Scientists know everything about the known world around us when it comes to climate change, but nothing when it comes to other things

The media repeatedly assures us that there is no question — and cannot be any question — about climate change.  That particular bit of science is settled, with all the data collected, a position the media holds to strenuously despite significant amounts of data that contradict the claim that humans (particularly American humans) are solely responsible for climate change.  The media also clings to this position despite its oft repeated statement, in stories about bizarre animal or geological discoveries, that there is still tons our scientists do not know about the world around us (emphasis mine):

U.S. scientists in the Gulf of Mexico unexpectedly netted a 19.5-foot (5.9-meter) giant squid off the coast of Louisiana, the Interior Department said on Monday, showing how little is known about life in the deep waters of the Gulf.

All of which means that we’re ignorant only when it’s sexy and mysterious to be so, and we’re all-knowing when it’s politically expedient for a Leftist ideology that we be so.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Few journalists have any scientific background, or even any scientific interests. Most of them seem to think of science as a kind of catechism: if you agree with the following series of statements, then you are appropriately scientific.

  2. Gringo says

    To expand on what David Foster said. Most journalists have the view of science promulgated by an indifferent elementary school education involving a rote teaching of science: Simon Says. A good elementary school education in science will show at least two things about science to students: 1) a sense of awe about the many interesting phenomena in the world and 2) an exposure to the process by which scientists make observations and construct hypotheses. How is this done? Show students interesting things, as hands-on as possible, and guide them in speculation about what they have seen. What do you observe? What is your explanation?

    This also shows students that there is much disagreement among scientists until a new consensus, a new paradigm is reached. It’s not just Simon Says.

    That’s what he Rote: the typical journalist approach to science.

    Most journalists haven’t a clue about mathematical modeling. For starters, most have never heard of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). They haven’t a clue about completeness nor validity of data.

    The best antidote to the Global Warming people is to recount many of the Chicken Little Mathematical Models from decades ago. 1) Population bomb. 2) Club of Rome resource exhaustion. 3) Global cooling.

    These are all speculations about the future that have thus far not panned out.

  3. Danny Lemieux says

    Far too many scientists I know consider themselves far too intelligent to know what they don’t know. They are, frankly, morons.

    When we have barking Ph-Didiots like Energy Secretary Steven Chu driving fomenting ideas like painting houses and roads white to reflect heat or advocating the end of California agriculture as unsustainable, the Age of Reason is indeed giving way to a revival of medieval necromancy.

    Unfortunately, science in America is in great trouble. I see it in a school system that allows kids to opt out of science education altogether (not that there are all that many science educators worth their snot, anymore) and opt for “career paths” like theater, music and dance.

Leave a Reply