The title of this post is a thought-provoking quote by John Archibald Wheeler which can be found behind a paywall in Scientific American, 1992, Vol. 267. It really sums up an inherent characteristic of all science quite nicely. In a vast, possibly infinite universe, the more you learn, the more you discover there is to learn and the more questions you raise. Unless humans achieve omniscience — something I'm sure we can all agree ain't likely to happen anytime soon or ever for that matter since we are, after all, human — there will always be a growing number of things we do not know, thanks in large part to what we keep discovering.
For scientists, it's an exciting reason to get out of bed each morning.
For climate change deniers, it's an opportunity to prove to the world that they're idiots.
"With a system as complex as climate, there is no limit to the number of ad hoc theories which can be generated to support any point of view."
-Steven Goddard (I guess he's hinting at conspiracy idiots dreaming up fantasies of all kinds, including ones about NASA "cooking the books" like...)
"Over the past 15 years, NASA and NOAA have turned a long term US cooling trend into a warming trend. But it is even worse than that, because almost every year they make the past cooler and the present warmer."
-Steven Goddard (tin foil conspiracy hat firmly in place...I mean, they couldn't just be incorporating NEW KNOWLEDGE or anything, folks)
"Now, I’ve got to do this because the global warming agenda is just really despicable in trying to claim the increase in Antarctic sea ice, opposite of what they said several years ago, and now they are trying to deny they said that, is a sign of global warming."
-Joe Bastardi (see the Antarctic sea ice link in last paragraph below for why Bastardi is plain lost)
"Hey, as long they used a sophisticated climate model, and it is reportedly “based on true physics” in the best Hollywood tradition, what’s not to like?"
-Willis Eschenbach (another dope who doesn't get that computer modeling of the climate eagerly embraces new discoveries and improves as a consequence)
"Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans."
-Richard Lindzen
When viewed properly (you have to be in a really good mood to see it this way, admittedly), this is nothing more than an exercise in self-torture on the part of deniers. As our island of knowledge rises above the seas of ignorance that surround us, if climate change deniers wish to keep pointing to what we haven't explained yet, and ha-ha'ing like five year olds about it, they must remain within sight of those same seas. They must chase after the waters to remain on an ever-expanding shoreline, and pretend the glorious heights behind them are not on the inexorable rise. They have sentenced themselves to an eternal hell of perpetual exodus and limbo. It's an attempt to eke out a petty intellectual existence on the margins, as it were. And most if not all science deniers engage in this very same bewilderingly asinine behavior. Well, only when it comes the particular area of study about which they have rather senselessly chosen to obsess, that is. They all but ignore the "incriminating" expansion of knowledge in other scientific fields, unless they wrongly believe it can be turned on their pet area of research, of course. Creationists perhaps have it a bit easier than other science deniers, because they need only apply the "God of the gaps" reasoning. The more fossils you find as an evolutionary biologist, the more gaps in the record you dish up for the unreachably devout to attribute to God. You can't win with magical thinking like this, no matter the breed of ignorant science denier that is the source, nor the level of difficulty or ease they encounter distorting your findings.
Then again, who am I fooling? Rather than bother with the unending hard work of moving your climate denier camp to new "fertile" ground, you could just stay right where you are, beating a dead horse that was put to rest years ago. Over at wattsupwiththat, scientific explanations that have been around for some years now are considered "excuses." Should we be surprised? I think not. This is the only nonsensical option left to you, if you've given up the equally ridiculous effort of keeping pace with and belittling new scientific discoveries. When denying science, your choices seem to be staying back among the enlightened and sticking your fingers in your ears, or wallowing and basking in the ignorance found at the water's edge. Either way, apparently, the idea is to act like you're achieving something important, instead of conceding that you're missing the point entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment