‘97% of Scientists Say…’

I had a hard time at the YMCA yesterday: a debate, as it were, on the subject of Global Warming, featuring me vs. everybody else in the locker room.

If I heard it once yesterday, I heard it 50 times: “But 97% of scientists believe in Global Warming!” That makes it true, of course.

You can’t get through. The 97% is carved in stone. You can poke holes in it till you’re blue in the face, and nothing happens. What about the hundreds of scientists who don’t believe in Global Warming, and have said so publicly? Did they ask all scientists, or just the ones who’d be sure to give them the answer that they wanted? And who, by the way, did the asking? And how did they decide who is a “scientist”?

All my opponents need to know is “Science says.” That makes it infallible. That the scientists themselves are all fallible human beings, born into sin, and that their science is strained through a filter of incomplete and often inaccurate information, wishful thinking, prejudice, fear, and desire for advancement is completely irrelevant to them. You just can’t get through.

Is this not idolatry? Science is the work of human minds, and human hands. To worship it is to worship human beings. And we laugh at the ancient Egyptians for worshiping animals.

And they try to convince us that humanism is not a religion.

4 comments on “‘97% of Scientists Say…’

  1. Indeed. Humanism is a religion – and it’s counterpart is the religion of Scientism. God doesn’t fit in with their doctrine, which, of course, includes evolution,

  2. As I understand it, 97% of scientists answered yes to a question regarding the ability of humans to change the climate and they have spun that as supporting Global Warming. Humans CAN change local climates. My home town of Denver is a good example. The climate there has become wetter as the population has grown. Trees, irrigation, locally warmer temps (which happen in any large city) have changed things . . . slightly. Go 100 miles south, near Pueblo, and the climate hasn’t changed a bit, it’s still arid. But that is a far cry from the concept of “Global”.

    Whenever I’ve studied true science, such as classical mechanics, electricity, etc. I’ve always been amazed the degree to which the natural world is stable. There are conservation laws which keep things in balance. As chaotic as the weather may seem, it’s actually amazingly stable compared to other places in the Solar system, where winds can exceed the speed of sound and rain can be toxic.

    Every probe to planets in the Solar system has surprised, and at times shocked, scientists. They do not have a handle on how everything works and no theory is exempt from being disproven. I certainly. Would not stake the future of humanity on a politically charged theory.

  3. Reminds me of the lyrics from a pop song, “You Give Love a Bad Name.” These sycophantic scientists give Science a bad name. True Science is based on skepticism and the scientific method, not group-think consensus.

Leave a Reply