Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The slow descent of “Science!” As in “Trust the Science!”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s a generous helping of a Wall Street Journal interview with science writer Matt Ridley that probes some of the changes brought about by the massive COVID-19 failure:

“Conformity,” Mr. Ridley says, “is the enemy of scientific progress, which depends on disagreement and challenge. Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, as [the physicist Richard] Feynman put it.” Mr. Ridley reserves his bluntest criticism for “science as a profession,” which he says has become “rather off-puttingly arrogant and political, permeated by motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.” Increasing numbers of scientists “seem to fall prey to groupthink, and the process of peer-reviewing and publishing allows dogmatic gate-keeping to get in the way of new ideas and open-minded challenge.”

The World Health Organization is a particular offender: “We had a dozen Western scientists go to China in February and team up with a dozen Chinese scientists under the auspices of the WHO.” At a subsequent press conference they pronounced the lab-leak theory “extremely unlikely.” The organization also ignored Taiwanese cries for help with Covid-19 in January 2020. “The Taiwanese said, ‘We’re picking up signs that this is a human-to-human transmission that threatens a major epidemic. Please, will you investigate?’ And the WHO basically said, ‘You’re from Taiwan. We’re not allowed to talk to you.’ ”

He notes that WHO’s primary task is forestalling pandemics. Yet in 2015 it “put out a statement saying that the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century is climate change. Now that, to me, suggests an organization not focused on the day job.”

Tunku Varadarajan, “How Science Lost the Public’s Trust” at WSJ via Instapundit (July 23, 2021)

It has not gone unnoticed.

The “lab leak theory” is a well-evidenced event, but not popular with certain governments.

Real science will emerge from the ruins.

See also: Lab leak theory vindicated: What that means for fighting COVID-19. What was the U.S. government’s role in downplaying the lab leak theory?

Comments
TLH @ 30: "Lying to millions of students. It's how Atheist science works." This is absolutely true. And they have been force-feeding these lies to students for many decades. Is it too late to repair the cultural/societal damage caused by these systemic lies? That is the real question.Truth Will Set You Free
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Bjørn Lomborg,,; born 6 January 1965) is a Danish author and President of the think tank, Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen. He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in which he argues that many of the costly measures and actions adopted by scientists and policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal impact on the world's rising temperature.[1] In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus, a project-based conference where prominent economists sought to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methods based on the theory of welfare economics. In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".[2] While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions. His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change. He is an advocate for focusing attention and resources on what he perceives as far more pressing world problems, such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition.[3][4] In his critique of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Lomborg stated: "Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat."[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborgbornagain77
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
why would we want to read teh opinions of an ex-tennis player anyway
Shows a distinct under-appreciation for a great back hand.jerry
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
I've no idea if Borg has written abything about climate change, and why would we want to read teh opinions of an ex-tennis player anyway? :-)Bob O'H
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
so a naïve analysis will be largely wrong.
Probably the history of most of those advocating changes to deal with warming. Everybody should read Bjorn Borg’s books on climate. Also Michael Shellenberger.jerry
July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
Jerry @ 43 - yes, a lot of that is simply because there is, by the definition used in the paper, a lot more cold weather. Querius - Yes, tree planting will help. As for "slightly warmer temperatures", it's not that the only effect of climate change is a uniform increase in temperature. It varies across the globe, and this also changes weather patterns, so some areas receive less rainfall, some more and there will be more extreme events, like droughts which lead to more forest fires (and hence fewer trees...). The effects are not simple, so a naïve analysis will be largely wrong.Bob O'H
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
FWIW, In my opinion, CO2 is plant food, and all we need to do is replant the world's disappeared forests (the percent left is shocking). And slightly warmer temperatures are good for the plant growth and agriculture. As for any hypothetical "tipping point," consider what happened when ALL coal and oil was CO2 in the atmosphere. Was the world destroyed as a result? As for the death of the biosphere, we just need a slightly *lower* CO2 level. That's the greater danger. -QQuerius
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
he is using a study that thinks that death at 25C are due to cold in Thailand and heat in Stockholm.
The same study indicates at what temperature people died. Few died when temperatures were above 30 degrees while a fairly large percentage died when the temperature was below 10 degrees. (Roughly about 50-86 degrees or 18-20 degrees different from what is recommended room temperature in the US. So a lot more deaths take place in colder weather.jerry
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Marfin - Where on the EM-DAT site is that information? I had a quick look but couldn't find it. Jerry - Lomborg, the "master of stats" is using the same source that I mention in comment 38. So he is using a study that thinks that death at 25C are due to cold in Thailand and heat in Stockholm. kf - yes, there are reasons for higher mortality at low temperatures, that's well established and is clear in the paper.Bob O'H
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Lomborg writes frequently on global warming and is a master of stats. Here is an article from a few days ago https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-and-deaths-from-extreme-heat-and-cold
Climate change and deaths from extreme heat and cold For now, global warming reduces more deaths than it causes, saving possibly 100,000 lives each year What is almost entirely ignored by politicians and media, however, is that rising temperatures also have the effect of reducing cold waves and cold deaths. Cold restricts blood flow needed to keep our core warm, increasing blood pressure and killing through strokes, heart attacks, and respiratory diseases. But because they don’t fit the current climate narrative deaths from cold are rarely reported. If they were just a curiosity, the indifference might be justified, but they aren’t. Each year, more than 100,000 people die from cold in the U.S. and 13,000 in Canada — which is more than 40 cold deaths for every heat death. On a worldwide basis, cold deaths vastly outnumber heat deaths. This is not just true for cold countries like Canada but also warmer countries like the U.S., Spain and Brazil. Even in India, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths by seven to one. Globally, every year about 300,000 deaths are caused by heat, whereas almost 1.7 million people die of cold.
Another aspect is the effect of heat on crop yields. While warming may make some areas hotter for crops, it might increase the growing season in others.jerry
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Bob- Bob I quoted you the source its EM-DAT , the international disaster data base. So Bob you are the guys claiming catastrophic deaths , you show us the source for the increase in deaths over the last 100 years of global warming. If you have no source I will assume you are making it up as you go along.Marfin
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
BO'H, it is reasonable that cold related phenomena will kill far more than warmth, for many reasons. Start with why cold seasons are flu seasons. KFkairosfocus
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
ET - thanks for pointing me in that direction. That statistic comes from this paper, which basically extrapolates the analysis in this paper. The problem is that they find a minimum that is in the upper range of temperatures, so most temperatures are colder than this and thus of course most deaths will be attributed to cold. They also do this on a city by city basis, so (for example) 25C is classified as extremely cold in Bangkok, but extremely hot in Stockholm. Whilst, yes, there is variation between countries, I doubt many Thais are freezing to death at 25C.Bob O'H
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
Marfin - if you don't have the source, just say so. I found something on "TexAgs", which refers to Lomborg, but the details aren't clear. Are the figures just for deaths that are classified as "Climatological" in the database? i.e. excluding disasters due to, for example Extreme Temperature, Storm, Flood, Landslide, or Wave action (all criteria that are affected by climate but are classified into other sections).Bob O'H
July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
Bob o H - Bob the figures come from EM-DAT the International disaster data base, look it up. Dont trust predictions look at the real figures. Type into google climate related deaths fall by 97% see what you get , it might mean giving up your ideology but maybe that would be a good thing.Marfin
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT
Sev, all because Ivermectin clearly works, per population level results . . . try Peru, Mexico, India and Slovakia for starters [and Indonesia as the reverse case] . . . but will not fit the agendas of those pushing experimental technologies that show disturbing signs of potential dangers. Anyone, in the hands of ruthless critics, can be made to sound a fool or worse. The Dr you despise, with Italian colleagues was one of the first on the job and helped develop a protocol for treatment, which happens to feature Ivermectin as one element. As for prayer, you show a failure to understand its nature: request, not magic, in the context of relationship. But then, given track record you imagine that the inherently good, utterly wise, necessary and maximally great world root being is not there. KFkairosfocus
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
5 million deaths a year caused by global climate related abnormal temps. 4,594,000 from the cold; 489,000 from the heat.ET
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Never trust the WHO. By far more people die from cold than from heat. Only fools think that CO2 is the issue. And the WHO thinks that CO2 is the issue. CO2 only absorbs in 3 wavelengths regardless of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. And only ONE of those 3 wavelengths is in the thermally relevant IR spectra. Take a look at the following diagram and you can see how insignificant CO2 is as a GHG: Radiation Transmitted by the Atmosphere You have to be really desperate to say that CO2 is the issue. Glaciers melt even when the temps are below freezing because the glaciers are dirty. Dirty glaciers absorb and hold more of the heat from the Sun's radiations.ET
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Marfin @ 27 - the problem with global warming is the extra number of people that will die or be displaced. Read the WHO page - 70k more deaths in Europe alone in 2003 due to the heat wave, and they are predicting 250k excess deaths every year between 2020 and 2030. You also claim "overall deaths due to weather related disasters has decreased by 97%", do you have a source for that?Bob O'H
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
@ 17 Lieutenant Commander Data And since you mentioned that notice he stopped postingAaronS1978
July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
Guys, did you see this whopper? On an earlier post, I had noted the lies of Peer Reviewed Atheist Science included the Miller Urey Experiment, and one of our nice Atheist friends wrote this: "The Miller-Urey experiments were not lies." Yes, they were lies. Here's the lie: The Miller Urey experiment made amino acids, the building blocks of life" For almost 70 years, hundreds of millions of students have been taught this lie, in countless Peer Reviewed Science books.. It is true that Miller and Urey made amino acids, and it is true that amino acids are the building blocks of life. But not the ones Miller and Urey made. The ones they made cannot make living things. That is the lie. Here's why: Amino acids can be right and left handed, like gloves. Miller and Urey made amino acids that are mixed left and right (achiral) . The ones that form living organisms are only left handed (homochiral). Miller and Urey knew this, So did the other gurus 70 years ago, and since. So what they said was a lie then as it is to this day. Scientists have been trying to make single handed (homochiral) amino acids for almost 100 years now. And what progress have they had? Nothing zero zilch. Why did they lie? Because they have no good argument against Creationism, but they dont want to admit that to the public. So they lied. And the lies were by the entire Biology establishment. Check out the list of gurus ("Reviewers", "authors", "consultants", "experts" etc) at the front of any Biology text book. Lying to millions of students. Its how Atheist science works. Anyhow, regarding Origin of Life Theory, what is the Settled Science? It is a law first stated (in 1862) by Louis Pasteur. It's called "The Creationist Law of Biogenesis." Here it is: Absent Divine intervention, life comes only from life. It is 1) consistent with all credible empirical evidence, 2) is falsifiable in principle 3) but has never been falsified in practice, 4) in spite of diligent efforts to falsify it. Those efforts involved a huge international research program over 4 generations, by top gurus including Nobel prize winners. Us Creationists, we figure that's a hoot. What do you guys figure?TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Real science is not going to emerge from the ruins, it will just go from catastrophy to catastrophy, without hindsight of fixing of errors. It is because you require some kind of emotional basis for doing science, so to say the spirit of science. And the materialists have thrown out the spirit, because of there not being any evidence for it. So then there is no emotional basis, and in that kind of environment with surpressed emotion, you are going to see a lot of extremisim, that will sabotage the sensible scientific discourse.mohammadnursyamsu
July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Bob o H - Bob you should read Bjorn Lomborg`s book , "How to spend 75 billion to improve the planet" , or Alex Epstein`s "the moral case for fossil fuels" , its always good to educate your self on the counter arguments. Neither of these guys even deny human caused climate change they just show how vested interested groups are pushing an anti human, anti capitalist, and anti anything conservative agenda.Marfin
July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT
Bob o H- We have been told by the climate scientists that in the last 150 years the average temp on earth has increased by 1.5 deg F . What they fail to mention is that in that same 150 year period is that infant mortality world wide has decreased considerably, life expectancy has increased considerably , we are richer, healthier, less hunger less poverty, and overall deaths due to weather related disasters has decreased by 97% , so once again, whats the big problem with global warming.Marfin
July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT
Per Bob at 24 listing a WHO webpage promoting Climate Change doom and gloom hysteria, here is a website with a bit more optimistic outlook. (And a lot better science) Watts Up With That? The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change https://wattsupwiththat.com I also note that WHO did themselves no favors in the COVID crisis as to proving they were a trustworthy, nonpartisan, organization. :The World Health Organization (WHO) is finally admitting that it lied about the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19). https://dreddymd.com/2021/07/23/who-admits-it-lied-about-covid-origins-fact-checkers-refuse-to-issue-apologies-or-retractions/bornagain77
July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
at 22: AnimatedDust: "BA the David Barton video shows as unavailable." Here is a corrected link: The Devastating Effects When Prayer Was Removed From School in America in 1962-63 - David Barton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1No--GpdqCYbornagain77
July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
ET - https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-healthBob O'H
July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
S: Have you noticed the wildfires out west, the widespread drought, reservoirs falling to dangerously low levels, hydro-electric power stations in danger of being shut down because there soon won’t be enough water to drive the turbines? Have you noticed this highly advanced science that is based upon that well established axiom: "It is a well established axiom that what is called a 'thing', when observed causing another, second 'thing', at the same time will cause a 'thing' which is the converse of the second 'thing'." Yes this highly advance science, "climate science" has established that its 'thing', "climate change" causes a second 'thing' (drought), and at the same time causes a 'thing' which is its converse (near monsoon in Houston Texas this year) with precipitation totals of 61.72 inches by 7-24. Expected (decades average) rainfall total for 7-24 in Houston: 56.5 inches. Hell of a 'thing' except when considering that old axiom.groovamos
July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
BA the David Barton video shows as unavaiable.AnimatedDust
July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
Sev, how confident are you that Neo-Darwinism is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we have today?zweston
July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply