Science, Strategy, and Climate

As we have noted before, one of the most basic principles of strategy is that we have to adjust to changes in the climate. This principle is based on the fact that any type climate--economic, business, political, or physical--is too large and complex for anyone to change. Climate, by definition, involves a interaction of every part of that environment. Even the smallest elements may have a huge impact. Today, science studies this principle under the heading of "chaos theory" and "complexity," but the idea remains the same in the 2,500 years since Sun Tzu articulated it. Today, the political "global warming" movement attempts to stand this simple fact of nature on its head. It calls upon us to believe that a world government of some sort could actually pass legislation that can control the climate. The consequence of acting as if you can control the climate are always disasterous. Science is designed to leverage the natural forces of nature (both human and otherwise), not fight agianst these forces. The "global warming" movement illustrates the impossibility of fighting against the forces of nature and how destructive such a battle is. In this case, the credibility of the scientific community is at stake as many within that community seek to change science into a political force. A great recent article explains how "global warming" politics are corrupting the scientific community. If you think that the scientific "consensus" on "global warming" has anything to do with science, read this article, which is the clearest and most comprehensive explanation I've seen of the many aspects of the scientific fraud (my word, not the author's) behind the "global warming" debate. To paraphrase an old adage: Poliltical power corrupts. In its desire for political power, this movement asks us to believe: 1. The climate is not complex but determined primarily by one factor, the rise in burning of fossil fuels. The most obvious factor driving the climate, that is, our sun, which is by definition "a variable star" meaning it changes its intensity of output continually, is not a factor in global warming. 2. This single factor, that is, the burning of fossil fuels, which involves literally every human being on earth, can some how be controlled by a sufficiently powerful governmental force. 3. This control of fossil fuels by worldwide government edict, which required the physical coercion of every human on the planet, will be less expensive and less costly both in terms of money and human life than simply adjusting to whatever climate change takes place. None of these three elements of this theory are falsifiable or even testable in a traditional scientific sense. Needless to say, if any of the above three points could be substantiated by science, rather than politics, there would be little need for this fraud. How then can the scientific community reach its "consensus" regarding the need for government action on "global warming?" The answer is simple. The scientific community, like the rest of humanity, does not operate out of a belief in the "common good." Like every other facet of society, the scientific community operates out of self-interest. Simply put, there are billions of dollars to be made by promoting the idea of an environmental crisis. And the sad fact is that there is not downside to doing so. No one will lose their license to practice science by promoting a "cause," that most others in in the academic scientific community are also promoting.