2021-04-08
Dr Shiva describes the history of the Climate Change "science" - what is the difference between "science" and pseudo-science?
(A question that might also usefully be directed towards the Covid-19 pandemic narratives)
Science requires observations (evidence) in order to prepare a hypothesis, and from that hypothesis we may prepare a number of predictions.
The resulting predictions are then compared with new observations of reality, and if all of the predictions are observed to be true then that hypothesis becomes a theory ... until new observations come along that do not fit the predictions.
To confirm the theory and guard against errors, the same process must be repeated by independent scientists, working independently, in the process known as peer review. If peer review confirms the results then the theory becomes the "accepted science". A single properly discredited prediction is sufficient to discredit the "science".
Conclusion? "The science" is never a fixed truth. Or we might say that it is (treated as) a fixed truth ... until it's found wanting.
Consensus as such is not relevant to the process of establishing "the science" (even though the peer review process may establish a level of consensus). What is required is consensus among all the independent scientists who independently and diligently conducted the peer reviews.
Topical question - where do scientific models fit in?
Scientific models are an algorithmic expression of the hypothesis. They may be used to create predictions for the purpose of testing the hypothesis against reality.
In the scientific method, models do not provide evidence about reality. They create predictions which must be tested against reality.
Once the predictions of a model have been tested against real observations, and have been through the independent peer review process, and have been found to be correct, then the hypothesis that they implement may be accepted as "the science" ... until a prediction no longer fits the observations of reality.
So when our elites tell us that they are "following the science", are they following the predictions of a fully tested and peer-reviewed hypothesis (maybe as expressed by a model), or just the latest untested hypothesis or algorithmic model that may lack proper peer review? Are the "independent scientists" truly independent (ie: not sponsored by the same financial interests) and do they also work independently?
The fact that one or more "scientists" support a hypothesis does not of itself make it "science".
Dr Shiva explains how the world really works . . . through public perceptions carefully crafted by politicians, "experts", the media and others, beneath which we must diligently search out the real science from the fake.
Well worth your time, if only as an apposite refresher in how the global political system really works.
Visit Dr Shiva's web-site for his self-education pages is highly recommended!
Dr V.A. Shiva - "Scientist, engineer, inventor, educator" iconoclast (I added that bit 
) & "warrior for truth freedom and health".
