Posted on 02/04/2014 3:02:21 PM PST by mwilli20
Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product. How is it that they can place hands over hearts and swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet?
... we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem [...] it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.
...
In short, there is more than enough uncertainty about the forecasting of climate to allow normal human beings to be at least reasonably hopeful that global warming might not be nearly as bad as is currently touted. Climate scientists, and indeed scientists in general, are not so lucky. They have a lot to lose if time should prove them wrong.
Garth Paltridge is an emeritus professor at the University of Tasmania and a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. He is the author of The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming. He was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research.
(Excerpt) Read more at quadrant.org.au ...
“Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product.”
A perfect description of it. A product.
1. Economists who encourage the hoi polloi to keep investing in bubbles long enough for their paymasters to get out before the bubble bursts.
2. IQ research
3. Research involving differences in capabilities between men and women
4. Research involving physical differences linked to race and/or ethnicity
5. Any research that concludes that there is such a thing as race
6. Any research regarding sexual orientation: whether it is a choice or a genetically or prenatally determined condition, whether people who engage in certain practices are more likely to contract certain diseases, etc.
7. Anything related to transsexualism
8. Anything related to nuclear energy
9. Anything related to "green" technology
etc.
And thus the term “political science” takes on a sort of double meaning.
And both of them are oxymoronic. Politics, being an art and largely unquantifiable, depends largely on CONCEALMENT of fact, the antithesis of dealing with reality. Politics concerns itself with appeal to emotion, as a vastly more easily manipulated characteristic than cold fact.
And “science” is never settled in the truest sense. Science consists of a series of hypotheses, or approximations of what may be the physical reality. Then the collection of facts that either prove or disprove that hypothesis are evaluated by rigorous and repeated experiments. When the information collected seems not to fit the first approximation, a new approximation must be constructed. The politics of the matter cannot be injected, as that would distort to some degree the logical deduction from the facts considered. Not can facts be arbitrarily excluded, as that would also skew the logical conclusion.
I worry about this as too. But not too much. The Junk Science Club only has two major members that I'm aware of:
Global Warming
HIV = AIDS
As far as I know, that's it. String Theory may turn out to be a dud but I believe that it is pursued in good faith. Of course I could be wrong about that.
Are there other candidates? Probably.
Peak oil.
And the list goes to 3.
Spotted Owl
Snail Darter
Atlantic Salmon
Bald Eagle
The Furbish Lousewort
Pressure treated lumber
DDT
Elemental Mercury
R-12 (freon)
Also Polar bears.
- Second hand smoke kills 40,000 per year (yeah, name one)
- Dark Matter / Dark Energy (The aether and phlogiston of the 21st century)
- Dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid impact (Where are the bodies in the K-T boundary???)
That is actually quite beautiful.
.
Eventually reality with rear it's head, but in the mean time many people will go around doing stupid things that will bring them some harm, but not enough to kill them.
You might want to read The Trouble With Physics, by Lee Smolin, for a negative review of string theory. Available for Kindle.
Thanks for that link.
We’re having some snow tomorrow so I’ll spend some time indoors trying to find my way around the site.
.
That's good advice. I have that book on my bookshelf just waiting for a reminder that I should actually read it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.