"'Global warming' as pathological science"
Whether it's the health of the planet or of its human inhabitants, it seems we have to learn every generation about the pain and suffering inflicted when we act on improperly-understood "science" -- and, thus, the need to employ a cautionary, evidence-based approach to basing public policy on boldly-asserted scientific truth.
An article in the current American Thinker deals with global warming, but it's not my intent to explore the validity of the scientific clash on that issue, only to "steal" an anecdote to make a further point. Author James Lewis shares this story:
Trofimko Lysenko is not a household name; but it should be, because he was the model for all the Politically Correct "science" in the last hundred years. Lysenko was Stalin's favorite agricultural "scientist," peddling the myth that crops could be just trained into growing bigger and better. You didn't have to breed better plants over generations, as farmers have been doing for ages. It was a fantasy of the all-powerful Soviet State. Lysenko sold Stalin on that fraud in plant genetics, and Stalin told Soviet scientists to fall into line --- in spite of the fact that nobody really believed it. Hundreds of thousands of peasants starved during Stalin's famines, in good part because of fraudulent science.
He then provides context:
When the scientific establishment starts to peddle fraud, we get corrupt science. The Boomer Left came to power in the 1970s harboring a real hatred toward science. They called it "post-modernism," and "deconstructionism" --- and we saw all kinds of damage as a result. Scientific American magazine went so far as to hire a post-modern "journalist" to write for it. John Horgan became famous for writing a book called The End of Science, but never seemed to learn much about real science. It was a shameful episode. ....
Pathological science kills people and ruins lives. Such fake science is still peddled by the PC establishment in Europe and America. ...
Britain is even more vulnerable to politicized science than we are, because medicine is controlled by the Left. That is a huge chunk of all science in the age of biomedicine. But the British Medical Journal and even the venerable Lancet are no longer reliable sources. Their political agenda sticks out like a sore thumb. It was The Lancet that published a plainly fraudulent "survey" of Iraqi civilian casualties a few years ago --- the only "survey" ever taken in the middle of a shooting war. As if you can go around shell-shocked neighborhoods with your little clipboard and expect people to tell the truth about their dead and wounded: Saddam taught Iraqis to lie about such things, just to survive, and the internecine fighting of the last several years did not help. The whole farce was just unbelievable, but the prestigious Lancet put the fake survey into the public domain, just as if it were real science. It was a classic agitprop move, worthy of Stalin and Lysenko. But it was not worthy of one the great scientific journals. Many scientists will never trust it again.
The account continues on global warming, but my point is the broader one: politically-correct science may not be scientifically-correct science and relying on PC science (junk science) risks disasters like that engineered by Stalin. That's true for environmental science. And it's true for nutrition science.
