The Rant-O-Matic

Science isn’t perfect.  The very nature of experimentation leads to mistakes, possible misunderstanding and, as technology progresses, opportunity to revisit and re-evaluate a position as more accurate methods are created to test a hypothesis.  However, just because you can find fault in the logic of one argument, it doesn’t mean that you then have the right to then call into question every scientific principle that came before it.

This column, written by Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins is nothing more than complete fear mongering.  Posing the question that: if they’re wrong about climate change, what else could they be wrong about?

Well, sir, that is the nature of the beast.

Science is not infallible.  Much like the Pope, really.  It is not 100% correct and any decent scientist wouldn’t hesitate before admitting that a mistake has been made.  However, the complete paranoia and lack of knowledge regarding climate change and global warming has led to there being a lot of conflicting views and information being out there regarding this.  Of course some people are going to have different degrees of passion and discipline in putting your argument forward from both sides.

However, taking this situation and then applying it to all of science over all of history is just awful.

Here’s the thing with science: You prove your hypothesis by either experimentation or observation.  The thing about climate change is that you can’t experiment with nature on the scale the size of a planet.  So that leaves with having to draw a conclusion based off observation.  Now, until we figure out time travel, we’re going to have to wait and see what happens over the next 10, 20, 50 odd years.  We’re going to have to observe what happens in terms of average temperatures, rainfall and ice melting and creation at the South Pole.  We don’t know what’s going to happen.  A lot of what’s been put forward is based off evidence that, frankly, isn’t all that conclusive and taking it to extreme points of view, in both cases is utterly appalling.

Looking back into the past for the events that ended the last ice age, or caused the last global raise in temperatures only provide a small part of the story; because the human influence on the environment is either exceptionally small, or we weren’t there at all.  Not to mention, the climate really hasn’t changed all that much during the small period of time between the industrial revolution (where any noticeable effect on the environment would have started) and now.  To say with undying certainly that we, humans, have altered the environment through greenhouse gas emissions is just stupid.  Not only have we been pumping numerous other noxious chemicals into the atmosphere, we also spent large parts of the 19^th and 20^th centuries callously destroying large sections of forest so we could house our exponentially expanding population.  Don’t think that might have also had something do it with it?  Possibly more so than putting out chemicals, most of which are already there naturally?

Extending this uncertainty then to all branches of science is just ridiculous.  All Mr Jenkins is going here is fear mongering.  People are already uncertain of the science around climate change (look at the popularity of the scary, bug-eyed Lord Monckton) and making them question science generally is only going to lead to fear, uncertainty and doubt about other things.  Planting that seed of doubt is going to drive us backwards as a species.  The voodoo and religious zealots will be able to regain their foothold as the key influencers of the people.  This simply cannot be.  Questioning aspects of science is good thing.  Scepticism is part of the process and only enhances the strength of the arguments that have been questioned.  But to call all of science into question, based off your opinions of an admittedly questionable topic, is sheer lunacy.  It’s pathetic, it’s fear mongering and you, sir, are a moron.