The Global Warming Fraud Destroys Science

J. R. Dunn has an excellent think piece on what the ramifications of the Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science in today's American Thinker. It is long, but well worth the read, and then contemplate for yourself what you think this will mean for future scientific endeavors. A quote to give you a flavor of the article:

As Paul Johnson has pointed out, a technological breakout appeared imminent at a number of points in the past millennium. Consider the anonymous Hussite engineer of the 15th century who left a notebook even more breathtaking than that of Leonardo, or the revolutionary English Levelers of the 17th century who dreamed of flying machines and factories. If a breakout had occurred at those times, the consequences would have been unimaginable. But the Hussites were destroyed by the German princes, the Levelers by the reestablishment of the English crown. It required the birth of a true democratic republic in the late 18th century to provide the setting for a serious scientific-technical takeoff, one that after 200 years has brought us to where we stand today, gazing out at the galaxies beyond the galaxies with the secret of life itself within reach.


It is this, and no less, that scientific fraud threatens. This is no trivial matter; it involves one of the basic elements of modern Western life. When scientific figures lie, they lie to all of us. If they foment serious distrust of the scientific endeavor -- as they are doing -- they are creating a schism in the heart of our culture, a wound that in the long run could prove even more deadly than the Jihadi terrorists.

J. R. Dunn asserts in the article that our democratic republic, and free scientific inquiry go hand in hand, and that to destroy one of these pillars is to seriously weaken the other. When stated explicitly, one recognizes that what he is saying must be true. Our democratic republic was designed to give men the maximum freedom to make of their lives what they would. Some of these men had a talent for, and chose to become great captains of industry. But other men had a talent for, and chose to delve into science and technology, from which we all have benefited. If we lose that, who knows what great improvements to our lives will be lost to this generation?

Dunn also points to the real problem, which is not scientific inquiry, but government funding of scientific research for ideological reasons. It seems so benevolent: government gives grants for scientific research to scientists and all they expect in return is results. Except, of course, that if the results matched up with their own preconceived notions, wouldn't that be truly nifty? It is only a short distance from that attitude to attempting to control the outcome by giving research grants if the results match preconceived notions, and withholding those grants if they do not. Like so many areas in which government gets involved, it soon corrupts the process, and if it continues, eventually will kill the victim. Like everything else, the answer lies in returning to Constitutional principles, and concentrate on those specific areas granted by the people as government functions.