Dan McLaughlin

Voices For Freedom Read Columns Daniel McLaughlin
To Home Page Latest Newsletter Column Archives Click to get these columns for your local paper	© 2006 Daniel J. McLaughlin Science As A Political Tool Science has enabled huge strides in the betterment of the human race and the welfare of all people . Science is the study of what is, of cause and effect. It has allowed mankind to control processes to bring about certain anticipated results that are presumably good for humanity. When scientists switch from describing what is to describing what should be, they take off the scientist hat and put on the normal, everyday human hat, with all of it’s biases, opinions and predispositions. A scientist’s opinion on a particular issue is nothing more than a view that is informed by the biases of life experiences, however extensive those experiences may be. A scientist’s opinions are no more universal or valid than the opinions of any mere mortal. Opinions are made up of values, and value judgments are not in the realm of science. Science can tell you what is, but not what should be. When scientists developed the atomic bomb, they used their knowledge of cause and effect to bring about a specific result. The use of that result was a matter of values, of whether it was right or good for political leaders to use that result in the way it was used. The decision to use it was a political one that many scientists did not agree with. They had their own opinions based on their value systems. The word “science” has an aura about it for many people. For them, if a scientific study says something, it must be true. The unfortunate fact is that bad science is bountiful in this age of science worship. Savvy politicians are aware of the power of science on large sections of the population and use that for political gain. Most of us have seen junk science, so-called scientific studies that have as their purpose the bolstering of support for a given position and have nothing to do with finding the truth of “what is”. An example might be the tobacco industry scientific report that smoking was not a health problem. In other cases, the valid results of scientific inquiry are distorted and politicized by policy makers and idealists. One such issue is climatology, or as the news makers would have it, calamitology. Global warming alarmists want you to believe that there is absolute consensus among the scientific community that the human race is on a collision course with certain annihilation. To them, the only way to prevent the demise of the human race is to submit to a draconian international governing body which will impose a high level of discipline. Like a good father chiding his children, the severe damage done to the economy and society will be for our own good. The fact of the matter is that there is far from unanimous agreement on global warming, or any other environmental issue. The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is an agency of the United Nations. It’s periodic assessment is a compilation of studies by many scientists. Dr. John Christy, a climatologist and professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, was a contributor to several assessments and lead author of the 2001 assessment. According to Dr. Christy, while much of the report was compiled by scientists, the Summary for Policymakers, the only part looked at by the media and politicians, was edited and approved by a political body, and not submitted for approval by the scientists involved. In his essay, “The Global Warming Fiasco”, Dr. Christy says that “Statements by ideological environmentalists that thousands of IPCC scientists agree on anything is simply untrue and misrepresents the process.” Many scientists are stepping forward with books and articles to show that there is no real consensus and that there are widely disparate views about the extent and the cause of the problems. The computer models which have gotten so much attention are being shown to be based on false assumptions and to have built in biases. The results reported are thus not an appropriate representation of reality and are merely tools for politicians and ideologues. Science will continue to have a great impact on the development of human society, enable us to make progress in more areas and provide a better life for all people who are not prevented by their government from freely participating in the fruits. Because politicians and ideologues will also be with us, it is important to have a critical eye and recognize that all science is not created equal.
Contact us Privacy Policy
Daniel Mclaughlin Copyright © 2006 [Daniel McLaughlin]. All rights reserved. Revised: 03/18/08

Voices For Freedom

Read Columns

Daniel McLaughlin

To Home Page

Latest Newsletter

Column Archives

Click to get these columns for your local paper

Science As A Political Tool

Science has enabled huge strides in the betterment of the human race and the welfare of all people . Science is the study of what is, of cause and effect. It has allowed mankind to control processes to bring about certain anticipated results that are presumably good for humanity.

When scientists switch from describing what is to describing what should be, they take off the scientist hat and put on the normal, everyday human hat, with all of it’s biases, opinions and predispositions. A scientist’s opinion on a particular issue is nothing more than a view that is informed by the biases of life experiences, however extensive those experiences may be. A scientist’s opinions are no more universal or valid than the opinions of any mere mortal. Opinions are made up of values, and value judgments are not in the realm of science. Science can tell you what is, but not what should be.

When scientists developed the atomic bomb, they used their knowledge of cause and effect to bring about a specific result. The use of that result was a matter of values, of whether it was right or good for political leaders to use that result in the way it was used. The decision to use it was a political one that many scientists did not agree with. They had their own opinions based on their value systems.

The word “science” has an aura about it for many people. For them, if a scientific study says something, it must be true. The unfortunate fact is that bad science is bountiful in this age of science worship. Savvy politicians are aware of the power of science on large sections of the population and use that for political gain. Most of us have seen junk science, so-called scientific studies that have as their purpose the bolstering of support for a given position and have nothing to do with finding the truth of “what is”. An example might be the tobacco industry scientific report that smoking was not a health problem.

In other cases, the valid results of scientific inquiry are distorted and politicized by policy makers and idealists. One such issue is climatology, or as the news makers would have it, calamitology. Global warming alarmists want you to believe that there is absolute consensus among the scientific community that the human race is on a collision course with certain annihilation. To them, the only way to prevent the demise of the human race is to submit to a draconian international governing body which will impose a high level of discipline. Like a good father chiding his children, the severe damage done to the economy and society will be for our own good.

The fact of the matter is that there is far from unanimous agreement on global warming, or any other environmental issue. The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is an agency of the United Nations. It’s periodic assessment is a compilation of studies by many scientists. Dr. John Christy, a climatologist and professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, was a contributor to several assessments and lead author of the 2001 assessment. According to Dr. Christy, while much of the report was compiled by scientists, the Summary for Policymakers, the only part looked at by the media and politicians, was edited and approved by a political body, and not submitted for approval by the scientists involved.

In his essay, “The Global Warming Fiasco”, Dr. Christy says that “Statements by ideological environmentalists that thousands of IPCC scientists agree on anything is simply untrue and misrepresents the process.”

Many scientists are stepping forward with books and articles to show that there is no real consensus and that there are widely disparate views about the extent and the cause of the problems. The computer models which have gotten so much attention are being shown to be based on false assumptions and to have built in biases. The results reported are thus not an appropriate representation of reality and are merely tools for politicians and ideologues.

Science will continue to have a great impact on the development of human society, enable us to make progress in more areas and provide a better life for all people who are not prevented by their government from freely participating in the fruits. Because politicians and ideologues will also be with us, it is important to have a critical eye and recognize that all science is not created equal.

Hit Counter