Junk science

Given sufficient time, any intelligent individual will eventually reach the conclusion that reading about science is generally useless. 

Scientific research is supposed to be self explanatory. Any attempt to write about it is merely a barrier or middle man.  Why take a secondary account, when a primary one is available?  The original, raw, experimental data is what is actually important.

Most of what constitutes science in today’s media is merely laypeople parroting the most simplistic and politically convenient views of the latest study that comes across their desk.  How many of these people are actually qualified to discuss the information and issues?  The answer is approximately none.  All of the real experts are generally busy, you know, being actual scientists.

Perhaps one of the best case studies in this regard is that of climate change a.k.a. global warming.  Is global warming real?  Yes.  Is it anything like what it is portrayed to be?  No, not even close.

Talk to your typical modern idiot or political shill, and they will tell you rather grandiose tales of how the oceans are going to swallow the Earth and we’ll all be cannibals in the next decade.  Go through the inconvenience of actually talking to someone who knows what the hell they’re talking about and a completely different picture appears. 

It’s a simple fact that the Earth is steadily getting hotter, global climates are shifting, and that excessive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere are playing some sort of role.  Immediately following this will be a series of statements encouraging skepticism and explaining the profound limitations of our understanding. 

Missing from science but not media “science” are the gloom and doom, the drama and the taking of sides, the rooting for the good team versus the ignorant evil bad guys. The truth is far more complicated and far less exciting.


  1. Decimator says:

    Well, that’s about all of that. Mr. Al Gore, he’s one of those advicates I’m always slamming. Some one should show him and the other two evil geniuses, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, with a write up on their role in science and sociology. Tell us how they help the common good of all men.

    1. Such men would be homeless beggars if they couldn’t find a huge audience of people who like what they’re saying.

  2. LuxLibertas says:

    To quote Vox Day: “Again, I repeat: there is no global warming outside of the usual range of temperature fluctuations caused by natural process. Contra all the climacaustal predictions, there has been no global warming at all for the last decade. There being none, it is not caused by human activity. What is described as “climate science” is not science, but corrupt government-funded scientific fraud and the greatest science scandal in the history of science.”

    I didnt think there was a debate anymore among thinking people. The ‘original, raw data’ was fudged.

  3. In my experience of these things, it is vital to be clear about what one means by words.

    What do you mean here by science? Science as it actually functions today in a world dominated by government-funding and the political games that tends to foster? Or the idealized version of science as it was pre-1948 and as it ought to be?

    ” Go through the inconvenience of actually talking to someone who knows what the hell they’re talking about and a completely different picture appears.

    Missing from science but not media “science” are the gloom and doom, the drama and the taking of sides, the rooting for the good team versus the ignorant evil bad guys”.

    I am sure you are aware that the leaked emails seem to suggest quite the opposite. That many scientists – including those who are generally thought to be experts on the field – are active in explicitly manipulating the media, in attempting to shut out the ability of those with dissenting views to publish, and in rooting for the ‘good’ team. I suggest that you ought to address this, as well as the extensive observations made by Bruce Charlton in his books and blogs.

    1. A. Realist says:

      Global warming is a fiction that tempts us because we want a clear sign of human environmental destruction. Global warming appears so easily grasped and talked about that people adore it. The only problem is that it is wrong, and that a better index might be those photos from space that show earth during the night-time. Our human lights have covered what is essentially all of the space except the nearly-uninhabitable places.

  4. EvilBuzzard says:


    With all due respect, exonerating the scientists in the Global Warming Scam is inaccurate. They knew good and well that they did not have a big enough disaster ont heir hands to justify their levels of funding or prestige. As a result of this, the scientists were all but asking government agencies what results would be politically advantageous. In return for this, the agencies favored their proposals for funding. The scientists weren’t too busy doing science. They were just as engaged in politics as the Ethanol Lobby or BIg Oil.

    1. A. Realist says:

      A well-made point, but if this is how we normally conduct business in politics, perhaps we should reconsider our politics.

      1. EvilBuzzard says:

        Ok, fair rejoiner. In his well-remembered farewell address, President Eisenhower said something similar:

        Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.


        1. A. Realist says:

          A real conversation, on a blog? Considered me shocked.

          From a flyover view, there are two issues here, government expansion and political lobbying. Eisenhower is correct to fear the expansion of the state because it quickly rewards what it wants to find, much like the consumer, which he did not mention. Political lobbying is how special interest groups manipulate government, especially by appealing to the interests of classes of consumers who see their interests as separate from those of the people in aggregate.

          That is to say, one issue is government expanding and the other is private industry taking over.

          1. EvilBuzzard says:

            I would only point out that whoever funds the science should do so with a tangible improvement of the human condition in mind. Rereading my Copernicus a few months back reminded me of something intersting. Copernicus may have been an astrophysicist by circumstance.

            He was really attempting to figure out how to grow more food and feed people. THis lead him to the realization that people were planting crops on a sub-optimal schedule.

            His solution to this was to fix their calendar. That was why he was studying the motions of celestial objects int he first place. Oh, and by the way, if you compare the chapter on conic sections in The Fundamentals of Engineering Study Guide to Copernicus’ discourses on orbits, there are many similarities.

  5. I suggest the real concern for the next two to three decades will be global cooling – in part due to ocean cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and in part due to the decent chance we are early in a Dalton-type solar minimum.

    1. A. Realist says:

      Those who own the energy would do well to encourage others to expect warming, and then to sell heating at higher prices when the unexpected cold settles in.

  6. Nicholas Marville says:

    Good to see there still multiple authors active. People oftentimes start out saying: “You know that the latest scientific research proves that . . . ”

    In those cases, I usually ask about the raw data that was examined. Oftentimes people can’t answer more than that they read it in a certain newspaper or glossy magazine.

    If we think about research on fruits, for instance, most of the research is funded by agricultural companies. The negative effects of fruits do not have priority for them, hence the researches rarely spend much attention on it. The “who is behind it?” has a huge effect on the results produced by the research. Generally because most scientists do not have the time or resources to study everything, so they are forced to make decisions in their research. These decisions are in turn influenced by whoever pays.

    Then there are other minor problems, such as theory-loadedness of observation. When you observe something through glasses, you indirectly assume that the formula used to create the glasses, is correct. When an experiment shows a certain effect, we assume that the device which shows us that effect, is operational and not in deviation.

    All these factors together, make it understandable why an intelligent individual, given enough time, might conclude that reading about science is useless. A climate change magazine is unlikely to publish data that sugget that either there is no serious climate change, or data that suggests that mankind has no impact on it. Hence they covered up info of ancient settlements that were recently discovered in Greenland – because this means that Greenland was warmer before it became frozen. This in turn indicates that earth is submitted to a cycle of shifting climates regardless of industrialization.

    1. EvilBuzzard says:

      “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

      “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

      I think Peter Thorne nailed it. They thought about short-term gratification and personal glory. They forgot why honest people get into science in the first place. It sucks not having a functional scientific establishment anymore. Unless we get it back, we are going to be way more sorry than we would like to admit.

      1. “It sucks not having a functional scientific establishment anymore.”

        Just as in the Soviet Union political concerns have become more important than truth.

        1. EvilBuzzard says:

          Yep. It lead me to conclude Dwight Eisenhower Predicted Global Warming…


    2. Joshua L. Roberts says:

      “Good to see there still multiple authors active.”
      Is this in reference to me? If so, I’m not really active. This work was a piece that was about 90% completed quite a while ago, but that I never got around to finishing. I suppose it was found to be sufficient to finish and then published.

      Something similar is going to happen again in the future, although the article will be from only a short while ago.

  7. Chen says:

    Is this true? I was always under the impression that it was really low-IQ bible-beating whites who denied Global Warming because they thought God would fix everything.

    1. Meow Mix says:

      I guess that would explain why so many atheist Randians, libertarians, and Michael Crichton were attacking global warming. In between their Bible studies I suppose? Not that these people aren’t equally weird, but the point should be considered.

  8. Meow Mix says:

    I guess the great tragedy of this whole global warming debate is the pervasive denial of the obvious: In 4 billion years the Sun will actually expand to the point that it will incinerate the Earth. There is no such thing as ‘sustainability’. Not even the evacuation of Earth’s lifeforms via space colonization to distance planets can avoid universal stellar death and the final extinction of the cosmos from heath death.

    If we want to be realists (and not crowdists) than we need to acknowledge these facts.

    There is a political bent here as well:

    Liberalism seems to have bought wholly into the notion that resources are infinitely sustainable, ergo the demand for Marxist re-distribution. Liberalism commits to overbreeding habits and then demands that we bear the burden for the resultant inequality (IE I live in a third world country and had 8 children, now I demand you house and feed us!) The destruction of the planet is viewed as resulting from the behavior of humans who haven’t ‘respected’ their ‘natural balance’ with the Earth (spurred by ‘capitalist’ greed of course). No such balance exists and the eventual termination of all life is absolute.

    As right wing realists we can commit ourselves to a deep ecology, but only one premised on the notion that all things are bound to perish.

    1. Decimator says:

      PPM Human way too high!

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.620 seconds