Climate Change a "New Religion" part 1

Climate Change a new Religion Part 1.  Academic and Scientific Integrity.

I have pondered since starting this blog, just how I would approach a favorite topic of mine- “Climate Change”.  To be more precise “Anthropologic Climate Change” (for those unschooled “Anthro” pertains to “Humans”, see what a Major in Anthropology taught me!) I find the topic fascination not only because I have been a weather freak for years (yes I know Climate and weather are “different” things), but because discussions on this subject are so “tribal”.

Now most of you know my general thinking on this subject and I will try/ to expand on it over the next few blog entries.  I am a member of the “Anthropological induced global warming skeptic tribe.  Or as those from the other tribe would say I am a “Denier” or some type of scientific bumpkin.  Today’s Earth Day protests finally fueled my fire to strike back at “Science is King” should rule the way we make political decisions.  Here we go!

I actually think I have always had an interest in Science, and I sure as heck understand Laws of Physics, Thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, continental drift, and climate variability.  I know that in the Earths geological record we have had cycle after cycle of climatic events (ice ages, periods of extreme warmth yadda yadda yadda).  I also understand the carbon cycle and how the Earth at various times have seen increased and decreased carbon dioxide levels, and that these cycles have caused sequestration of Carbon which we have burned heavily since the start of the Industrial Revolution.  I understand that Carbon dioxide levels have increased during this time and that this is the basis of the fundamental concern that we are warming the atmosphere via the “greenhouse effect”

Ok Jim, so what are you skeptical about.  Over the next several Blog posts I will try to articulate my skepticism.  More importantly I hope to present some of the social reasons this issue has become so polarizing.  For you believers in catastrophic (or even not so catastrophic) human induced Climate Change make no mistake I am coming at this from my tribal perspective.  However, I truly welcome different well considered perspectives. 

In today’s post I want to start by impinging on the idea that “science” and “academic peer reviewed research” should hold sway over people like me.  I constantly get lectured that we should let science “trump” politics on this subject.  That is because “science” and peer reviewed research is “pure.  My retort is “Bullshit it is”.  Scientists and academics are no more immune to Human Tribalism than “Joe Six Pack” raising three kids and working in the coal mines, oil and steel mills, insurance companies, airlines etc. etc.  I would argue that in fact our scientific researchers and academic experts are primarily members of a tribe that views the world through their own lens.  So let me delve into a couple of reasons I believe “science”, certainly in terms of this debate is not “pure”

Example one:  MIT

In 2013 while working at the United Way I was delving into the causes of poverty, familiarize myself with a subject that the United Way deals with every day.  One day while researching some issues on the topic of poverty, achievement and single parent households n  My attention was raised by a very interesting study by two MIT economists. 

 “WAYWARD SONS THE EMERGING GENDER GAP IN LABOR MARKETS AND EDUCATION David Autor and Melanie Wasserman.”

The study was extremely interesting and very thought provoking.  It correlated (as only economists could) the rise in Fatherless Homes, and the demise of boys.  In particular they presented some pretty extensive data that:

“Boys have suffered disproportionally and significantly more than girls with the rise of fatherless homes. Finally, most one parent families are headed by mothers not fathers, and boys appear to do relatively worse in these families, perhaps due to paternal absence.”

“Over a period of time when the economic returns on education were increasing, male educational attainment—and therefore income— has stagnated.”

“...increased prevalence of single-headed households and the diminished childrearing role played by stable male parents may serve to reinforce the emerging gender gaps in education.”

Ok those quotes were lifted from highlights of the report it is 64 pages long and trust me worth a read.  Talk about why so many males are disaffected in today’s society!

Anyway the report was prefaced as an attempt at challenging liberal thought”, by the studies sponsors, “The Third Way”.  Some interesting quotes from their preface.

“Our aim is to challenge, and ultimately change, some of the prevailing assumptions that routinely define, and often constrain, Democratic and progressive economic and social policy debates.”

You would think that such a report would be right up my “Right Wing Family Values Ally”.  However in the opening remarks were these comments:

“The trends in this paper will be debated for some time to come especially because there are no easy public policy answers to the issues raised. In fact, like most complex problems the data does not take the policy maker in one clear direction. For those on the left wing of the political spectrum it is clear that the demise of labor unions is an important factor in this story and it should lead us to investigate whether it is possible to re-vitalize unions for a 21st century economy. For those on the right wing of the political spectrum it is clear that the trend away from marriage and away from two-parent families is having an adverse effect on children, especially children from the poorest families.

 And for a greater number of policymakers, the push to legalize marriage for some same-sex couples is further buttressed by evidence that children—particularly boys—fare worse when only one parent is in the home. Dealing with this issue will test the political imagination of both political parties and should point policy makers in new directions.

Now I ask any reader how a study that purports to show evidence that boys fare poorly without fathers tries to use this to “buttress” the argument that two women should marry and raise children??? 

I challenge you to read this piece, and tell me how it could possibly “buttress” gay marriage.

Now I am not posting this to argue pro or con on the merits or moral issues with gay marriage.  I am using this piece to “buttress” my belief that in today’s world of science at least in academia virtually all roads lead to progressive thought.  If you think I am kidding look at the many studies that the vast majority of the staff at such institutions are extremely “progressive”. If you really think that such an environment does not foster thinking in “progressive ways” I have a bridge I can sell you. Peer review and grants for research are all influenced by this, that is simply logical human behavior.  When one is a member of the progressive tribe you must cite progressive ideals even if your research does not support it.  MIT is one of the “crown jewels” of our Higher Education system yet even their research falls into this trap.  I am sure the prevailing thought process at say Liberty University falls in a much different direction, and I cannot imagine a progressive thinking otherwise.

My favorite social scientist, Jonathan Haidt recently had an interview with the WSJ where he discusses just how serious tribalism is at today’s higher institutions of learning.  It is a big problem. 

Adding to bias in the inherent climate change debate is that after years of training at such institutions most government employees of the NOAA, EPA etc. involved in policy decisions came from this environment.  I believe that when Eisenhower warned us of a “Military Industrial” complex he was right on.  I also think we kid ourselves if we do not recognize the danger inherent in an Environmental/Academic complex in corrupting thought.  Now I will deal with the moral issues we face in protecting our world versus humanitarian benefits of lifting Billions out of poverty in a later post on Climate Change.

Example 2

Much of today’s “Climate Change” research comes out of Penn State University.  Most notable is Michael Mann who is a leader of the alarmist charge.  I recommend you educate yourself on Michael Mann and his history and form your own opinion.  I will interject this that “Climate Research” brings in millions to Penn State’s coffers.  So did Penn State Football.  Think how the Top People at Penn State enabled Child molestation for profit by ignoring Jerry Sandusky.  I do not for a minute disagree with the idea that “science” can easily be corrupted for money, but not only by Big Oil, but by “Big Academia” as well.  My point in this blog post is a very simple one- scientists have inherent biases as all of us do.  They are influenced by their daily environment which frankly at most institutions where they are trained or and they must espouse a very progressive worldview or be ostracized.

Finally for those who think arguing that “Science” should decide all of our policy decisions I LOVE this quote from my favorite “elitist” who in the name of “science” thinks people are dumb who do not think his way. 

“When you’re scientifically literate, the world looks different to you. It’s a particular way of questioning what you see and hear. When empowered by this state of mind, objective realities matter. These are the truths of the world that exist outside of whatever your belief system tells you.

One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters. As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place."

Neil deGrasse Tyson
New York, Aug. 21, 2011

Mr. deGrasse could have given Hillary’s deplorable comments it’s inspiration.   Now just ponder how science has pushed some pretty radical social re-engineering in the past.  Heck I do not dispute Darwin but even if natural selection may have caused inherent differences within our human species it does not justify slavery or euthanasia of those less capable humans among us.  That is a MORAL debate.  Science is MORALLY neutral and I do not Need Re-education.  Leave that to Pol Pot.

I will end this entry with some pictures from Earth Day, looks like the tribe I describe above.  Talk about politicizing science.  Whew.