Back in the spring, Randy J. Guliuzza, of the Institute for Creation Research wrote an important article that is worth revisiting, especially in light of the “Climate-gate” scandal. In “Consensus Science: the Rise of a Scientific Elite” he explained the danger of using consensus to settle science and make policy. He gives three examples. First, President Obama explicitly justified his endorsement of embryo destroying scientific research by appealing to consensus, meaning majority opinion. Second, consensus science gave us the horrors of eugenics in the early twentieth century. (Forced sterilization of low IQ people in U.S. Genocide to create the master race in Germany.) Third, back in 1993 scientists who challenged the consensus view that man’s emissions were causing climate change were hauled before congress and ridiculed or in some cases, simply fired.
Guliuzza explains that the problem with consensus science is the majority may be erroneous or immoral, especially since the scientific elite are overwhelming atheistic and hostile to Christianity. He also points out that the governmental, educational, and industrial funding for research often means the we are merely getting the best science money can buy. I hope you will take the time to read his article, especially for his explanation of how atheistic scientists dominate academic teaching positions, conferences, and journals, and use an appeal to consensus to quash dissent.
Meanwhile, Guliuzza’s ICR colleague, Brian Thomas has done excellent coverage of the climate change controversy. In a series of articles he has shown that proponents of “cap and trade” legislation aren’t really concerned with “objective” science. They manipulate the science to support their declared agenda: “to make energy more expensive, so people use less of it and to create a penalty for carbon-based fuels.” The mainstream media’s bias is evident as well, as they fail to report that over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition that states in part:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
There are a significant number of both secular and creationist scientists who say solar activity or volcanoes produce many times the greenhouse gases than the total produced by humans in recorded history. There is even evidence that earth balances carbon dioxide levels automatically. Creationist Larry Vardiman has also pointed out that carbon dioxide levels increase after temperature rises, not before—showing that carbon dioxide is more of a result than a cause of global warming—and that the globe has actually been cooling in recent years in response to unusual solar inactivity.
Don’t forget that back in the 1970s, the bugaboo was the coming ice age as this Time Magazine article promoted. Not to be outdone, Newsweek got on board. The article warned: “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.” Want more examples? Click here.
In the latest controversy, emails leaked showing that climate scientists were manipulating data to show global warming. Brian Thomas pointed out that this news shouldn’t come as a shock. Surveys of scientists show that they believe their colleagues are manipulating data at a very high rates. The famous Harvard evolutionist Stephen J. Gould wrote in 1994, “The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.”
Does any of this have any bearing on health care sharing? The study also found that medical and pharmacological researchers reported the highest rate of misconduct, “supporting fears that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial interests.” Its appears that a dose of healthy skepticism is what is called for when it comes to our health care.
