|
 Our president and other pontificating politicians
- particularly, it seems, those who hold college degrees in non-science realms -
have recently taken to referring to anyone who does not hold their points of view
as "Flat Earthers" and anti-science. BTW, these are the same people who regularly
chastise their opponents for name-calling and uncivil discourse. So, if to them
others are anti-science, then they obviously deem themselves to be pro-science.
Would you consider a person who laments the invention of the ATM machine because
it replaces bank tellers or a ticket kiosk at the airport for robbing counter clerks
pro- or anti-science? What about people who prefer to cripple society with a blinders-on
approach to energy production by insisting on using "renewable" sources while ignoring
advances in fossil and nuclear power sources? Excuse me for getting all sciency[sic]
on them, but how is any form of energy production "renewable?" Once energy is extracted
from wind, sunlight, or water, can that spent energy be used again for something
else? Of course not; that energy is converted into electrical energy so it NOT RENEWABLE!!!
Unless a wind generator has 0% efficiency (i.e., no electricity produced), its blades
slow the air by robbing it of kinetic energy. Air exits the blades at a lower speed,
possessing less energy.
Yes, you might be able to argue that the energy in the wind is "renewed" in the
form of electricity, but so also is the energy in the nucleus of an atom renewed
in the form of electricity when fissioned or fused, and the latent energy in coal
is renewed in the form of electricity when burned. Call it "clean energy," but it
is NOT renewable - that is clear ignorance and/or denial of science.
Another popular proof of evidence of anti-science-ness is not bowing to the altar
of algae. I do a lot of reading on alternative energy production forms, and wholeheartedly
support the research into all of it (yes ALL of it), including the use of taxpayer
money to help fund it... as long as it is not clearly a scam. In fact, I support
most forms of pure research into everything (especially by students since it teaches
experimentation skills) even if it is something I have no interest in so long as
it is legitimate. I do not, for example, condone governments funding research with
an agenda, like paying for junk science in order to support an argument against
law-abiding citizens owing firearms when unbiased studies show that society is actually
safer and freer when those same citizens keep and bear arms. Alas, though, I digress.
The argument made by the scientifically ignorant is that holy algae is a great way
to reduce or eliminate the need for fossil fuels; i.e., oil. The morons don't seem
to realize that algae also produces the byproducts of petroleum refineries only
in a matter of days rather than millennia. That's right, the stuff that comes out
the the tailpipe of an algae machine is oil. In order to use that oil to produce
energy, it has to be burned. Burning produces hydrocarbons in the air - the same
kind as processed petroleum! If you want to produce electricity or move a car with
it, you still have to murder the air. Today, a break-even process has not been found,
but we're close. You have to get a lot of energy out to offset the energy and pollution
caused in growing, reaping, and transporting all the switch grass, corn stalks,
animal offal, etc., used in processing.
I doubt any amount of true scientific evidence for or against Global Warming
will ever convince the religiously devout adherent of either side's well-established
dogma. It probably is insignificant, but a few years ago after a marked decrease
in solar activity, when the temperatures across the Earth began declining, the name
was conveniently changed to "Climate Change," a phrase totally devoid of meaning
since climate is always changing. Yes, climate is a long-term trend versus weather
being a short-term phenomenon, but since records have been kept, cyclic cooling
and warming has always followed the 11-year sunspot cycle. But hey, that's just
my pro-science side talking. Personally, I think that local temperatures are undeniably
affected by human activity (i.e., anthropogenic) in high density population centers,
but the Earth as a whole seems to have a way of evening it all out over the long
term. Volcanoes have nasty habit of spewing crap into the upper atmosphere, blanketing
the Earth from some sunlight with an attendant drop in global temps for a while
- sometimes for many years. Oceans warm and evaporate at higher rates creating more
cloud cover with a resulting reflection of sunlight back into space.
Self-proclaimed pro-science types (as opposed to those dangerous anti-science
types) like to champion the upside of their chosen cause célèbre while ignoring
the downside ramifications. One of the best examples is the proliferation and ubiquity
of electronic devices - from cellphones to plasma TVs to electric vehicles to LED
light bulbs. I appreciate all of the great stuff, but also acknowledge the consequences
of having it all, like the poor souls worldwide who labor in extremely hazardous
environments in order to produce the raw materials that go into the production of
all these things, and then the many other men, women and children that expose themselves
to toxic smoke and chemicals in the process of reclaiming components and metals
in trade for a bowl of rice or a handful of wheat. The hypocrites are the same ones
who launch boycotts against clothing manufacturers that exploit workers in third-world
countries while having a closet full of the company's products. Recall all the OWS'ers
with trendy garb (albeit filthy) and the latest iPhone.
Science extends beyond the physical sciences to including social science, economic
science, behavioral science, etc. If you choose to ignore or dismiss any type of
science, even that which studies and reports on the human condition, does not that
make you anti-science? The worst kinds of pro-science grandstanders are those who
denigrate others as anti-science while they themselves are as guilty as those being
accused. It's called hypocrisy - like regularly wolfing down greasy hamburgers,
fries, and milkshakes while being in bed with others who tell everyone else to eat
carrots.
International Flat Earth Research Society (aka
Flat Earth Society)
founder Samuel Shenton famously dismissed direct observational proof of a spherical
Earth by arguing, "Would sailing round the Isle of Wight prove that it were spherical?
It is just the same for those satellites." Those who so regularly impugn dissenting
voices as Flat Earthers have a lot more in common with Mr. Shenton than they might
imagine.
- Kirt Blattenberger
Posted October 15, 2021
(updated from original post on 3/16/2012)
|
"