Posted by
Scaramouche on Monday, November 12, 2007 3:31:43 PM
Which leads to more a swifter and more accurate conclusion,
certainty or doubt? In a field of endeavor as lofty and yet idyllic as science
we seek answers, but as the Zen master quipped, "who tells you there is an
answer?". Does the preponderance of scientific (which is it; knowledge or
fact) rest on consensus or does it require unanimity? Are they the same? Which
stands the test of time? How long a time? When is a fact born which ceases to
be tested, postulated, searched to verify that it is without refutation? Let's
take a slash shall we?
A chicken little no less than the inventor of the internet has made claim that
the sky is falling warming. More precisely what he retroactively names
is now referred to as "climate change". Girded with cinematic declarations, which
amount to nothing more, he also claims to have the grail of scientific
consensus. It is very nice. He, by no means, has achieved unanimous acclamation
and agreement. While he and his detractors hurl invectives back and forth and
lay claim to a "more correct” presentation for current humanity, let us
consider... Have there ever been fluctuations in measurable climactic
conditions since (even before) accurate measures were taken? Are we, or can we
be, dead certain as to the causes of these fluctuations? If there are more than
one, how many did mankind cause or manipulate? How many of you know of a
weatherman, meteorologist, climatologist, who can predict the conditions just
within your community with 100% accuracy for three weeks from this Tuesday?
Following the hurricane known as Katrina, leading weather prognosticators from
around the world, the very elite of the entire globe among science, predicted
that the following year would have even more storms of equal or greater
ferocity and tempestuousness. Failing that, the predictions were renewed for
the very stinking year in which, now, evident even to an imbecile with a wet
finger in the wind, they are disastrously and unquestionably WRONG! Are these
esteemed scientists among the consensus holders regarding what the consequences
of our present lifestyles will have on the next century's climate? Pardon;
Scaramouche had to wipe a small tear from his eye. What of the Hand of God?
Even the bamboozling charlatans who own and run insurance companies designate
certain events as "acts of God". Without doubt, agnostics, atheists
and those of their ilk demand that such clauses and protections be removed from
their policies. One cannot exist without the other. Respecting the divergence of
thought though, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanoes, and your other
odd weather phenomena are a reality, as of yet to be charged to or proven to be
of human cause. Is this a "random universe to which we bring
meaning"? (credit Sheldon Kopp's Eschatological Laundry List) Do we really
have the power to define a globular climactic standard and enforce what it
should be? You could believe that; you could grow up to be a mule too. Or would
you like to swing on a star?