We accept the science in our mobile phones without questioning it, yet many of us question what this same science is telling us about climate change!English Oxford living Dictionaries as: "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". It has undeniably allowed Mankind to understand the workings of the Universe to a degree incomparably beyond that achieved by any other method in any other age.
I have written a page dedicated to science elsewhere on this site. Considering how important science is to the world and to me it is remarkable that I hadn't written that page until 2020.
Technology: the application of science, has allowed the development of a great many amazing things (including mobile phones), some of them good, and some of them terribly destructive (for example, nuclear weapons).
Science is a tool that can and has helped us make sense of everything we can
see and many things we cannot see.
Science denial is a very selective ignoring of those things shown to us to be
true by science that we don't want to believe.
Science can tell us a huge amount about how the world works, but it cannot tell us how we should live our lives. Science is a very valuable tool, but like any tool it has its limitations; no tool can do every job.
We do not need spiritualism or religion or any other form of irrational mumbo-jumbo to tell us how to live our lives, what we need to turn to is ethics, which uses rational argument and logic to give us answers.
Scientific American's article titled "Donald Trump's lack of respect for science is alarming":
Americans have long prided themselves on their ability to see the world for what it is, as opposed to what someone says it is or what most people happen to believe. In one of the most powerful lines in American literature, Huck Finn says: "It warn't so. I tried it." A respect for evidence is not just a part of the national character. It goes to the heart of the country's particular brand of democratic government. When the founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, scientist and inventor, wrote arguably the most important line in the Declaration of Independence–"We hold these truths to be self-evident"–they were asserting the fledgling nation's grounding in the primacy of reason based on evidence.Trump, it seems, wants to throw this sort of realism out of the window.
The same Scientific American article stated that Scientific American has "strived to assert in our reporting, writing and editing the principle that decision making in the sphere of public policy should accept the conclusions that evidence, gathered in the spirit and with the methods of science, tells us to be true."
Trump, it seems, wants to ignore evidence and disregard science.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Business Advisory Council Chairman, Maurice NewmanThe Australian Abbott Government, elected in 2013, was opposed to action to reduce the mining and burning of fossil fuels and therefore also opposed to increasing the deployment of renewable energy in the country. Since then the Turnbull and Morrison governments have shown themselves to be no better.
While Prime Minister Tony Abbott himself (and most other members of the parliamentary Liberal Party) does not publicly deny climate science, PM Abbott appointed outspoken climate science denier Maurice Newman as the chairman of his Business Advisory Council. Mr Newman was reported in The Australian (2013/12/31) as saying:
"The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade, is crumbling. Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years."For a statement like this to come from a person in such a position is truly incredible!
"Religion behind the climate crusade"?
"Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years"?
Mr Newman is practiced in puting multiple falsehoods into a short statement. In January of 2012 he managed to get nine fallacies into one sentence about wind power.
If PM Abbott was not opposed to action on climate change why would he put
a man like Mr Newman in such a influentual position?
What Mr Newman is telling us"When necessary, the IPCC resorts to dishonesty and deceit" Why accept climate science?)
There's about as much doubt about global warming as there is about whether
the Earth is flat or round.
Reconciling religion and morality?PM Abbott is openly a very religious man; how he can reconcile his unethical stance in supporting the ever-expanding use of fossil fuels in the knowledge of the harm it is doing to the planet?
The fact that the PM accepts the misleading and dishonest public statements from his advisor without comment implies that he condones them. The New Testament is very clear in its condemnation of the pursuit of wealth and both Old and New Testaments condemn lying in a number of places, see Open Bible.
PM Abbott wants to stop climate change action, condemning the planet to irreversible damage for the sake of chasing quick and unsustainable profits. How Mr Abbott can live with his conscience, considering his Christian beliefs, is a mystery to me and must be to many.