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



*shrugs*

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.

Comments

NeoNote — Using the law to compel belief

Anytime you see "thou shalt not dissent," it should be a flashing red strobe and a triple siren.

Read More...
Comments

Honest dissent

Honest dissent doesn't need outside funding.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Friday supersized roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Friday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

NeoNotes — the best tyranny

Once you start using force and the rule of law to go after your "enemies," what's to stop you from going after us next?

Read More...
Comments

Supersized Wednesday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Pretty sure

I'm pretty sure that political correctness just means shaming the dissenters enough so they shut up.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

The stack returns

Older headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Beacon Headlines Quick Links for 31Aug2009

Roundup of my link stack

Read More...
Comments

Thou shalt not dissent

One rule of thumb is that all things being equal (which they usually aren't), the side working to control who gets to speak is the one you should worry about.

"Thou shalt not dissent" should a be red flag with a siren.
     — NeoWayland

Comments

Problem

It's not me you have a problem with, it's dissent.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

NeoNotes — Who gets to call the shots

For length reasons, this entry appears on it's own page.

“Freedom is what matters.”

Read More...
Comments

Unholy alliance

Her politics don't allow for dissent.

That tells me more than I need to know.
     — NeoWayland

Read More...
Comments

Wrong

All other things being equal, the side that can't stand dissent is usually wrong.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

NeoNotes — Smear

Why should they feel shame?

Read More...
Comments

She can speak for herself

We need to test our ideas again and again.

Read More...
Comments

George Takei brooks no dissent - updated

They attack the person and avoid discussing the ideas.

Read More...
Comments

Watching the headlines #1

“Al Gore says climate-change deniers should pay political price”

“Oregon man has spent almost 900 days in jail even though he committed no crime”

“No One Cares How Many Pblurbictions Earth Day Founders Got Wrong”

“The scariest sentence in the FCC net neutrality regulations”

“8 Reasons Young Americans Don’t Fight Back: How the U.S. Crushed Youth Resistance”

“Hertz puts cameras in it’s rental cars, says it has no plans to use them”

Read More...
Comments
2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       2005