New Report On The Global Warming “Battlefield”
This report positively concludes that an alleged near unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), that “the science is settled”, is overstated. The report finds a robust, critical scientific discourse in climate related research, yet it highlights that a “consensus-building” approach to science might represent a politicised and unscientific belief in science – a belief in tension with the ethos of “normal science”. The report calls for a continuing questioning, critical, and undogmatic public debate over man-made global warming, and a clearer separation between science and policy. –Consensus and Controversy, SINTEF April 2013
By insisting on scientific consensus and the “elimination of doubt”, seeking to declare the science of AGW settled once and for all, and imbuing this putative settlement with highly normative and pejorative allegations (to question is “irresponsible, reckless and immoral”), the consensus approach clings to being (solely) “science-based”, but its position is at the same time implicitly in direct opposition to the ethos of “normal science”. It is not supported, justified or endorsed by science in its canonical expression, where science, based on thinkers such as Kant, Popper, Merton and Polanyi is seen to be constituted on continued discussion, open criticism, antidogmatism, (self)critical mindset, methodological doubt, and the organization of scepticism. –Consensus and Controversy, SINTEF April 2013
The authors of this paper recently presented their views on climate science at the Royal Academy of Belgium. No French or Belgian newspaper was willing to publish their assessment. Questioning the impact of mankind on climate change is evidently still a taboo in the French-speaking world. –István E. Markó, Alain Préat, Henri Masson and Samuel Furfari, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 14 April 2013
Since 1997, global temperatures have failed to rise. As a result, climate predictions and climate science are facing a crisis of credibility. We don’t know whether or not global warming will become a global problem this century. It is certain, however, that Britain’s unilateral climate policy is undermining the UK’s economy and is threatening its competitiveness. Benny Peiser, Cambridge Enterprise & Technology Club, 25 April 2013
Many blame the public’s confusion over global warming on a widespread ignorance of science. A scientific grounding wouldn’t hurt but it also wouldn’t help much — few laymen, no matter how well informed, could be expected to follow the arcane climate change calculations that specialized scientists wield. The much better explanation for the public’s confusion lies in a widespread ignorance of history, not least by scientists. We learn that history trumps science when the science is speculative, politicized, and at odds with reality. — Lawrence Solomon, National Post, 19 April 2013
There is compelling evidence that, across the disciplines, peer review often fails to root out science fraud. Yet even basic errors in the literature can now be extremely difficult to correct on any reasonable timescale. –Philip Moriarty, Times Higher Education, 18 April 2013
Mark and two Cats:
At April 24, 2013 at 11:43 pm you say of D.J. Hawkins
Please also accept my apology for having made the same mistake.
When D.J. Hawkins asked
I thought an answer to his question together with refutation of his other two falsehoods would resolve the issue.
It didn’t. He changed the subjects and pretended he had said other than his own words; i.e. pure trolling.
Until then I thought D.J. Hawkins had been misinformed so I did not recognise he was merely a troll. Sorry.
Richard
@ur momisugly Richard Courtney
April 25, 2013 at 4:46 am
Your “answer” was nothing of the sort. I noted in my rebuttal how Galileo’s observations of Jupiter’s moons didn’t bring anything new to the debate. Clearly you have a reading comprehension deficit or are being deliberately obtuse. Capping your answer with a myth doesn’t help your case either.
“Proof” and “evidence” are unfortunately used interchangeably. The one to three ratio in that particular post might have suggested where my intent lay, but hey, if you want to count it as a “gotcha”, fine.
Then your blather about AGW:
What did I actually write?
What phrase suggests support for the AGW meme? Do McIntyre, Eshenbach, and Tisdale do research in climate science? Do they look to empirical evidence to bolster their claims? Yep, I think they do. And for “wrong, incomplete or misinterpreted” could we point to Mann, Briffa, and Steig? Yes, we could. Your tirade exposes your incapacity to analyze what someone actually writes vs what you think (and I use that term loosely) they mean.
Why should the Belgian media pay attention to a lecture ? What’s the news value ? Especially when their “arguments” make little to no sense, often are internally inconsistent, or sometimes even are debunked by themselves ?
http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.be/2013/04/belgian-climate-pseudo-skeptics-address.html
Friends:
I apologise that my apology for feeding the troll encouraged him.
Richard
Ah yes, deflection, the last refuge of incompetent debater (to mangle Samuel Johnson). Perhaps you would like a shoe, and a podium to pound it on?