Is It Imperative to Trust Scientists?

Regarding the charge that it is ignorant of Americans not to trust scientists, I reprint a portion of a comment made earlier by Robert Coble which goes straight to the heart of that issue:

"Consider the impending extinction of the polar bears...

Here's a link to an article claiming that the polar bear population is actually - unknown.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html

Here's the "money quote" from an impending report. It will be buried as a footnote, apparently.

Here is the statement that the PBSG proposes to insert as a footnote in their forthcoming Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan draft:

“As part of past status reports, the PBSG [Polar Bear Specialist Group; thank goodness it was NOT the Polar Bear Scientismist Group!] has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations. Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

Yet, with nary a public peep from the PBSG, the "global climate change" alarmists have been using the rapid decline in polar bear populations to support their contention that we are teetering on the brink of a global disaster, requiring the immediate assumption of global autocratic power (of course, by those supporting global climate change) in order to "save" the endangered polar bears."

The climate issue has been fraught with intellectual malpractice and fraud from the start. It would be intellectually irresponsible to believe anything emanating from this segment of "science" until the data from the earth itself can be compared with the data from the computer models (failing in preliminary results). Further, science which has social progressive overtones must always be kept at abeyance until all the data, from all actual results (not computer programs) are finalized and thoroughly checked (independently) for accuracy. That is how science earns the credit of being "objective", not by demanding wealth transfer based on computer programs.

Science has limitations; scientists are humans with limitations and possibly, agendas. To demand that they be trusted is to elevate them to the status of secular sainthood, within the religion of Scientism.