First published on Al Fin
Science is impossible without a healthy scepticism, along with a voracious appetite for data — and data transparency. Climate sceptics, for example, demand a higher level of evidence to support “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming,” before the energy industries of advanced nations are turned on their heads, and before many trillions of dollars are forcibly redistributed from advanced nations to the emerging and third world nations — using the United Nations and the IPCC as intermediaries in the redistribution of these funds.
Skepticism is generally viewed as a reluctance to believe in something. Skepticists demand evidence, and cold hard facts that can be tested and retested.
The reason that science is so trustworthy is the level of evidence that is demanded before an idea is accepted as truth, and even then, scientists must be willing to reexamine their fundamental ideas. _Answers
Climate science has been infiltrated by political interests, who support the catastrophic alarmist attitude toward climate — and who urge a rapid and precipitous disruption in energy industries, along with a massive transfer of funds from productive nations to non-productive and politically connected entities.
Other sciences have likewise been infiltrated by political activists, who wish to declare the science “settled” long before the debate has even begun, or the data collected. The field of genetics and human behaviour, the study of gender differences, and the study of human biodiversity (HBD) in general, have all been caught and hamstrung in the web of politically correct corruption.
Here is how you can tell the difference between a healthy scientific “sceptic,” and a corrupt “denier” of a political activist: The sceptic wants to open up scientific enquiry, in order to learn as much as possible about the topic. The denier, in contrast, wishes to shut down any free enquiry into the question, and declare the matter settled.
The distinction is easily made. And it is a crucial distinction to make, in this age of politically correct corruption of the scientific process by political interests — extending well into both governmental and private funding agencies of science.
Does the group or individual wish to open the question to all honest investigators, or is the intent to shut down all honest and open investigation?
It doesn’t matter if the person or group calls himself or itself “sceptical” or not. Judge them by their actions. Do they promote free and open enquiry, with complete data transparency and availability? Or do they want to close the debate decades before the necessary data can be compiled and analysed?
Only a complicit news media and a thoroughly dishonest political regime and academic regime could keep pseudo-scientific hoaxes such as carbon hysteria and climate alarmism, alive.