, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lynch AG

Today we do a practical  application exercise. Over the last few posts, I have been trying to pin down, in terms of definitions, certain key words and phrases which have objective meanings and have a common usage. Just a simple recap, is in order here.

Truth:  “of what is, that it is” (Aristotle). (1) The state of being the case:  fact, (2) :  the body of real things, events, and facts:  actuality (3) often capitalized :  a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality:God

Philosophy: The science of acquiring knowledge.

Religion:set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies”, i.e. religion (see here)

Organic Growth: reconciliation of reason with revelation, of science with faith and of philosophy with theology, SUBJECT TO: that source of our Faith that comes from divine Revelation.

Superstition:a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like”

This quick review should allow you dear reader, to put the below republished post from The Blaze website into proper context. The original, with emphasis  added, can be found here:

AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions.

He went on to point out that under President Bill Clinton, the Justice Department brought and won a civil case against the tobacco industry, while the Obama administration has “done nothing” so far with regard to the fossil fuel industry.

Whitehouse concluded his comments by posing a question to the country’s top law enforcement officer.

“My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” he asked.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”

Now that you are familiar with the facts of the matter, here is another definition fro your consideration (see here):

Settled Science is a phrase often encountered in newspapers and press reports, usually associated with climate change reporting. Basically it is used to indicate that the science of climate change is ‘settled’ and therefore further discussion on the point is pointless as the underlying science is so strong as to not require any more discussion.

The real problem is that proper science is never ‘settled’ rather it moves and advances as new findings are made, even when what was effected was considered solid fact (like the Earth being flat and the center of the universe). Therefore to say any science is settled is a gross misrepresentation of the process, rather the results of current science can be said to at best to be in ‘general agreement’ for a theory or law that has been around for many years (i.e. it has survived many competing theories or ideas). In this regard, given the relative infancy of climate science compared to the other science fields, it is hard to say anything is in long term general agreement; rather there are several competing theories or mind sets in play that come and go as more research is done.

So from the above, what are we left with?

What we are left with is a distinction between “settled” science and proper science. And here is what proper science, (the scientific method), consists of: (see here)

The Scientific Method has been adhered to since (Ed note: at least) the Enlightenment.   It is composed of five or six steps:

  1. Observation
  2. Hypothesis
  3. Experiment
  4. Record and analyze data
  5. Compare the results to the hypothesis.
  6. If necessary, either modify the hypothesis or the experiment

There is always more complete data to be found and always room for another test of the hypothesis, to ensure completeness.

So what can we infer from the above information?

First, there is no such thing as a “settled science”. This phrase is an oxymoron (a combination of contradictory words).

Next, “Climate change” or “global warming” cannot be considered science. The definition that is a “best fit” is “a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like”, i.e. superstition.

Third, “climate change” can be proved through a scientific method, or it can be disproved through a scientific method, but the proof can never be definitive, since this would contradict the definition of what constitutes a “science” in the first place.

And lastly, what constitutes a science (a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws) is the method used to assess whether something is in fact TRUE  (“of what is, that it is”).

Concluding, when reading the above, what becomes painfully obvious is that no matter how much the word “scientific” is bandied about, what we are in fact dealing with is a “superstition”. This “superstition” is promoted through a proposed ban on testing hypotheses which do not conform to a subjective criteria, i.e. a government official’s arbitrary opinion on what constitutes “settled science”.

And this is just one “superstition” among many that post-modern humanity engages in.

To think that these present day “Caccinii” have learned nothing from the Galileo affair (see here) is shocking.