An article in the Sunday Denver Post caught my attention yesterday. It was entitled, "Scientists worry about conflicts with Trump." That title seemed very odd to me. How in the world could the King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have any impact upon the scientific community? Scientists, as I understand them, go about their business of making theories and then seeking to disprove those theories without any political interference whatsoever. I couldn't conceive of any possible connection between the scientific process and politics. I could therefore think of no way that any scientist should ever be worried about what the King of the SDA might do or say. Then I read the article and everything became clear.
When I grew up and attended government schools I was taught that scientists rigorously pursued the scientific process in a never ending search for truth about the world in which we live. I was told that scientists all committed themselves to something called the "scientific method" whereby they would objectively study the evidence involved in their particular hypothesis about the way the world operates with the goal being to prove themselves wrong. When, after repeated attempts to prove themselves wrong, they were unable to show any errors in the hypothesis that had been proposed they would advance that hypothesis as a theory for other scientists to attempt to disprove. If their scientific peers were incapable of disproving the theory they had advanced it would become scientific truth and remain in that category until someone was able to show why the theory was wrong. My how things have changed.
The scientific method today is the exact opposite of what it used to be. Today pseudo-scientists cook up wild theories about the way the world functions and then run out in search of data to prove themselves correct. They are not above cooking the data in order to get results that confirm their frequently incorrect theories. The theory of anthropocentric global warming, now so strongly alleged to be fact that anyone who denies it is deemed a scientific heretic, is a case in point. In the old days science was often in bed with profit seeking corporations. Junk science that did not lead to valuable scientific information would not be funded. I considered that to be a good thing. Limited financial resources forced scientists to pursue things that could actually be determined to be true or false and that would actually help mankind. Then government got involved and everything changed for the worse.
Do you know why "scientists" are so afraid of King Donnie? The answer is simple. These pseudo-scientists are being paid with taxpayer dollars to study things that support the beliefs of career politicians and their constituents. They have a vested interest in discovering scientific "truth" that the politicians who pay them want them to find. And guess what? They always find it! Man-caused global warming is a perfect example of this symbiotic relationship. Many very loud mouthed people believe in the religion of global warming. Without exception, all of them are committed to statism. That plays perfectly into the hands of career politicians who pander to them in exchange for their votes.
The article mentioned above went on to say that the harmful effects of King Donnie could potentially be worse than the impact of former King George II. Why King Obama was not defined as a king who did harm to the scientific community was not described, although I think we can all figure out why on our own. It is about money, as it always is. In this case it is about taxpayer money being funneled to politically connected "scientists" who then labor mightily to come up with "truth" that pleases the politicians and keeps them in high paying jobs
The Union of Concerned Scientists (I wonder what they are concerned about?) has organized a march to protest King Donnie. According to a statement issued by the group, "from the muzzling of scientists and government agencies, to the immigration ban, the delegation of scientific data and the de-funding of public science, the erosion of our institutions of science is a dangerous direction for our country." How King Donnie is muzzling scientists was not described. Why the immigration ban has anything to do with science was not explained. The phrase "the delegation of scientific data" was not defined. I have no idea what it means but it sure sounds ominous. What I do understand from the above stated reason for concerned scientists to take the streets in protest is the fact that they are angry they might be kicked off the government dole. Boo Hoo for them.
Could someone please explain why government should be in the business of funding science or scientists? Could someone please give me an argument that would prove the common, but erroneous, belief that somehow government paid scientists are "objective" while those scientists paid by profit seeking corporations are not? It seems to me that the exact opposite is the case. Scientists paid with my tax dollars have a powerful incentive to find scientific truths that conform to what their handlers want them to find and that will keep the funds flowing to them. Indeed, the more hysterical and extreme the scientific truths they find the more likely they are to see increases in funding and more generous retirement plans for their futures. Corporate financed scientists, on the other hand, must deliver the goods or be out of their jobs. Coming up with fashionable things to be "concerned" about, with no solid scientific proof in support of those concerns, will not keep the funds flowing to them.
Government has no constitutional or moral reason to be involved in the scientific process. All taxpayer dollars spent on scientific research are spent immorally. All scientific research should be funded by the private sector, with no exceptions to that rule. There is nothing worse than the conclusions drawn from taxpayer financed junk science because the never ending stream of funds allows them to perpetually perpetrate the worst sort of scientific hoaxes upon the poor citizens of the SDA. Anthropocentric global warming is the best example of this terrible truth. Is there anyone in the world who truly believes the theory of man-caused global warming would still be discussed if taxpayer funding for research disappeared? I rest my case.