Lead by Science [Part 1]
“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve” [Karl Popper]
Wikipedia tells us that 97-98% of ‘actively publishing climate scientists’ support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and the remaining 2% cannot be replicated or contain errors. Weasel words and vagueness aside, the statement seems pretty damn compelling, so little wonder it’s routinely cited by journalists, environmental activists, economists, fund managers and politicians – who all claim to be ‘lead by the science’. Bill Gates, well-know virologist and climate expert, helpfully summarizes the science in his TED talk by way of the following “very straightforward” equation on $CO_2$:
With science so self-evident, you may wonder why the need for a Wikipedia page on the consensus. The answer is of course, that the grandiose claims of climate scientists are not scientific. Scientific claims generate testable (refutable) hypotheses. In the absence of error in the testing, such hypotheses are either rejected, or they live to fight another day. Opinions are irrelevant. Scientific validation has nothing to do with expert consensus, and claims don’t become scientific simply because scientists make them. Being lead by scientists is not the same thing as being lead by the science. This obvious but critical distinction seems lost on the media, politicians, fund managers, central bankers and notable pals of Jeffrey Epstein.
More generally, two influential classes of people appear to deify scientists.
Enlightened Imbeciles: often with graduate degrees, mark their sophistication by bleating the mantra of being ‘Lead by the Science”, and thus relinquish the burden of thinking to those who know best. For them, this is a win-win strategy if ever there was one.
Manipulators: interested in narrative not truth. This group leads the science while declaring the opposite. Corporate types (including media), politicians and intellectually dishonest scientists stand to reap enormous economic benefits from the narrative. Not only are they uninterested in truth; they actively censor and shame those who seek it.
It’s hardly the first time in history that pursuit of truth is corrupted, but it’s happening now in an age where the very notion of truth is rejected. This perversion is not coincidental with, but rather a consequence of, the rejection of God. After all, it’s worth remembering that the scientific method itself was pioneered by seekers of truth, seekers of God.