US. They could have offices inside their UN building, but the State Department could issue travel advisories for visiting UNep and iits horrendous science. Don’t let New York Times reporters inside UNEP space to fabricate their next cargo cult insult to science.