The Subversion of Science by Green-Left Politics

John Reid

John Reid

John Reid has a PhD in Upper Atmosphere Physics from the University of Tasmania. He has worked for the Australian Antarctic Division and CSIRO in auroral physics, ocean waves and fluid dynamic modelling. He discovered cosmic noise absorption pulsations and the physics underlying the frequency down-shifting of surface gravity waves. John is presently working on a method for distinguishing between cyclical behaviour and random walk excursions in natural time series.

In a recent blog article, John provided the world with the following:

The Enlightenment

The development of modern science in the late 18th century went hand in hand with the rise of modern industrial capitalism. Its potteries, mines, steam engines, mechanization, and science itself, were all done by private enterprise. The role of government was to enforce patents and maintain a healthy legal and commercial environment.

Nowadays most scientists are paid by the government. What passes for science has largely become taxpayer-funded Environmentalism. Environmentalism has taken over much of science.

Scientists discover, understand and inform.
Environmentalists preach.

All of us … are borrowing against this Earth in the name of economic growth, accumulating an environmental debt by burning fossil fuels, the consequences of which will be left for our children and grandchildren to bear.  Marcia McNutt – Chief Editor, Science Magazine.

This is preaching. There is no scientific justification for this statement, which was made by the editor of  one of the world’s most prestigious science journals. …

Real science, which requires a sceptical and innovative frame of mind, then withers on the vine. …

Radiation Health
In 2012 I received 7000 milli-Sieverts of radiation as treatment for prostate cancer. I found out from the Web that this is twice the fatal dose! I became curious about how I came to survive this assault  and I discovered that radiation administered in moderate doses is not cumulative and is not especially harmful. In my case it was definitely beneficial.

… The Japanese government was too careful when it forcibly relocated 100,000 people following the Fukushima meltdown.

The facts:

  • Number of deaths:  about 1600 people.
  • Cause of deaths: Suicide mainly.
  • Number of cases of radiation sickness: 3 people.
  • Number of deaths caused by radiation: none!

The suicides arose … for reasons of political correctness. …

The 1968 London Convention on Ocean Dumping
This forbids the disposal of poisons such as heavy metals in the deep ocean. Hydrothermal vents were discovered in 1977, 9 years after the convention took place.  Also known as “black smokers”, they lie on mid-ocean ridges and above volcanic hotspots, 2 to 3 kilometres below the surface of the ocean. Every year they  pump into the ocean:

  • 500 tonnes of Arsenic,
  • 1500 tonnes of Lead,
  • 50,000 tonnes of Copper,
  • 140,000 tonnes of Zinc and
  • many other metals including Uranium and its radioactive daughters.

This has been going on for, perhaps, a billion years or so.

Nature is the biggest polluter of the ocean and the London Convention is a joke. …

Climate Change

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the most egregious example of this science-destroying institutionalization. …

Billions of dollars are being pumped into this. Tens of thousands of climate modellers, their technicians and their computer jocks are the self-righteous recipients. They are not going to give up their funding easily – for them this is the greatest thing since sliced bread and, what is worse, most of them sincerely believe that they are saving the planet. …

But if you are a scientist who is part of the climate change institution this evidence  is all irrelevant. The “Science of Climate Change” was frozen sometime back in the 1990s when the IPCC was first set up. Nowadays it is just a matter of running ever more complex computer simulations and making more “projections” of future climate and its alarming consequences.

And, of course, re-jigging the data so that it fits the models better.

We often hear it said that “97 percent of climate scientists agree …” and so on

Well they would, wouldn’t they.

You should read the whole thing.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Energy for Civilisation, Environment, It's only a Model, Science and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.