Coleman's 95 theses
John Coleman, one of the heroes of real science, has written an excellent piece at WUWT. He raises a basic question that doesn't seem to be discussed often.

It appears, as of now, victory, if it were to come, would be on a political level, not a scientific one. Just as “the climate according to Al Gore” has become the Democrat Party mantra, “global warming is not real” has become the rally call of the Republican Party. As a Journalist (I am a member of the television news team at KUSI-TV) I try hard to avoid taking political positions.

So I keep focused on the bad science behind global warming. If my team (There are over 31,000 scientists on my team) can make headway in correcting the science, then I will be happy to let the politics, environmentalism and alternate energy movement fight the policy battles without me.

Which is more effective, correcting the science or altering the political trend?

When I look for a historical answer I'm lost. Since the invention of modern science in the 1600's there has NEVER been a similar situation. There has NEVER been a wild-eyed apocalyptic cult, with fake scientific trappings, that took over almost everything. 90% of churches, 100% of schools and universities, 100% of governments, 200% of Wall Street, but only 85% of media.

There have been thousands of apocalyptic cults, a few leading to suicide for followers, most leading to disappointment and disgust. Until Gaia came along, none of them took over more than a small segment of society, none captured even one national government.

And there have been plenty of Kuhnian cases when scientists held onto an old theory after it was clearly invalid, or rejected a new theory when it was clearly valid. Tectonic plates in geology, the Bernoulli vibration of the larynx, the tuned-piano image of the cochlea: all obviously fit the known facts better than earlier ideas but had to wait for the older generation to die. But none of these had any political effects or political support. They were purely internal disputes within one branch of science.

And there have been a few earlier cases when political forces supported bad science because it helped them to maintain the egalitarian myth, such as Soviet support for Lysenko's inheritance of acquired characteristics, or left-wing support for B.F. Skinner's behaviorism and Margaret Mead's Samoa stories ....

Aha! There's the analogy after all. B.F. Skinner and Margaret Mead were the pet "scientists" of the insane egalitarians who have taken over most** institutions since 1948. When anyone dared to doubt that all humans are identical, they were told to read Mead and Skinner for "scientific" proof.

And what do you know? Margaret Mead also co-founded the Carbon Cult.

Why does this one unimpressive figure stand at the base of two holocausts?

I dunno.

If I had to pick a female of that generation to lead two massive quasi-religious movements, I'd pick this one, not a dumpy slouch like Mead.

To answer the original question, egalitarianism is fading fast in science but not in politics. Biologists no longer feel bound to make ritual obeisance to equality when they find results that show difference. MD psychiatrists appear to have cut loose from the dogma. But legislatures and courts are still roaring forward with Skinner and Mead, still ripping culture and society into primitive Stone-age scraps.

So: in the one relevant example, science corrected first, but the reformed science hasn't slowed the political juggernaut. Does that offer any hope for stopping the Gaian holocaust? Not that I can see.

= = = = =

** Footnote: Egalitarianism never reached anywhere near the universal coverage of Gaia, nor did it have the same religious fervor. Many governments and churches remain uninfected; Wall Street loves Diversity because it's deadly, but even Goldman never figured out a way to securitize Diversity Swaps.
  ¶ 6:31 AM