A Private Members’ Bill is currently wending its way through Parliament. Called the Climate and Nature Bill (CAN), it threatens to wreck the U.K. economy, damage lives and undermine democracy.
And that’s just for starters! It makes Theresa May’s Net Zero legislation look like a walk in the park.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Science does not exist. It is all philosophy. Philosophy filters natural experience, data and evidence.
Real mechanical Science ended in the early 19th century.
Now it is contrived ridiculous maths, tensor matrices, jargon, fraud, word salads, AI paper mills, money, propaganda, coercion, censorship, bullshit and violence. All to fit a worldview and philosophy.
$cientism.
Ferd, I disagree as a scientist and engineer. The reality is more nuanced. The science of Mechanics and Mechanical Engineering developed rapidly in 19th Century and continues to do so. Science develops tools, largely mathematical, to explain and predict behaviours of real materials and structures and engineering takes these through to enable real structures to be designed to withstand real environments. Of course there is incompetence and fraud but generally if what one delivers does not meet this criteria one does not get paid.
Of course with politics and corporatism there are plenty of pressures to corrupt this process, for instance the whole climate change edifice and it’s use to bludgeon the masses to pay enormous sums to the elites and their masters with specious arguments. At a Conference in the Netherlands recently earnest scientists and engineers advanced arguments not directly based on scientific fact but political economics, to support a vast ‘emissions’ trading scheme for alternative fuels to enrich the UN to the tune of billions per year. And with descriptions of (say) hydrogen with more colours than the LGBTQ+ flags. And all with different rewards and penalties. Whether hydrogen is an appropriate fuel or not for Diesel engines is an engineering science matter, the rest falls into your category of fraud.
And when engineers create a model it is tested to prove that it is valid and therefore useful. Not something that can be said of the climate science computer games.
“Real mechanical Science ended in the early 19th century…”
…So how come we’ve all got access to physical working embodiments of the proliferation of physical science that took place from the mid-19th century onwards, when the modern world arguably began?
By way of example, in rough chronological order 1850-1950: wireless telegraphy, X-ray radiography, telephony, internal combustion engine, synthetic fertilisers, plastics, antibiotics, jet engines, nuclear power, etc, etc.
None of these technologies came about in the first place in parts of the world not practised in applied physical sciences.
Agreed there’s been an explosion of voodoo science as well over the last two centuries, which politicians have lapped up and taxpayers are funding to this day.
Science is a mode of enquiry that each of us has to undertake in order to understand how things behave. Self selecting pearls of wisdom from the famous isn’t enquiring. That is why passing the information through a ‘non-scientist’ destroys the integrity of the message. Questioning the statement often returns a blank look, at best, or a deligated response, and the end of the conversation. Hence, the inclusion of Arts, Humanities and Social Science graduates, even if they have some intelligence, is likely to degrade the conversation, as has happened with the BBC monopolising and controlling the Climate Emergency discussions.
The West’s initial attempts into Scientific endeavour were very successful, enabling industry to innovative and improve, as well as gaining much understanding of the Physical World. But, as the 19th century progressed, some awkward experimental results started to appear. While “Mechanical Science’ continued to accumulate knowledge, other subdisciplines were producing contradictory evidence. The Mathematical solution, which has left many questions about the Physics unanswered, was derived through inspiration, and a good knowledge of Mathematics:
“Max Planck produced his law on 19 October 1900″
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law
What followed is briefly described under the heading (in the link) ‘Subsequent events’ , and has led to Quantum Mechanics, which is used extensively. It isn’t the ‘final solution’ as the Physics isn’t particularly elegant, and Jacob Barandes is working on a new Stocastic approach, which keeps the Maths nearer to Reality, with no collapsing wave function, and all that it entails. Physics isn’t static by any means.
The problem with many recent experimental results isn’t the Scientific Method; as has already been mentioned, it’s that the Scientific Method isn’t being followed, for whatever reason. Of particular concern is the sloppy Statistics that is frequently found.
No, science exists. That in itself is not a problem.
The problem is that it has been taken over by and turned into a method of exercising political power.
Just like in medieval times religion (which also exists, undoubtably as long as there is at least one person who believes in the supernatural) was taken over and turned into a method of exercising political power.
By the way, science serving political power is much worse than medieval religion was, as science is devoid of any values. It can create nuclear power, for example, but says nothing about whether or not it is morally wrong to use it to incinerate people.
Politicians like to refer to “science” to justify things because people like and trust “science” because they perceive it to have been successful and helpful and amazing. “Scientists” are often happy to be political tools or actors because they need money and like power and prestige.
As always, caveat emptor and cui bono? apply.
What brilliant arguments you’ve all put forward in the comments on this topic, it’s a joy to read!
The real problem with politicised science is the irresistible temptation of neo-Lysenkoism – science as political control. We already see this with the fake climate emergency, where only one particular outcome, climate catastrophe requiring the subjugation of the population, is acceptable. And anyone who doesn’t accept this is tarred with the heresy-designation of “denier”.
Neo-Lysenkoism indeed. But what many ‘uses’ of the Science ignore is that the Scientific Method is self-correcting. And there will be some scientists willing to upset the consensus, if they can, for a better match to reality.
Exactly – that’s my #1 red flag test, when ever the people pushing ‘whatever’ use censorship or bullying or whatever to avoid an open debate, you know their argument is not what it seems… trouble is many people seem to lap it up.
As an example, many people now seem to trust the massive social media corporations, such as during covid, who 10-15 years ago would have disagreed with such corporate entities, no matter what they said, by default… because they hated big business. Maybe they appear more cuddly than big business of old – however we should be more wary than ever given their reach and power