Peter Hitchens writes of Our Duty to Oppose the Warmist Inquisition:
“A person who drives a powerful car on short-distance journeys when he could have walked or bicycled – but who believes in AGW – is deemed morally superior to the walker or cyclist (such as I am) who does not believe in AGW. This small contrast demonstrates the absurdity of our beliefs.
“Worse, these modern faiths often lead us to act irrationally on a very large scale – crazy economic and power generation policies; dosing healthy people, even children, with chemicals whose supposed good effects we do not understand, cannot explain and cannot reliably measure, but which can be shown, by correlation to be associated with many very worrying side-effects; avoiding the need for major school reform; reintroducing parental discipline and protecting children from excessive stimuli from TV and computer games etc.
“What drives these measurably damaging faiths? What and who protect them? In the late middle ages, the Church was afraid of science because it feared that it threatened its monopoly of knowledge. Kingly power was afraid of anything which weakened religion, because it relied on religion for its legitimacy.
“Now, what do we see? Huge lobbies, which want state funding for their projects, or state contracts for their products, or simply want their failures protected from scrutiny, now seek to steer us away from hard, testable scientific truth, and substitute cloudy, foggy, untestable ‘consensus’ .
“It is our duty not to be frightened into joining this shameful retreat from knowledge into conformism. If these people admitted that theirs was a faith, and went to Warmist conventicles each week to sing Warmist hymns and say Warmist prayers, and listen, rapt, to Warmist sermons, who would mind, if it made them happy? But they do not do so. Instead, they ceaselessly attack (often in very nasty terms, such as ‘denier’), those who don’t share their faith. We wouldn’t allow any church to do that in 21st century Britain. Why then do we allow this Warmist faith to behave in this way?
“There is nothing ‘contrarian’ about opposing this new intolerance. It is deadly serious. And the most shocking thing is that the principles of science are being attacked in the name of science. Mind you, it was ever thus. Those who want to destroy freedom have always claimed to be its apostles. Those who bring war generally claim to be in favour of peace. And those who offer us prosperity are in fact the harbingers of bankruptcy.“
Click through the quotation to read his blog post in full.
This is well-argued criticism of highly public pseudoscience that is costing taxpayers dearly. It helps those who know about the lesser-known pseudoscientific hoax of ISO management accreditation understand how these cartels work.
It ought to work like this:
But the ISO inspection cartel’s thinking is more akin to this:
Just as eugenics has no cure for the dozens of de novo mutations that creep into each generation, so UKAS inspection cannot prevent procedural irregularities in the complex system they have forced on laboratories. The over-complexity is there to guarantee non-compliances, not quality. Fixing these creates the illusion that something worthwhile is being done. The inspection systems is just for “delivering confidence” at a very high cost.
Why have the medical royal colleges not spotted that absence of evidence of accreditation working is reason NOT to use it? They should not promote its use until evidence of inspectionism delivering on its claims can be produced.