Naomi Oreskes: Why Should We Believe In Science?

Naomi's discussion here is sound. If only the climate scientist allowed competing or minority opinions especially when dr. Judith Curry, her mother of climate change, calls BS on their findings and is chastised for it as being a heretic. When you have climate scientists will lose their career or no they have to tow the line otherwise they lose their job. That's when science becomes political. Dr. Judith Curry uses the analogy to drunk and the street light. The drunk looking for his lost keys in the dark. The drunk being the scientist and a street light being the data and the keys and that they were looking for the keys where there is light and not where it is dark. It's from the Splendor idea that is flawed that you have the Kyoto Accords and California Canada in the European Union imposing carbon taxes on corporations and civilians and this is wrong especially if the data is flawed. Consensus by religious fanaticism is what climate change seems to be today with the climate change scientists and they only want to pay for studies that are in their favor. God help you if your conclusion is opposite of what they want you to find.
https://youtu.be/qUVAwp1x1hw

Interesting share brother Chip.

It is unfortunate that science has allowed politics and political agenda to influence investigation and observation to isolate and disparage science that is opposed to popular theories. it has been happening for centuries. The popular “science” at one time was that the earth is flat. Evolution as a theory has waxed and waned and even evolved itself into an entirely different theory from that Darwin had put forth. Some scientists have been especially harsh in their efforts to denigrate scientists who are also Christians and who resist efforts of non-Christian (atheist) scientists to claim various unproven theories contradicting Christian beliefs are actually fact.