The Sky Is Falling!

There's a rash of pseudoscience out there - theories by people who mangle scientific theory and abuse scientific method to pursue their own agendas. I'm not sure where it started - actually, that's not true. Since the scientific method was outlined, there have been hangers-on who try to classify their own religions as science.

There's that whole "intelligent design" or "creationism science" (an oxymoron if I ever saw one) camp - but their deliberate misunderstanding of science and how it works is justifiable. The use of a scientific tool to shore up one's ancient religious beliefs is, I believe, misguided, but understandable. (That being said, the minute one of them says "How can anyone believe that man descended from ape?", well, it's almost like a staunch atheist saying, "How can anyone believe that Moses filled up the ark with two of each kind of animal?" If you aren't going to understand the basics of my discipline, I'm going to ignore you.)

What bothers me more is pseudo-science coming from scientists.

Take "global warming".

Now, where I come from, the weathermen can't tell if a storm, due to hit the area within 24 hours, will dump no snow, 2 inches of snow, or 2 feet of snow. They can make educated guesses, but they are only dead-on about 75% of the time.

And that's a 24 hour time frame.

We're supposed to believe that these idiots can predict what's gonna happen in 100 years?! Based on "models" that have so many unknown factors that they're more opinion than fact?

I recently watched "The Day After Tomorrow" with my husband. We really enjoyed the special effects (though the script and acting left more than a tad to be desired.) It was fun - these global disaster films usually are. (And, of course, the deliberate censure of Halliburton Boy and The First Chimp were quite predictable and fun.)

But the fact that this was being billed as a true scientific warning about "global warming"? That it could "really happen"? The logical problems of the movie stood out to me, a chemist by training.

Look, I did my masters thesis in theoretical chemistry. I have worked with computer models that predict measurable factors, like how light travels through a medium, or what the actual physical structure of a molecule might be. And these models, predicting things on the micro-scale, are almost always fallible. The pharmaceutical industry employs thousands of modelers in the hopes that someday soon, these folks will help design drugs theoretically which will work practically. Hasn't really panned out, yet.

We're supposed to believe that some model that predicts global climate is actually reliable?

Michael Chichton says it much better than I do, in his speech where he exposes environmentalism as religion. I suggest everyone reads this. Just so you don't stay up at night, worrying that the sky is falling.

(*)>