BookTalk.org

Climate science became institutional science;

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.

CLIMATE CHANGE NOW A 1.5 TRILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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?