Susan Crockford writes
…commenter Brad Keyes at The Conversation defends the use of the “Ursus bogus” image with this astonishing statement:
“The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’—and readers’—attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”
More at her Polar Bear Blog
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Clearly “scientific uncertainty” is an assymptotic function tending towards 100%, but like the Witch of Endor, never quite getting there. The philosophical implication of this for mathematical logic is astonishing: a multi-valued logic in which truth (represented conventionally) as unity is absent!
So it’s that simple.
Exaggerated threat for more research funding.
Tulips are beautiful. We need support for our Tulip financial market.
“More federal financing” and that boys and girls is what climate science is all about.
And how do you get more?
Answer: With lots and lots of scary, scary stories.
Noble Cause Corruption by the Public Agency Training Counsel
In Romans 3:8 Paul had to address this problem:
Hollywood movies advocating this are particularly pernicious and destructive to our Judeo-Christian Western Worldview.
The classic vicious cycle, laid bare.
Dog bites man quote right there.
Time to defund all the sciences and universities. Let them start over and earn their reputations the hard way through actually providing something useful.
The more I read the more contempt I have for acadamia and ‘psyence’
The gravest threat to humanity is considered basically like a toothpaste to be marketed
There are also other words for people who lie to get money and attention.
And the rubber goalposts of what constitutes “science” bend again…
Gail Combs says:
January 21, 2014 at 11:00 am
Time to defund all the sciences and universities. Let them start over and earn their reputations the hard way through actually providing something useful.
The more I read the more contempt I have for acadamia and ‘psyence’
*
YES! This is the only way to cut out the rot and move forward.
The seduction isn’t caused the “federal financing”. Most scientists can earn lots of money, quite legitimately – in other fields, if they are willing to lie.
The problem is the desire for “political action”. Because it is good and noble to want to change the world for the better.
Yet how do you know that it is a change for the better if the costs and risks are all mis-estimated for the sake of urging action?
In other words, our cause is just because we say so, and if you can’t see it, we’ll lie until you believe us … and then you’ll pay us ever increasing sums to keep telling you ever more outrageous lies … ad infinitum … ad nauseam
Is this justifying what may be fraud ? It would be interesting to hear from someone with some legal knowledge on this.
Dear Mr Keyes, it’s called ‘fraud’.
So if the truth is good enough to justify the cost…. they wouldn’t need to lie. But since the truth isn’t good enough then lie they must…. got it.
Maybe we should exaggerate their funding, too. Promise one million, pay 1000.
Brad Keyes is a double plagarist. The first paragraph is Stephen Scheider’s famous quote.
The second is a reply from MONIKA KOPACZ, in a reply to Dyson, in the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12letters-t-THECIVILHERE_LETTERS.html
Being generous, I suspect he is a climate skeptic, and was bolstering the first reply, albeit without attribution.
In the name of ‘the cause’ all things are justified, don’t you know their ‘saving the planet ‘
@Kaboom 11:52.
Close, promise them millions then sent them a bill for same amount and taxes.
You folks who are extending that criticism to all scientists in all of the academe are preparing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There isn’t an iota of doubt that academic science — physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and all the engineering departments — have sparked the prosperity we all enjoy. That can only mean the science and engineering produced in academic departments is mostly correct and constructive.
I’ve been an academic staff scientist almost my entire adult life. Whatever their personal foibles — and they’ve got’em — academic science faculty are deadly serious about their science. Often, they have to kite their best science on the money dedicated to the winds of funding-fashion that blow out of DC. It’s very hard theses days, for example, to get a program dedicated to basic science funded. Some current DC fashion statements are “nano-technology,” “catalysis,” and “femtosecond.” Mix that all together, and you’re in the zone.
I’m presently at Stanford, and anyone who pays attention knows that Silicon Valley owes a huge debt of science and engineering to this university. All of our high-tech companies look to new hires coming out of our universities to import the latest techniques and understanding.
There just isn’t a better route to progress than curiosity-driven research. Corporations won’t fund that. Neither will most foundations (they all want to improve someone’s lot). It takes funded government agencies that employ ethical forward-looking scientists as grant reviewers. And it requires Congress to keep their micro-managing hands off. Most of the problems in academic science occurs because that last sentence is not followed. It’s mostly Congress and its imposed funding directives that politicizes academic science.
It is an easy but fatal step to extrapolate from the slough of climate science and the incompetence of the institutional leadership (NAS, APS, etc.) to all of academic science. Plenty of those scientists have spoken out against the corruption and foolishness. They’ve just been ignored.
Keep your wits about you. Emotion-laden attacks are what got us in this mess. Let’s not go from emotional scatter-gunning from the AGW crowd to emotional scatter-gunning in reaction.
The idea is to save science. Not to wreck it from the opposite direction.
Brad has, shall we say, a very dry sense of humour and I’ll eat my hat if he’s being anything other than sarcastic. I don’t think he does sarc tags though.
To think he’s a rabid alarmist would be somewhat off target but I’ll marinade an old boater just in case he’s on the turn.
Roy: Yes, that was my take as well (see above).
But he still should have attributed those quotes.