Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Oh dear. They may have murdered AGW

Rate this topic


Maarten
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Obama is going to Copenhagen and made a pledge:

The White House announced yesterday that the President would be attending the conference and will unveil plans for the US to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020. He will also say that the target will rise to 30% by 2025, and 42% by 2030.

Source

I am hoping that the projections that something like that would never pass both Houses are correct.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is going to Copenhagen and made a pledge:Source
I think the deepest reason is the idea that sacrifice is good, which is so strong that when reality (e.g. leaked emails) shows that the pain will not bring gain, there is a desire to evade it. Of course, the sacrifice would be fine if it were limited to those making the decision; but, politicians are quite happy to sign us all up as sacrificial lambs.

Consider California, a state that has large fiscal problems. They are going ahead with state-level carbon laws. Their law requires that carbon dioxide emissions in 2020 be at the level of 1900.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Zip on this.

I've come to realize that leftists operate based on social pressure. Their entire apparatus is not based on determining objective truth, but on presenting their world view without concern for the truth. I don't think all leftists are extreme in this way, but those in power or the upper strata seem to virtually all be of this character. It's a world of second handers.

This is Kantian social metaphysics in practice, writ large!

If you understand this, then you realize why the truth never seems to penetrate. They will do whatever it takes to present a facade of being truthful, of course, but at the end of the day they are proactive evaders. If anyone steps out of line they get a bit upset. If anyone steps way out of line, they become vicious.

The speakers of the truth are their biggest enemies, and the pressure is all around. If you are inside and dare speak out, your entire life could come crashing down. It's a huge risk for you. If you stay in line, you'll get a treat and a pat on the head.

So, this makes it understandable why Obama said what he said and why Science magazine is doing what they are doing. It makes it understandable why the media are as they are. The facade must continue, because their world view must prevail despite the fact reality is never going to cooperate. So that's where we are in America and I suppose it's worse in the UK.

Actually, the leftists have a losing strategy precisely because reality isn't on their side, but the problem is they can take us all down with them. If anyone knows where we can cut the rope and let them fall to their doom, leaving us free of them, let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the leftists have a losing strategy precisely because reality isn't on their side, but the problem is they can take us all down with them. If anyone knows where we can cut the rope and let them fall to their doom, leaving us free of them, let me know.

The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. A. Einstein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a result of post-modernization of science. They call it post-normal science.

Here is an explanation (a must read!)

The article cites Mike Hume:

(some italics added)

the danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow…exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences.

…‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.

Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs…where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.

It has been labelled “post-normal” science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus…on the process of science – who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy…The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity.

The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identifies and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us…Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.

As a resource of the imagination, the idea of climate change can be deployed around our geographical, social and virtual worlds in creative ways…it can inspire new artistic creations in visual, written and dramatised media. The idea of climate change can provoke new ethical and theological thinking about our relationship with the future….We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize these stories in support of our projects.

Mike Hulme is the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change research, and Professor of Climate Change at UEA. He helped write reports for the UK Government, the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC. He was the co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters. He was recently named 10th most cited climate research scientists, between 1999 and 2009.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a result of post-modernization of science. They call it post-normal science.

Here is an explanation (a must read!)

The article cites Mike Hume:

Truly horrific quotes stemming from the Global Change crowd. They don't even care if they are right or wrong, just how they are politically in charge. Their so-called science is one big lie motivated to thwart man at his capitalist roots. Very evil, and that he gets away with stating those things and still is taken seriously shows how far down we have come when it comes to the special sciences. Of course, once the government got involved in the sciences this was bound to happen. I think more hard core physicists working for the government might even have the attitude that it doesn't matter if we are right or not, so long as we keep getting funded. Sickening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sophia, I did read about and post on -- to The Forum -- "post-normal" science a few years ago, but I'd forgotten about it since. The good news is that we can objectively evaluate what they do.

I found this video of climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball commenting on the whole "climategate" affair. I thought it was very good. He's a big time scientist and a "denier":

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this video of climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball commenting on the whole "climategate" affair. I thought it was very good. He's a big time scientist and a "denier":

Lord Monckton appeared on Micheal Coren show here in Canada in Oct of this year. Very good interview (in regard to GW - cts is a multi-faith television network and religous Monckton manages to insert few faith based comments - interesting how he does not see the irony. Anyway just ignore that as the rest of what he has to say is very informative.)

Part 1 (of 5) use youtube search to find the rest.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly horrific quotes stemming from the Global Change crowd. They don't even care if they are right or wrong, just how they are politically in charge.

I just watched Al Gore say the following on the Weekend Update portion of Saturday Night Live :

(it wasn't meant as a skit, he was being serious. it may have been comedy, but it wasn't funny.)

"you know what it means when I see my shadow?... it means the earth is dying."

"...now that I say them out loud, maybe my crazy ideas sound a little too crazy..."

"instead of science, I'm going with "crazy"...

(basically he was saying that if people won't take his BS seriously, then he will start terrorizing them until they do. ha ha ha)

Straight from the Kantian's mouth.

<Φ>aj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched Al Gore say the following on the Weekend Update portion of Saturday Night Live :

(it wasn't meant as a skit, he was being serious. it may have been comedy, but it wasn't funny.)

Al Gore is worth about $100 million,mostly from selling Cap and Trade certifications, and if Cap and Trade goes through, he will become a billionaire. It's an evil manipulation of the political landscape. Businesses are buying his certifications as an insurance policy against Cap and Trade -- just in case it goes through they will already be set up to divert the new taxes. And I agree with him that he isn't going by science but rather going by crazy :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a result of post-modernization of science. They call it post-normal science.

Wow Sophia. Well that definitely helps to explain a lot. I went digging for those two papers and I found one of them but it costs $31 so I'll pass on that. I also found a 2007 Guardian article by Hulme which has some more gems.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar...e.climatechange

In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage.

Two years ago, Tony Blair... [asked] for the conference scientists to "identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much".

This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking

He ends with

Climate change is too important to be left to scientists

So basically, if science and truth don't agree with the subjective opinion you desire, then they should be thrown out in favor of moral and political values (in his case altruism and statism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Patrick Michaels weighs in:

And for the views of scifi author, and longtime AGW debunker, James P. Hogan:

http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1173

<Φ>aj

Note: for many more anti-AGW, pro-science articles by this author, click the "Global Warming Category" link at the top of the page.

Edited by aristotlejones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I am not seeing is a person who based on the "evidence" was a proponent of AGW coming forward and eviscerating these "scientists" and proclaiming he no longer believes in Man-made Global Warming.

When that starts to happen, then we will know that this has had an effect. For now I'm afraid this is nothing more than a bunch of people saying louder than ever "I told you so" to other people who are nodding more vigorously than ever. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I learn about Post-Normal Science, the more I get the idea it is a fanciful way for scientists to rationalize spitting out the answers the political pressure wants to hear in lieu of fact or truth. It seems like it was dreamed up specifically because of the conflict between objectivity ("value-free" they say) and public govt. policy being tied to science and funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I learn about Post-Normal Science, the more I get the idea it is a fanciful way for scientists to rationalize spitting out the answers the political pressure wants to hear in lieu of fact or truth. It seems like it was dreamed up specifically because of the conflict between objectivity ("value-free" they say) and public govt. policy being tied to science and funding.

Bold mine. They are not scientists! Science requires a specific method, and if that method is not being applied then these people are no better than priests with incantations pretending to have knowledge.

How do you know that she's a witch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This hasn't deterred British health ministers, now proposing that all doctors must advise their patients on how they can reduce their "carbon footprint."

Doctors should give patients advice on climate change, a leading body of medical experts has claimed.

The Climate and Health Council, a collaboration of worldwide health organisations including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Society of Medicine, believes there is a direct link between climate change and better health.

Their controversial plan would see GPs and nurses give out advice to their patients on how to lower their carbon footprint.

The Council believes that climate change “threatens to radically undermine the health of all peoples”.

[...]

It believes health professionals are ideally placed to promote change because “we have ethical responsibility…..as well as the capacity to influence people and our political representatives to take the necessary action”.

[...]

Prof Mike Gill, from the University of Surrey, who co-chairs the Climate and Health Council, outlined the plans for the medical journal The Lancet last week.

He said: "Climate change already affects human health, creating problems that will increase if no action is taken.

"Overall, what is good for tackling climate change is good for health. Who better to spell out this message than health professionals?

[...]

He added: "To maximise our influence, we must be much clearer than we have been to the public, to patients, and to politicians about the risks of doing nothing and the benefits to individual and global health of effective action."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...o-patients.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This hasn't deterred British health ministers, now proposing that all doctors must advise their patients on how they can reduce their "carbon footprint."

"Doctors should give patients advice on climate change, a leading body of medical experts has claimed. "

I don't listen to witch doctors. This is how they should be treated, because this is what they are practicing. They are pathetic excuses for human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil Jones (Head of East Anglia Climate Research Unit) Steps Down

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down

(AP) – 1 hour ago

LONDON — Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.

The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...