The difference between faith, and science

The Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Natural Selection (not to be confused with religion of evolution) and the Theory of Plate Tectonics are just that: theories. These are not recognized as laws. Science does not work that way.
Scientific method works by a process of elimination. A hypothesis, or educated guess, is proposed. An experiment is designed and facts are gathered. One solid piece of contrary evidence can disprove the hypothesis but no amount of evidence in support of the hypothesis proves the theory. Dis-proving alternate or competing hypotheses is the only way to strengthen a hypothesis. This is the only logical way of handling complex problems involving many variable factors.



This is illustrated by the White Swan exercise. If I say that all swans are white how many swans do I have to show you to prove my hypothesis is true? 100, 1000, 10,000,000? No, I have to demonstrate that every swan past present or future is or was white. How many swans of any different color have to be found to immediately disprove my hypothesis? One. In the case of Einstein's theory of relativity, it has not been proven true, but all competing theories have thus far been disproven. The same with continental drift and plate tectonics. Likewise with natural selection.
So for obamarx, algore, or some other political moronic gas bag to say that the science is settled and the debate is over on anthropogenic climate change, i.e. Global Warming, is not only absurd but untrue and impossible according to the scientific method and all logic.

What it is, is a belief based on faith. I will not debate the sociological merits of religion or my particular beliefs here. Religion can and most times is a positive influence in the lives of people. But there are beliefs, that especially when taken to extreme, are destructive. The current radical followers of this movement are destructive. It does not bother me that a person chooses to believe in the green movement. We are all entitled to our beliefs. All that I am asking is that we call it what it is and not set public policy based on hypotheses which are not capable of being proven and ate NOT universally accepted.
Christianity and Greenism are both faith based ways of explaining the world.

Let me illustrate:
A long long time ago the earth and all that is in it was brought into existence. All the animals and plants lived in harmony and nature and it was wonderful. After a period of time humans arrived on the scene and became the dominant species on the earth and soon after that things began to go horribly wrong. People were wicked and did many things to hurt the natural order of things. They were warned that unless they ceased their wicked ways and returned to the more original way of things they and the earth would be destroyed. Part of man's redemption can be obtained by living in a prescribed manner and denying oneself certain pleasures. Some people are encouraged to live a life of chastity and pacifism. There are certain proscriptions against eating certain foods and rules for the proper growth and preparation of foods. Certain rules regarding sex and procreation are observed. The proper use and distribution of money is laid out. Treatment, and care of animals is discussed.


Now, what have I described, judeo-Christianity and Islam, or the green/animal rights/ environmentalist movement?

It is not science. It is a religion. It is a religion masquerading as science. And it is a false religion and poor science at that. And now we have the emails that not only prove their was an active effort to supress alternate data and hypotheses, but that the perpetrators knew it was not science all along.

As to your personal religious beliefs, believe what you want; I suppport your right to do so, let's just acknowledge that is what they are, and don't force them on me.


-Kook
via iPhone

Update:
My Good Blogging Friend Foutsc from over at Western Hero had this to add:
Good explanation, Kook. The word "Science" is thrown around to induce hushed silence in the masses, many of whom have no idea about what you just described. No shame in that, all of us are not scientists.

"To piggyback upon what you said, peer review means you turn over the raw data and your experiment methods so others can independently verify or refute your conclusions. Since they've destroyed much of the raw data, that is impossible.  Global Warming is a Global Swindle.  I posted something similar to this today." Read it here: The Fudge-inci Code, inside the global warming swindle