By Charles Battig, M.D.
Positive public perception of the scientist has long been powerful. The public has the tendency to defer to scientists, as it does to authority in general. It is part of the educational and socialization process inherent in societies.
Scientists are in a special category in the public’s mind, since they are perceived to have specialized knowledge that, it is assumed, will benefit society in general and, more importantly, the individual concerned with his own well-being.
Scientists are assumed to be the link between the mysteries of our natural world and the means to better our chances of survival in it. They are assumed to be impartial in seeking fact, as best as it can be determined or approximated. From the time of the alchemists to the present, that assumption continues.
Idealism in such scientific pursuits has had a tough time in the real world. When the scientist has convinced himself in the discovery of a new law of nature, his ability to communicate its veracity to the public is equally challenging, and often proves life-threatening. The established order (read: special interests) has been equally ingenious in using its view of the world to its financial and political ends. The ruling classes of all types are highly protective of their means of controlling the public.
When the age of enlightenment produced such an out-pouring of new scientific discoveries seeming to hold benefits for all strata of society, the scientist achieved the respectability not afforded the primitive alchemist. Karl Popper and then Richard Feynman provided the moral underpinnings of what should be the measure of truth in the scientific method.
At each step, the political classes were equally busy looking to bend the curve of new knowledge to their advantage. As dispensers of favors, fame, and funds, they can make tempting offers to those who might see reality their preferred way. In place of Feynman has come post-normal science, a sort of à-la-carte pseudo-scientific expediency in place of old-fashioned “falsifiability.”
Once a relatively obscure field of scientific interest, climatology has become front-page news, and a battleground of competing claims of theory and verifiable knowledge. The origins of this transition have been speculated upon and include post-WWII groups as the Bilderbergs, and more formally the Club of Rome. Population growth, environmental idealism, and new-age earth worship were part of the mix. Intoned guilt over societal progress in bettering bare existence became a new meme for the promoters of societal control.
Energy, increasingly abundant and cheap, literally powered this growing and more prosperous society. Parts of the world benefited unevenly in such growth, but even in the “disadvantaged” parts, energy held promise to better meager existence. The population control activists feared the consequences of such growth in both the developed and undeveloped world. They sought a common enemy, and defined it as mankind. Then they defined man-made carbon dioxide as the global scapegoat.
The recent publication of the latest National Climate Assessment Report, and the EPA proposed rule on carbon dioxide emissions by power plants, can be seen as coordinated assaults on affordable energy in the U.S. The inherent scientific contradictions within these documents and their advocacy in place of impartial scientific argument have been documented by others. The public is left confused and at the mercies of inadequate media reporting, itself a source of one-sided advocacy commentary.
Political wordsmiths have coined the term “carbon pollution.” By stringing together two scientifically unrelated words, they have crafted an emotionally charged term to fit the needs of government and propagandists. We are categorized as “carbon-based life forms.” Carbon dioxide is an inherent and necessary chemical component of all such life. Photosynthesis and the role of carbon dioxide describe the dance of nature by which the carbon dioxide produced by our bodies is part of the atmospheric carbon dioxide that feeds the plants, which in turn produce the oxygen we need to live.
The negative connotation of pollution has been grafted onto carbon in a version of Gresham’s Law – the bad driving out the good. This is not science, but propaganda.
Having defined a new hazard in the minds of public, the government has now assumed the mantle of protector and can prophesize that the new clean air regulations specifically targeting carbon dioxide (“carbon pollution”) will prevent “150,000 asthma attacks in children each year and 20,000 heart attacks,” forestall dangerous climate change, hold back sea-level rise, and prevent global warming. The lack of valid supporting scientific facts to make such claims is ignored, as political dogma has marginalized and even punished scientific dissent.
Federally mandated cures for nonexistent carbon pollution will inflict real heath harm as the less advantaged are forced to pay more for basic energy needs. More expensive heating and cooling bills will be added to more expensive basic food as farmland is used to grow fuel stock produce. More expensive gasoline will hinder trips to the doctor. More expensive transportation and manufacturing processes will increase the cost of living for all and lower the standard of living for many. Bad science kills.
The false prophets have spoken. The admonition “beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” is fair warning.
Charles Battig, M.D. is Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website is www.climateis.com.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Although the example of Obamacare is instructive here, these less advantaged people may not end up paying more, they may receive benefits to help them pay less, but an unintended consequence of this is to place even further out of reach any ability for them to take control of their own lives. Turning people into captives ranks among the worst ethical and moral aspects of the welfare state.
@ur momisugly Charles Battig
This essay is one of the best I have read here in a long time. Good on you mate.
Stanford University, Precourt Energy Efficiency Center
Behavior & Energy Cluster
Has information on the acceleration of the adoption & sustained use of energy-efficient technologies and climate-positive actions by individuals, groups and organizations.
http://peec.stanford/behavior
Behavior modification techniques used to accelerate the adoption of energy-efficient technologies.
Sorry correction:
http://peec.stanford.edu/behavior
As Bill Taylor points out: scientists, by definition are those who follow the scientific method – period. If you don’t follow the scientific you are NOT a scientist, and no one can grant you that title. It is abundantly clear that very few of those who call themselves ‘Climatologists’ are scientists. None of the members of the ‘Real Climate’ team, none of the CMIP-5 computer modelers, and very few IPCC contributing authors are scientists. They cannot be called scientists because they consistently fail to follow the scientific method. Whatever advanced degrees they hold are irrelevant. Whatever positions they have been appointed to in Universities and professional societies are irrelevant. If you never follow the scientific method, you will never be a scientist – ever, no matter what. If you don’t follow the scientific method, advanced degrees in Physics, Mathematics, and Meteorology are of no more value than advanced degrees in Theology, Astrology, Phrenology, Numerology, Iridology, or Scatology. (My apologies to Scatologists, who actually are scientists). Professional societies that honor those who fail to follow the scientific method are simply demonstrating the depth of their corruption.
Please point this out at every opportunity.
I don’t think science has ever really been any different. There are always radicals who migrate to where the money and power or vulneribility is, and exploit it for their own ends. The same thing occurs within religion also. And often the very fact that there is a sense of honesty and objectivity in a place is part of the reason they migrate there, so as to take advantage of basic naiveté. These things have always been around.
What is not entirely clear to me is why societies still haven’t learnt from past mistakes. The information age certainly helps, but there is little doubt that humans are wired to take up social and moral causes and group together for mutual benefit, but which is easily taken advantage of, particularly in the young.
Fortunately we have some secret video of the IPCC narrative selection committee in action…
Thanks Charles Battig MD I cannot agree more. Magnificent I intend to keep this one
As a teen, I first learned that things weren’t always whatyou were taught. A friend and I were putting little political statements – strips of paper about 2 inches tall, on every door on main street telling people to vote for N ixon for President. When the democratic sheriff saw us doing that, we were ordered to stop, although justthe day before someone had done the same thing for the Kennedy/Johnson ticket. It was my first brush with the fact that “professionals” are not always what you think.
Later I came to realize that the eye doctor I was going to for glasses was fitting me with glasses that were strongerthan I needed, thus they were literally further weakening my eyes and insuring I would be back for more glasses.
Still later I came to realizethat the doctor I was going to was giving me medications not for what my problem was, but for my symptoms, and when I finally started looking to find ways to attack the problem, it went away. And then, of course, there are politicians and how hard they work “for the good of the average person.”
At that point in my life – about 40 years ago, actually – I started looking at “profesionals” not as highly regarded people, but as people specializing in their own self interests. That’s when I saw “scientists and engineers” developing things that could kill or maim better, but not actually improve life for the masses. I realized that there was no people that was to be automatically given the respect I gave professionals when I was young any more. They had to earn my respect, and few were those that did.
Science has “earned” my disrespect and disbelief, and so called climate science has taken “science” to a whole new, lower level of respectability. Right down they’re down there with politicians and prostitutes. Well, that’s not being fair to the prostitutes since they do serve a valid purpose.
On a previous track I commented on the fact that not a single scientific body or medical body had objected to carbon dioxide being erroneously called a pollutant by EPA . Charles, you are clearly an exception to that observation. Thanks for the fine article. It would appear that all these scientific and medical societies have lost their credibility and their scientific backbone. It is sad when an arm of the Federal government takes upon itself to deliberately mislead the public and those who are in the scientific and medical professions who know that this is wrong just let it happen. . .
In Korea is one of the world’s first astronomical observatories built by the great queen Seondok. Of course the nobles weren’t using scientific information, like when a solar or lunar eclipse would occur, to fatten their own pockets or further their interests.
Joint Statement on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Rule on carbon emissions
Lutherans and Episcopalians collectively celebrate and support the release of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon rule for existing power plants. As faith traditions committed to the health, flourishing, and sanctity of human communities and God’s creation, we believe that the carbon rule is a critical step toward safeguarding the lives and livelihood of future generations.
Recent reports outline the enormous impacts that climate change is already having on our world. Multi-year droughts, sea level rise, extreme weather events, and increased flooding dramatically affect communities internationally, from the Inupiat on the north slope of Alaska to Midwestern farming families to our brothers and sisters in the Philippines. We recognize with concern that climate change particularly harms low income communities that lack the resources and technology to adapt to rapid environmental changes.
These impacts are already affecting global agriculture, and with it, food supplies and prices. Ending hunger and alleviating global poverty are key concerns for our faith traditions. Yet our work faces the daunting and interconnected challenges of addressing hunger and poverty in a rapidly changing climate. Sustainable solutions must include both poverty alleviation and environmental conservation.
Power plants are the single largest source of carbon dioxide pollution in the United States and major contributors to climate change. These emissions not only threaten the environmental stability of our planet, but also the health of young children and their families, disproportionally affecting the poorest among us. Yet there are currently no limits on power plant emissions of greenhouse gases.
The carbon rule proposed this week will reduce the carbon dioxide output from existing power plants, setting a strong standard that will modernize our nation’s power plants while limiting our contribution to global climate change. Reducing carbon emissions from power plants must be a top priority for the U.S. if we hope to prevent the worst impacts of climate change and ensure a just and sustainable world for our generation and those to come.
Our faith traditions teach us that no single person can be whole unless all have the opportunity for full and abundant life. That wholeness and collective well-being is only possible as a global community. We recognize our connections to fellow citizens and neighbors around the world who are already suffering from the consequences of climate change, and acknowledge our responsibility to those yet unborn, who will either benefit from our efforts to curb carbon emissions or suffer from our failure to address this ethical imperative. We believe that addressing climate change is a moral obligation to our neighbors and to God’s creation, so that all may enjoy full, healthy, and abundant lives.
The proposed carbon rule for existing power plants is the single largest step that we can take now to address the pressing issue of climate change. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Episcopal Church are eager to collaborate with the EPA and states across the nation to ensure that the carbon rule is implemented fairly, particularly for low-income consumers. We will continue to pray that all involved in this good work will be graced with vision, hope, and the search for truth as they seek to implement the carbon rule swiftly and effectively.
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church
The Rev. Elizabeth A. Eaton
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
Gunga Din says:
June 9, 2014 at 1:57 pm
…..
Lets hope they don’t come after “Nitrogen Pollution”.
Worse yet would be going after “Oxygen Pollution” – no oxygen, no forest fires .
If carbon dioxide is now to be considered a pollutant, then all sodas, beer, champagne and carbonated water must be removed from the market. It is a violation of federal law to have anything more than miniscule amounts of known pollutants in consumables. I foresee a major class action suit, if soft drink companies and breweries are purposely injecting a known pollutant in our drinks, we have cause. Coca Cola employs over 142,000 in the United States alone. Most of them will have to be laid off. Same with employees of Pepsico. The fast food industry will be hit hard as will the owners of vending machines. The economic impact will be devastating.
To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is absurd, All life on earth depends on co2 to exist. For a president to decree carbon dioxide a pollutant will have enormous economic implications while having zero impact on global temperature. Meanwhile, the media applaud his actions, ignoring the scientific truth that his actions will have zero impact on global climate. Acting out of political ideology to force unwanted taxation and energy cost increases on his constituents, from which no tangible benefit will be derived is the height of misfeasance, There is no scientific justification for this action.
Obama claims this is for our protection. Please don’t do us any favors Mr. President, we can’t afford it,
Great piece of writing. It partially draws on the same themes dealt with by science philosopher Paul Feyerabend, in his 1975 publication “Against Method”. Great book.