"It's intellectual bankruptcy. The entire scientific community is telling the world that it's the biggest threat to human civilisation. What more evidence do you need?"No Mark, what however is intellectual bankruptcy is to claim that something is intellectually bankrupt by saying that because lots of people believe something it must by definition be true. To dismiss something as devoid of intellectual rigour on the basis of an ad populum argument is the real act of intellectual bankruptcy here.
Incidentally, before anyone starts screaming "climate change denier" this is not about whether or not man-made climate change is either right or wrong. It's about the way in which those that consider it to be true persist in portraying the nonsense that "scientific knowledge" is about "consensus", and that whatever the consensus is, is a scientific fact.
Those people do a disservice to the past 400 years of scientific learning and discovery by peddling hokum arguments to the masses. Man-made climate change may in fact be right, however telling people it's right because lots of people believe it is right is bollocks.
17 comments:
I think you're argument fails by putting scientific 'fact' on a pedestal. There are many scientific theories that fail to describe certain circumstances but we scientists still use them because they are the best theories we have. The only reason why many of the major, fundamental and incomplete theories of science are used is because of scientific consensus. The theory of global warming may be wrong but it is by far the best theory we have to explain what is going on. And like many other theories it is incomplete and does not describe all circumstances. Scientific consensus is very real in how scientific research is conducted.
But it simply isn't true anyway. A study of every relevant peer reviewed paper between 2002 and the start of this year found: "Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis."
More here.
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER! ;-)
Joking aside, bang on as usual, Dizzy. There's a news report somewhere on t'internet that, er, reports that only 50% of scientists believe in the published "research" on MMGW anyway, so much for a consensus...
Great comment. His remarks match those of the `so called` education minister this morning on the today programme. Denial in new labour does not exist. Everyone else is blame because we say so!
Fenman
Yes, Dizzy, it's a bit like the belief that the Earth was flat - lots of people believed it, said it, worked on the basis that it was correct... er, then it all went wrong.
"The majority are always wrong" (Winston Churchill)
Ah! - but if it were right, then its confluence with 'Peak-Oil' and continuing exponential population growth would put humanity on the cusp of change - forced or otherwise - unprecedented in its entire history.
So maybe, just maybe, we ought to stop whistling in the wind about 'not-proven so business as usual' and get to grips with these issues once and for all eh?
Won't happen though. Like Wylie E Coyote, we'll suddenly notice when we're about 20 ft out from the edge of the cliff and about to head South at acceleration g - with no parachute.
I'm such an optimist you know.
And then using this assertion as the basis for illogical action and policy is pathetic - whether it is Tories, Libs, or Socialists doing so. Bjorn L is a god among scientists and policy makers should pay attention to the scientific fisking of the mainstream "science policy".
To anon.. I;m not puting "scientific fact" on a pedestal at all. In fact I;m kicking it off it and saying that science does not deal in fact but testable hypotheses and falsification. To make a statement and claim it is a "scientific fact" is quite simply wrong. I am not a believer in the Thomas Kuhn school of thought I'm afraid. "Consensus" may be used, but it does not make the consensus right, that is a logically weak argument.
It was also a scientific fact that thalidimide was safe to use.
Now ger-blogged.
Sabretache: "cusp of change - forced or otherwise - unprecedented in its entire history" - you what?
More significant than fire, wheel, writing, farming, money, industry, politics? I think not.
Dominic Lawson gave an excellent speech some time ago about climate change. He made the point that, even if it were man-made, the cheapest thing to do was to spend money on mitigating the effects, rather than trying to get the Chinese not to own cars. For example, yes the cost of putting a ten foot high wall right along the Bagladeshi coast would be expensive - but nothing like as expensive as eg knocking 1% off world growth forever. And it probably wouldn't need to be 10 feet high - the present reckoning is for a rise of about 3cms per century in sea levels.And some idiot recently said that the sea was rising in some places and falling in others. This is complete nonsense. The land may be changing ( South East England is sinking, North West Scotland is rising) but sea-level cannot be up in one place and down in another (ok, ok,apart from tides)
Fair point Dizzy. What started off as a genuine scientific debate has gone a bit media-mental and now you could be hanged if you say global warming isn't happening (which it obviously is, we're just not 100% sure why).
How did the Earth rid itself of the Ice Age given that man hadn't even evolved yet?
What is so hard about understanding that it is our life-giving - in that it gives life to every sentient creature and plant on our planet - sun that changes the climate, and it has been thus for millennia - long before man, and probably, long after.
"The theory of global warming may be wrong but it is by far the best theory we have to explain what is going on."
No, it isn't. It's actually one of the flimsiest theories around since there is no evidence for it at all. Twit.
DK
It's much easier for flight sim games to use a flat landscape. You might say this was a highly accurate computer model of a flat earth.
Recursive Computer models: near perfect data in * near perfect model = junk out.
Climate modelling doesn't have good models, or good data!
@verity: It is widely believed the Milankovitch cycle. This warmed the earth to the point when permafrost melted releasing methane (a more potent greenhouse gas than C02), reduced the earths albedo (reflectivity) and released more water vapour into the air. These effects and others warmed the earth further.
By adding C02 to the atmosphere, we are increasing it even more than the natural variations just stated.
Post a Comment