Climate change: bogeyman for the 21st century

Science has taken on a life of its own in modern society. Where once, in the supposed Dark Ages, people looked to clerics and monks for answers and proscriptions for the future, our modern society has empowered the 'scientist' to take over this role. But the human reliance upon faith has not changed. Whereas once the majority of society placed their faith in the wisdom of theologians, now the majority of society places their faith in the wisdom of scientists. Gone are the habits and tonsures, replaced by white lab coats and pocket protectors. But faith remains.

Science is a wonderful tool that seeks to answer questions concerning the natural world and universe. It is a method of investigation that continually seeks to refine its information by constantly questioning itself rather than letting a matter rest. But there is a difference between science and scientists. Science is an idea, a process of inquiry. Scientists are human beings, just as flawed and prone to the foibles of man as any other. Yet the ideal of the former has been bestowed upon the latter, transforming mere humans in the quest for understanding to fonts of knowledge that must always be believed. They are the modern day cleric, leading their flock of believers in the church of Scienthology. 

Just as religious believers in the past lacked the knowledge and ability (literacy, understanding of Latin and ancient Greek) to understand theological texts and so relied upon those 'in the know' as a basis for understanding things not known, so today science believers rely upon scientists as the source of knowledge given their own lack of knowledge and ability (vast sums of money, research laboratories, space craft), placing in the scientist the same reverence as was once placed upon the cleric. 

Faith has not been replaced, simply the receptacle of that faith has changed. 

That is why it is not surprising to see people staging protests concerning Canada's stance on renewing the Kyoto protocols this past week in Durban. They argue that the science is finished. The results are in and there is no room to question the 'science'. 

Really?

Despite the revelations that have come from the leaked emails from East Anglia. Despite the lack of global warming for the past decade. Despite scientists not being able to produce data sets, or having had their data shown to have been falsified. Despite the fact that earlier claims concerning AGW being a result of flawed computer models. Despite the reliance upon computer models rather than the scientific method of experiment and replication. Despite the admission that some scientists have allowed personal views govern results rather than the data. 

Despite all of this and the very fact that science as a process is never finished questioning (for that is the strength of the scientific method), we are continuously bombarded by members of Scienthology to stop questioning climate change science and the very scientists themselves. The matter is settled, if you question it you are to be shamed and abused. Just get on with your life and give us your money.

Science is a tool that works properly when employed properly. It helps us understand a great deal about the universe and its willingness to question, to not rest has been its strength. We didn't rest on the work of Newton and today continue to question the work of Einstein. So why should we stop questioning the work of climate scientists that have proven to be far more questionable than either Newton or Einstein?

Science demands that we question and remain skeptical, for that is what will drive the growth understanding and knowledge. Saying that the 'science is finished' is the ultimate betrayal of science.

Update:

I came across this list of things to watch our for when science is put forth to the public:

I’ve seen a lot of “scientific” panics ginned up from nonexistent or scanty evidence over the last several decades. There’s a pattern to these episodes, a characteristic stench that becomes recognizable after a while. I’ll describe some of the indicia, which I’ve culled from episodes like the Alar scare, the ozone-hole brouhaha, the AIDS panic (are you old enough to remember when it was predicted to become endemic among heterosexuals in the U.S.?), acid rain, and even the great global cooling flap of 1975. 

So. Here is a non-exclusive list of seven eight symptoms to watch out for:

I'll only point to one symptom in relation to my post:

Rhetoric that mixes science with the tropes of moral panic. When the argument for theory X slides from “theory X is supported by evidence” to “only bad/sinful/uncaring people disbelieve theory X”, you can be even more sure that theory X is junk science. Consciously or unconsciously, advocates who say these sorts of things are trying to induce a state of preference falsification in which people are peer-pressured to publicly affirm a belief in theory X in spite of private doubts.

Now compare that to this ad from the 10:10 movement aimed at combating global warming.