Black Wolf Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 There's an Australian former geologist on youtube that goes by the alias of "potholer54", to discuss what he believes to be the media's misrepresentation of science. His targets include creationists, evolution deniers, and global warming skeptics. I am generally impressed with the guy's attempts to be objective - In this video, although he seems to be implying that the low number of (what he considers to be) qualified climatologists disputing AGW means anything, he doesn't do what most people do and attack their sources of income. He even admits he's not an authority on this issue (despite this admission, however, he has no problem deeming other people as non-experts) But I'm having a lot of problems with this video still. This video promotes attacking someone based on their qualifications, based on their academic credentials, based on their authority. The problem I have with this video is the notion that any subject of climatology, a science that is dependent on many other sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geophysics) requires dismissal by "authorities" on physics, chemistry, etc. You can have physics, chemistry, and biology without climatology, but you can't have climatology without the aforementioned three sciences. It sounds like a classic example of shifting the goalposts. Why exactly does there need to be an "authority"? Isn't there a better way of becoming scientifically literate without relying on the "Experts"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Climatology is two parts, statistics and physics. Anybody with proficiency in statistics can critique the statistics purported to be evidence for anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Anybody familiar with physics can critique the water vapor feedback mechanism which is supposed to leverage CO2 into AGW. The way to become scientifically literate without relying on experts is to learn math, logic and science first-handed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Appears to be a version of argument from authority: only the experts and specialists can know anything for certain. But he experts get published, and anybody, in any scientific field, whatsoever, will be able to understand the results, and draw conclusions. I am opposed to this kind of scientific elitism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 Although climate change has been blown out of proportion, the real fear is this: First, it should be mentioned that human beings (as a species) have survived extreme glacial periods (ice ages) in the past. If one were to occur again, there is no doubt that individual survival would be challenging. However, given the ingenuity and adaptability of those individuals who chose to utilize these qualities, there is no doubt that some humans will survive. Past evidence supports this theory. However, it is only those that are willing to adapt and think that will be able to get through a tough period such as this. Essentially, altruism would be a death sentence. The fear in climate change is not so much that the human race can survive, but that the human race cannot survive using the ideals that the alarmists value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Appears to be a version of argument from authority: only the experts and specialists can know anything for certain. But he experts get published, and anybody, in any scientific field, whatsoever, will be able to understand the results, and draw conclusions. I am opposed to this kind of scientific elitism. This is a bit off topic, but do you really live in South Africa? I was wondering if there were many Objectivists there. Unfortunately, this kind of scientific elitism is dominant in the scientific community. People should be looking for knowledge from someone who is conceptually equipped to deal with a broad range of topics, not someone who specializes and sharpens only one skill. The example this guy provided in the video claiming I would look for a doctor that specializes is a bad example that's not even based on the right premise, because I probably wouldn't look for a doctor who specialized way too much. I would probably even ask a physician's assistant before anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.