The Sad State of Science


“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair

This post speaks to the concerning situation we are in with the state science. While it has been my experience, in numerous conversations with scientists, that the political and special interest influences that compromise the science we operate from, are well known to the majority in every scientific field, it continues to be the case that few are willing to try and figure out why this is the case or delve into figuring out how this came to be. Very few seem to be willing to act in a responsible way to deal with this affliction.

While this is a condition that afflicts every field of research, most obvious to me is the “settled science” on the issue of “Global Warming”; which seems to be the primary belief mechanism we rely on to make decisions. This seems to be where this dogmatic situation is perhaps the most prevalent.The following e-mail response to my inquiry about what I perceived to be the one sided presentations being given at the University of Idaho, by scientists who are working in the field to research “global warming”, sums up well my concern with the situation we currently face in the scientific world. Regardless of your thoughts on the issue, in my opinion, the sentiments portrayed by this celebrated University of Idaho PhD student should alarm anyone who makes a claim to “sound science”.

  • From: xxxxxxx [<>]
    Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 5:34 PM
    To: xxxx,xxxx
    “Subject: RE: Fish and wildlife seminar series!
    Thank you for your insights and for the links. I assure you that your concerns do not fall on deaf ears as I too have seen the unfortunate plague of agenda driven results. The topics that you mention (i.e., wolves, feral pigs, climate change), all share one feature that make them contentious issues to address – they are polarizing and therefore emotions do in fact drive many of the political decisions and actions. Unfortunately, with these and other similarly polarizing issues, public opinion and politics will always trump scientific findings, even when there is broad scientific support. 
  • Like you, I have drawn my own conclusions about climate change and its implications and I recognize the disparate conclusions reached by both sides of the debate. That being said, regardless of the data you believe, the scientists you trust, or your political persuasions, I would ask you the same question I ask myself. If the implications of climate change are as dire as the “left” make it out to be, what can we do to reduce these impacts, AND, if the concerns of the “left” are overblown, distorted, and/or agenda driven, what harm is there in promoting a more sustainable culture? Regardless of the intent of particular data or scientists, what is the potential harm in promoting responsible resource use and sustainable living, and what is the potential harm in maintaining the status quo? I will bring your concerns to the graduate student committee tasked with speaker selection at our next meeting and I will forward your email to the group as well. I do not believe it is our intent to take a position, but rather to bring in the leading experts to share their work with the community, allowing each individual to make their own decision. I would consider these two seminars successful if each attendee thought as critically about the situation that you have, regardless of the final conclusions that they draw for themselves. Although future seminars will not focus specifically on climate change, I am sure in time the theme will return, in one form or another.
  • I am just curious as to whether or not you attended the seminar last evening (I am currently in Utah and was unable to attend)?
  • Thank you again for your thoughts.
  • Cheers,

(I did respond with specific information pointing out what I consider to be the harm that relying on this agenda driven science might pose to society and the environment. I also pointed out that sustainable development as a “mantra” might sound nice but can take on a much different form when applied on the ground. I also made the argument that by not offering an opposing viewpoint, you ARE taking a position. I did not receive a response to that e-mail nor did I receive confirmation that my concerns were brought to anyone’s attention.)

As it applies to responsible resource management, the most concerning aspect of this, to me, is the level to which we have attached ourselves and every environmental anomaly to this one all-encompassing environmental concern; at the expense of all other plausible explanations for any given condition or observation.

Being that a great deal of what we “know” about climate change comes from the IPCC modelling, and the models that have been built off of those models (the ones we use to direct research and decisions in any given locality), what assurances do we have that all the inputs in the computer models are correct? One thing I can be sure of is that the local models guiding research in many areas aren’t taking everything into account. Many organizations, such as municipalities and power companies (like Idaho Power and PG&E) are actively engaged in cloud seeding operations. If the models don’t account for this seemingly relevant anthropogenic factor, what else (natural or artificial) are they not considering? (Geo-Engineering)

Beyond  the contributions to weather modification, what else are these activities potentially contributing to and are we responsibly monitoring for it? Is the EPA or the state agencies, testing the plants, water and soils to ensure there is not a toxic build-up chemicals of heavy metals? Is the build-up of toxic heavy metals and other chemicals from industrial activities, cloud seeding, pesticide applications, plastic wastes and other such endeavors being considered? “The Disappearing Male” Has anyone considered the potential that Sage Grouse declines could be linked to pesticides applications, cloud seeding or other weather modification programs? Could their primary food base, Sage, be becoming more toxic as a defense mechanism for some reason?
Could any of these often overlooked and under researched conditions explain the decline in amphibians or aspens?


Open investigation suggests that there is much more going on out there that is being overlooked in the mainstream scientific community and public trust agencies. If the celebrated PhD student quoted above is representative of the majority of scientists out in the field, then it is likely the case that there is very little objective science being reflected in the mainstream scientific community; within the land grant and private universities (all beholden to their corporate financiers and boards of trusties) or within the public trust agencies (who are increasingly beholden to the entire technocracy).



When given thorough scrutiny, evidence will clearly show that the science is not settled, as many would now claim (as I use to claim), and can be demonstrated, in many cases, to have been influenced by political agendas on both sides of the argument.(This video from a brave climatologist speaking out about “groupthink” sums this up very well)

Like the U of I PhD student stated, “the issue has been so politicized and emotionally supported or denied that it has affected the science and convoluted people’s understanding of it”. If one were to approach this situation from a truly sincere scientific point of view; as in not influenced by funding sources, with no preconceptions or an adherence to the socially acceptable lines of inquiry, they might come to other conclusion to explain various observations. Here are just a few outside perspectives that seem to be stepping beyond the current dogma, spoken to in the above video, that is persisting by way of the political and media-driven dialectic that pits “climate change scientific advocates” against “oil-lover climate change deniers”

“Landscapes and Cycles, an Environmentalists Journey into Climate Skepticism”:

“Polar Bear Science”:

“The Whole Story on Climate Change”:

“Climate Change is Pseudo-Science”:

Putting the “Con” in Rubicon

To cross the Rubicon means to take an irrevocable step that commits one to a specific course. When Caesar was about to cross he quoted from a play by Menander to say “let the die be cast.”

Inferences made off of the disparity between popular opinion about consensus and the reality might lead one to draw the same conclusions as others who contend that the current polarizing climate crisis is a situation that is actually being deliberately manifested to serve a greater agenda; both through rhetoric and technological perturbations (GEOENGINEERING). Numerous alternative researchers have argued that much of this is coming through the United Nations with initiatives put forth and universally adopted around the world; like United Nations Agenda 21 adopted by participating nations, including the US, at the 1992 environmental summit in Rio Dejenaro. (UNESCO) (AGENDA 21) They also suggest that the ideas adopted by the United Nations in Agenda 21 are from think tanks like “The Club of Rome” (with membership to include Al Gore and many others of influence) and the traditional influential scientific organizations like the “Royal Society” of which Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley (grandfather to “Brave New World” author Aldous Huxley and UNESCO pioneer, Julian Huxley) where original members. (CLUB OF ROME, ROYAL SOCIETY, CORBETT REPORT)

The following video by David Icke, one of the more prominent alternative researchers, speaks to the details of the power behind the global warming agenda.

Before you, the too often arrogant intellectual, decides to cast off all these bodies of work as “nonsense, conspiracy theory”, I encourage you to look to the way in which you analyze information. Is it objective? Is it scientific? Is it based on critical thinking and free of logical fallacy? (Trivium)
While you might be capable of refuting the information above and count on the backing of a cadre of scientists, intellectuals and media support, can you truly discredit it through sound scientific reasoning and critical thinking? (Not through ad-homonym attacks and pleas to authority and other logical fallacies)

The Power of the Dialectic
One such mechanism of manipulation that clearly applies to the debate over climate change and other environmental issues is the little known and not well understood application of the Hegelian Dialectic. (HEGELIAN DIALECTIC) Simply put, the Hegelian Dialectic is a method by which both sides of a polarizing argument are used to build a consensus; one that is based on the “synthesis” of two manufactured arguments rather than the truth. In this case it is being used to foster communitarian ideas and advance technocratic solutions to a phenomenon that is not well understood and, perhaps, significantly manufactured (TECHNOCRACY RISING).
As we look to scientific models and outsourced scientific data to perform our research, it is irresponsible, in my opinion, to not thoroughly review the individuals and information behind it. Because of what we can all seem to agree on (if we accept what this PhD student has to say about it), that the politics is trumping the science, then there should be a great deal more effort put into establishing how this might be influencing their research. I would argue, as it stands now, we are operating on good faith in our beliefs attached to what equates to an unscientific belief system; a system driven by faith and NOT sound science or objective scientific inquiry.
Cultural genocide (Conservation Refugees)…
Sovereignty (Take Back Your Power)…


One thought on “The Sad State of Science

  1. Pingback: ‘Dam’aged Goods – Modern Indigenous Perspectives

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s