Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:13 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science" 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5821
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Climate science became institutional science;

Quote:
The fundamental problem raised by the identification of “good science” with “institutional science” is that it assumes the practitioners of science to be inherently exempt, at least in the long term, from the corrupting influences that affect all other human practices and institutions. Ladyman, Ross, and Spurrett explicitly state that most human institutions, including “governments, political parties, churches, firms, NGOs, ethnic associations, families ... are hardly epistemically reliable at all.” However, “our grounding assumption is that the specific institutional processes of science have inductively established peculiar epistemic reliability.” This assumption is at best naïve and at worst dangerous. If any human institution is held to be exempt from the petty, self-serving, and corrupting motivations that plague us all, the result will almost inevitably be the creation of a priestly caste demanding adulation and required to answer to no one but itself.


http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... -scientism

It's fascinating how secular ideologues are blind to this.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Flann 5
Sat Aug 22, 2015 4:18 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5821
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
CLIMATE CHANGE NOW A 1.5 TRILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... lobal-bus/



Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:38 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7130
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1100
Thanked: 2122 times in 1695 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Just like the last hundred posts on this topic... it has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is real and anthropogenic. So I wonder what your point in posting it was? Does it mean you're against hybrid vehicles or green energy? What other conclusion should be drawn. Stop trolling ant, it's getting real old.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
Harry Marks
Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:52 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Reading Fool

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2209
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 90
Thanked: 840 times in 655 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Although off topic, I wonder what the global value of the non climate change energy industry is? Oil companies, natural gas, gasoline refining, oil logistics, wars to control resources, etc. I'm sure it dwarfs $1.5 Trillion by a huge* margin.

*Pronounced "yooge" by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.



Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:24 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1577
Thanks: 1757
Thanked: 788 times in 634 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant,

We have taken steps to personally reduce our GHG footprint. It is still far above that of the typical member of the poverty-stricken society where I live.

We drive a hybrid car. Bought before electric-only was available. We have cut way down on air conditioning. We rarely eat red meat anymore, (though health reasons play into that heavily) and have even cut down on chicken. We completely replaced old-fashioned light bulbs. But the really big steps, like installing solar power, are hung up on the economic justification, and we would get to them much quicker if there was a proper incentive for it.

Since we know we are putting more CO2 in the atmosphere than the ecosphere can regularly remove, and we know the result is global warming and climate disruption, we don't have to have proof about every wrinkle in the predictions of results before we know we have to act to eliminate the problem. What you call alarmist policies are just ordinary prudence - no more complex or controversial than saving for retirement. (Are you sure you are going to get old? What if you waste all that consumption saving for retirement and it turns out to be a hoax? You don't want to be taken in by alarmists, now, do you?)

I think your reading of the science direct article on CO2 fluctuations is completely off, by the way.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
ant
Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:11 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5821
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Interbane wrote:
Just like the last hundred posts on this topic... it has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is real and anthropogenic. So I wonder what your point in posting it was? Does it mean you're against hybrid vehicles or green energy? What other conclusion should be drawn. Stop trolling ant, it's getting real old.



I've posted some interesting studies for anyone to look at should it interest them.
I am also sharing issues highlighted by people, who follow GW, to add some context (some have more credentials than even you).
Although said people may not agree with the "consensus" they are none the less part (or should be) of this ongoing global community conversation. If you don't appreciate it simply don't comment, or stay out of the thread entirely.

But we know why you are more apt to call my posts "trolling" and NOT call Gnostics Bishop's rants about him being a God, or calling hair and raindrops evil; you simply are a one-sided, biased moderator that will give a pass to people you like because they are anti-religion. Anti-christianity is even better.

One thing about Naturalists, guys/gals; they despise authority and ask that we "question everything" but they are highly authoritarian and do NOT LIKE TO BE QUESTIONED.



Last edited by ant on Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:17 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5821
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
LanDroid wrote:
Although off topic, I wonder what the global value of the non climate change energy industry is? Oil companies, natural gas, gasoline refining, oil logistics, wars to control resources, etc. I'm sure it dwarfs $1.5 Trillion by a huge* margin.

*Pronounced "yooge" by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.


I'm sure it's substantial. And I'm certain there's money to be had and lost on both ends.
Money will motivate people, including scientists, do justify most anything.


I'm certain your ancestors didn't protest much when coal brought them out of their caves and increased the well-being of their lives.



Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:51 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5821
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Harry,

Here's more on Thomas Kuhn. The climate change paradigm is mentioned.

Let me know what you think

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/06/23/cli ... uhn-86320/



Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:55 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1577
Thanks: 1757
Thanked: 788 times in 634 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant -

What i think is that the fabiusmaximus website is well named. It is about fighting a delaying action with minimal resources to try to slow the advance of someone they regard as an enemy.

I also think it is way wrong. They imply that there is something wrong with climate science because models are not always spot on with their predictions. The supposed 17 year anomaly is addressed here.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1344

Funny, climate science models did not predict the amount of volcanic activity. What is wrong with those scientists, anyway?

They also imply that mistakes or anomalies are proliferating, which is not true, or that the paradigm is somehow unable to address new information coming in, which is also not true, or that it is failing to accommodate new perspectives, which is not true, or that there is some alternative paradigm which does a better job, which is laughable it is so untrue. They wave Kuhn's name and the term "paradigm shift" like magic words, but fail to even make a prima facie case that these have anything to do with what is going on in the science.

If you don't have anything useful to say, let the grownups get on with making good policy.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
ant
Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:45 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5821
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Harry Marks wrote:
ant -

What i think is that the fabiusmaximus website is well named. It is about fighting a delaying action with minimal resources to try to slow the advance of someone they regard as an enemy.

I also think it is way wrong. They imply that there is something wrong with climate science because models are not always spot on with their predictions. The supposed 17 year anomaly is addressed here.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1344

Funny, climate science models did not predict the amount of volcanic activity. What is wrong with those scientists, anyway?

They also imply that mistakes or anomalies are proliferating, which is not true, or that the paradigm is somehow unable to address new information coming in, which is also not true, or that it is failing to accommodate new perspectives, which is not true, or that there is some alternative paradigm which does a better job, which is laughable it is so untrue. They wave Kuhn's name and the term "paradigm shift" like magic words, but fail to even make a prima facie case that these have anything to do with what is going on in the science.

If you don't have anything useful to say, let the grownups get on with making good policy.



Go for content and dont poison the well.

I tend to agree with you regarding the models being used as the sole purpose to falsify climate change. That may be either completely or partially incorrect.
However, what can be said about the hurricane hiatus, on top of the warming hiatus?



Last edited by ant on Sun Aug 23, 2015 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Aug 23, 2015 5:04 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4550
Location: NC
Thanks: 1987
Thanked: 2050 times in 1534 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Harry Marks wrote:
If you don't have anything useful to say, let the grownups get on with making good policy.


What would that good policy be, I wonder.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
ant
Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:59 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5821
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
geo wrote:
Harry Marks wrote:
If you don't have anything useful to say, let the grownups get on with making good policy.


What would that good policy be, I wonder.


Anything the EPA dictates, I guess.
They still havent fined themselved for spilling all that toxic waste on August 5

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55d8f1afe4b0a40aa3ab32e3



Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:34 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5821
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
We need to be cautious about just how accurate are satellite atmospheric temp measurements are.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -estimates

Say they did underestimate the temp of the lower atmosphere significantly as the referenced study suggests (although its admitted it's still not known because of the complexities involved). Why is there an acknowledged warming hiatus if it's allegedly hotter because the satellites might be saying it's in fact hotter? Sounde bizarre huh?
And if it is hotter than once thought, why are we experiencing a "hurricane drought"?
I thought there was supposed to be MORE storms?

And we're supposed to be letting "the adults" dictate to us what to do.

Here's where the alarmists avoid the question and insist you just listen to them rant on about doomsday and setting "good policy"



Last edited by ant on Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:53 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5821
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Isnt it a bit peculiar how after 17 years of a warming hiatus, a climate study has "proven" it to be a false reading?
How do the models match with observation?



Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:59 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5821
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Harry,

Why do you disagree (i assume you will) with this published study?

http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/stud ... 6PWWa.dpbs

Let me guess: because the science has been settled that solar activity does not have a great enough impact to influence climate change.

You will dismiss findings like these because of the power of disconfirmation bias.



Last edited by ant on Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:14 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your NON-FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank