Environmental Alarmism's ‘Infallible Science’ Fallacy

The danger in basing public policy on assumed “scientific infallibility” is that it’s the biggest fallacy of all as suggested in Riley’s “Environmental Alarmism Has Hardly Changed Since the 60s” … in which it’s argued “population then, climate change now – the scare tactics are the same & the predictions equally outlandish.”

Not only do the politicians too often (ab)use the latest “science” as if it’s ever a done deal, but the science community itself is seldom if ever united in being sure of its finding du jour. Nor should it be. Even Einstein had to alter one or two of his “discoveries” as further research revealed the need to do so. Isn’t the basic tenet of “science” to QUESTION everything in a never-ending search for the illusive TRUTH? Think the controversies over supposedly scientific findings that have and/or are fueling debate in such critical issues today as abortion & when “life” begins, the fight against new viruses & the pandemics they inevitably pose & the battle of the sexes aka male vs female vs the ever-expanding LGBTQ communit(ies). Wasn’t it SCIENTISTS who split the atom & gave us the Nuclear Age along with all its pros & cons?

But, as the WSJ’s Riley notes in real time, we now are confronted with a WH bent on a War with Fossil Fuels at all costs because, if it doesn’t, some (not all) scientists say the world will soon end. Translated into policy, “the WH has tried to fill top positions at the FED with people … [wanting] … to restrict capital flowing to fossil fuels” right in the midst of a critical energy shortage, record inflation & WWIII looming. Meanwhile, the SEC “wants to force companies to report detailed data on their carbon emissions,” which would be mindbogglingly difficult at best & meaningless in fighting global warming at worst. Unfortunately, it’s all predicated on the canard “science” at a given point in time is “infallible,” which even the current Pope doesn’t seem to grasp.

Davd Soul