Why the Scientocracy Won't Work

Regular readers of SHS know that I am critical of the trend to let "the scientists" decide what is ethical and what our public policies should be. That not only subverts science by mutating it into an ideology or social movement rather than a method (scientism), but is nuts because scientific "facts" often change at breakneck speed.

Example: A new report from Australian astronomers warning of global cooling. From the story:

The study's lead author, Ian Wilson, explains further, "[The paper] supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 - 30 years."

According to Wilson, the result is a strong, rapid pulse of global cooling, "On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by 1 - 2 C."

A 2 C drop would be twice as large as all the warming the earth has experienced since the start of the industrial era, and would be significant enough to impact global agriculture output.

Screenwriter William Goldman once famously said about Hollywood, "Nobody knows anything." To some (obviously, not literal) degree, that is--and should be--true about science because otherwise new and novel theories will never be explored. Still, this story that utterly pierces the global warming meme is a caveat against confusing the current scientific consensuses, which are always subject to change, with truth.

Scientocracy Alert: Either Accept the "Scientific Consensus" or Go to Jail

This is not a post about the realities--or lack thereof--of man-caused global warming. It is about the rising hubris of "the scientists" who seem to think they are entitled to rule the world.

NASA scientist James Hanson has called for the jailing of oil executives for "crimes against nature" for being global warming deniers. From the story:

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress--in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming--to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

There's no such thing as a high crime against nature and crimes against humanity are defined by treaties. But why let that stop Hanson? He is being defied and it ticks him off. Moreover, he sounds like a theocrat urging that the leaders of the nonbelievers to be tried for blasphemy: Go against our beliefs, and you are a criminal. I sure know who I don't want in charge.