shopify analytics tool

NeoNote — Pagans and climate change

Critics have also noted that much of the science doesn't hold up and that the ten year deadlines keep getting moved.

Pardon, but that is not true. It's a very small minority of critics have publicly claimed the science doesn't hold up. As for the "vast majority of the world's scientists," that's not true either.

This is one area where what little science there is has been buried under layers and layers of politics. It has become heresy to criticize the "conclusions." And the reactions to those who do ask questions are exactly like those historical reactions to those who questioned Islam or Christianity in a less enlightened age. We should be asking why it is necessary to crush dissent. We should also be asking if (notoriously unreliable) politicos are really on the side of Earth and Nature, or if they have their own agenda.

Then we get to the science which really isn't science. It's computer models built on a unproven assumptions, including a carbon dioxide cascade effect that has never been observed either in the laboratory or in the field. The models also minimize other known strong climate influences such as solar variations and atmospheric water, probably because those can't be blamed on human activity. But no, the science is settled and Must Not Be Questioned.

Those of us who follow Earth-centered paths want to believe that we are uniquely qualified to help. Part and parcel of that is the belief that we are uniquely qualified to hurt as well. While there are ecological problems that are human caused like pollution and water table damage and overharvesting the seas and rainforests, Nature adapts. If all humans disappeared tomorrow morning at 7:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, life would go on.

We need to find actual changes that make the World a little better. That doesn't include handing over massive funding and political power to politicos and technocrats who have no understanding of Nature and haven't the slightest idea how to solve the "problem."

As a rule, I don't think either/or solutions apply. It's not save the planet OR consume everything.

Are there solutions? Yes, and a lot of them are beyond our reach for now. When we get nanotech going (and we will), I expect one of the first large scale applications will be vat-grown exotic hardwoods that are virtually indistinguishable from the "real thing" other than cost and availability. Vat-grown stone will follow. Already vat-grown meat shows promise.
And that is just short to medium term.

We can make it better without the need for noble sacrifice.

We also need to address capitalistic solutions that may work. The American bison population is growing because some herds are privately owned and managed. There's evidence that works with African elephants as well. People take care of what they own.

"Eppur si muove."

This is public science we are talking about. Public science means telling the politicos what they want to hear. In living memory, public science has flip flopped on things like forest management, eugenics, recommended diet, humans have only five senses, and the role of sodium in human biology. When discussing public science, we should always ask "who profits?"

I focus on the political of climate science because unlike almost any other field of science, dissent is not allowed. It's not merely a matter of dismissing results, it's discrediting the researchers who don't toe the line.

For most of the 20th Century, we humans have treated Science as the new god. We forget we know much less than we think we know. We forget that science is a process and not an absolute. I just keep remembering a commercial I heard on an old-time radio recording. "Eight out of ten doctors recommend Lucky Strikes for their patients who smoke."

I'd probably ignore the whole mess except governments are demanding tremendous power to Act Now despite having no real solutions. And of course, it's too urgent for debate or to submit to public vote.

I am not anti-science.

I really don't want to turn this into a long debate on climate science or government power.

What I'd like is for people to ask more questions. Why the goalposts for action keep moving. Just what is supposed to be done and how much of an effect it should have. What will be done if the predictions fail to predict.

While Why neopagans of all people are treating this as an Absolute Revelation when we know that the World does things we don't expect.

Why we can't start with simple things like planting more trees.

I think asking these questions is important.

It's the political aspect that worries me. I won't kid you, the extreme climate change crowd are a major inspiration for what I call the True Believer™.

I think the science could work itself out, but partial conclusions and unproven techniques have been placed front and center of an agenda that has very little to do with saving the planet.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
— H. L. Mencken


Like I said, if it wasn't for the politician's rush to do something now, and incidentally completely remake every social structure and institution, I'd be content to sit this one out.

I've done more than a little research on this subject over the years. I've written about it quite a bit. I'm notorious in some circles for being the pagan that doesn't embrace the climate change panic.

But more and more I see this as political. It's not the scientists who are making the noise. It's not the scientists who are calling for massive financial and social changes. And it's not the scientists who want to punish "climate deniers."

I've no problem with bottom up changes providing better alternatives.

I've every problem with unquestioned top down solutions imposed by force.

I firmly believe that there are two phrases which have done more to shape humanity and human history than anything else.

The first is Let me help.

The second is I can do better than that!

Can you name another topic where "science" is defined by consensus rather than it's ability to predict?

Science isn't neutral. Science is a process. As a process, it shouldn't be treated as a conclusion.

The Brontosaurus was, wasn't, and then was again. Our perspective changed, our acceptance changed, but those old bones didn't.

No one is measuring the value of plate tectonics by how many people agree with it. Validity is measured by how well the theory explains observed phenomena and predicts what will happen.

Yet when it comes to climate change, there is always an overwhelming percentage of consent consensus cited, as if this measures validity.
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

blog comments powered by Disqus
2019       2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       2005