HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
By Brooks A. Mick, M.D.
Aug. 16, 2006 Since I was a youngster, interested in science fiction, and interested in science itself, the idea of the 9 planets took root and has been a well-maintained lawn all these years, neither expanding nor contracting. The grass just grew there in perfect harmony. As a college student, I passed the Percival Lowell Observatory frequently. The big telescope was moved from there in 1961, probably because the night sky was too danged bright with all the city lights that had grown up around the campus. Lowell was the astronomer given credit for calculating the existence of Pluto, the last-discovered planet, because of some discrepancies in the orbits of the other planets, and lo and behold, the planet was discovered. Now it turns out that Lowell may have just been lucky, as the discrepancies he found were of insufficient magnitude to predict where Pluto was and how big it was. Recently a group of eminent astronomers gathered to discuss whether Pluto was actually a planet or not. The gurus of science were predicting that Pluto would be found wanting and that the roster of planets would, after all these years, be dropped back to 8. However--surprise!--the scientists created a definition of a planet which included Pluto in the family, but also invited several distant cousins in also. Now we may end up with 12 or 13 planets. This illustrates a point which is not surprising to scientists, but which confuses liberals greatly. A consensus of scientists today does not mean that they have discovered truth or reality. It doesn't mean that their current OPINIONS and theories will last forever. It doesn't mean they have reached ultimate truth. So it is with the global warming/climate change folks. I note that they have changed their "global warming freak" nickname to "climate change freak." Since it is no longer clear whether the climate is warming or cooling, and it si clear it has been both warmer adn coler in the past, they are going for the broadest possible catastrophe so they can encompass anything that happens. Whether the climate warms or cools, it will be George W. Bush's fault, the fault of people who drive SUVs, and the fault of--surprise!--evil corporations. That is pretty much the Red Queen process from "Alice in Wonderland:" Verdict first, trial later. Claim that humans are changing the climate and destroying the planet, and then whatever happens, whichever way the temperature changes, whichever way the wind blows, as it were, blame it on that conclusion. This seems completely backwards to scientists, by the way, who often aren't consulted before the political propaganda committees make their pronouncements. When someone claims that a consensus of scientists means that they have reached the truth, just remember that the consensus of scientists for many years was that we had 9 planets in the solar system. And until a few days ago, it was a toss up whether we had 8, 9, or a dozen. Who knows what the consensus of scientists will be next decade? Who knows what the climate will be next decade? Nobody. ------------ About the author Brooks A. Mick: Physician, still practicing medicine but retired from the US Army. Write just for the fun of it, but working on novel in the vein of Tom Clancy's politico-military genre. Email: brooks15@cox.net Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
