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
Pat Frank says:
January 21, 2014 at 12:25 pm
“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.”
Nope. 90% of it might be crap; the remaining 10% might still be enough to produce useful products. “mostly correct” is therefore incorrect.
BTW, how do you know by how much we have been held back already by stagnant physics? Granted, we have mountains of Black Hole conjecture but… wait, did I say 90%? well… maybe it goes into saturation lately.
Frank although your concerns of all science being tarred by the same brush as climate ‘science’ is fair , They only have themselves to far to many played the three wise monkeys , and saw nothing , heard nothing and worse said nothing when awful ‘scientific’ practice was openly being used to further personal and political objectives . While others decided AGW was a gravy train of funding they too wanted to ride on.
While I think your right and it may even be that some support ‘the cause ‘ not because they believe but because they fear what happens for all science when it falls , its far to late now for remorse and for that we may all end paying the price and ironical no more than those that work in the environmental area outside of ‘the cause ‘
” 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.””
And it works splendidly: The IPCC increased the certainty from 70% to 95% from AR4 to AR5!
Next they’ll increase it to 97%, just give them more billions!
Personally I think they should all be transported to a barren island to found their own civilisation. I used to suggest they should be given tables to wait; but I was too soft on them.
DirkH says:
January 21, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Nope. 90% of it might be crap; the remaining 10% might still be enough to produce useful products.
Inre: Scientism
From Austin L Hughes
Giving Credit Where It’s Not Due
In his enthusiasm for science, Pinker credits science with everything about the modern world that he finds good: “The numbers show that after millennia of near-universal poverty, a steadily growing proportion of humanity is surviving the first year of life, going to school, voting in democracies, living in peace, communicating on cell phones, enjoying small luxuries, and surviving to old age.” It is hard to see how science is responsible for all of these benefits, other than those directly related to health and technology. As regards public education, peace, and democracy, the causal relationship is likely the reverse of what Pinker assumes. A peaceful and democratic political order and a literate populace create the conditions under which science can develop, rather than being consequences of science.”
Re: “… only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get … readers’—attention.”
KAPOW! #(:))
Most publishers are NOT true believers — they are hardboiled cynics. They just want to make a buck. And that is, so far as it goes, a good thing. Unlike a true believer who will do ANY-thing to promote “the cause,” making them both the greatest dupes of and greatest menaces to society, the publishers will drop it in a minute if there isn’t any money in it. And, once the truth is out, no more “straight” newspapers will be trumpeting: Giant Crocodile Found in Basement of City Hall. The wild-eyed “do-gooders” are the ones to marginalize; they are the main tools of the power-hungry and of the greedy. The Bolsheviks and the Che Guevarites and the (you name it) Socialists use such people all the time. And, ultimately, they enforce their coerced charity at the end of the barrel of a gun.
Here’s a fun example from 1835…
The Great Lunar Hoax
“{In 1835}, the readers of The New York Sun were filled with an excitement that speedily became world-wide at the news of Sir John Herschel’s astronomical discoveries recently made {using} his giant telescope at the Cape of Good Hope. … claiming {to quote the} Edinburgh Journal of Science:
{quoting from Roger Lancelyn Green’s book, Into Other Worlds}
The Sun went on to report that … Herschel had discovered … life on the Moon… .
Herschel {since he was a genuine scientist} was not part of the hoax.
Its author was Richard Adams, a journalist. His “scoop” made a fortune for the Sun.
{Source: fn 176 of C. S. Lewis Collected Letters, vol. 3, pp. 898-9 (2007)}
At least the only goal there was to sell papers. Not to take over the economies of the world.
Al Gore made a similar statement in a Grist interview about the need to exaggerate the danger. What these brilliant protectors of the earth do not comprehend is that once they admit they are exaggerating, all future statements by them are useless, because it’s not possible to know when, if ever, they are telling the truth.
They lie to get attention, then wonder why their message is not being accepted after their lies are found out?
What very strange people. Try truth, it works better.
Oh, so the truth is there has been no warming for 17 years, the Sun and oceans caused most of the temperature rise last century and if we ever mention this we’ll lose out jobs. Ah I understand now.
Janice Moore says:
“Here’s a fun example from 1835…
The Great Lunar Hoax”
You should have added that this gave rise to the term “Moonbat”, which is today the name of a legendarily crazy (*) Guardian writer.
(*) exhibit A
http://www.monbiot.com/2005/03/22/god-of-the-soil/
“…I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are…”
-algore
from Grist magazine interview
10 May 2006
Thanks for the constructive criticism, Dirk H.. Your wit is super, but, I couldn’t have added that pun for it never occurred to me.
btw: LOVE the send them to a deserted island idea; why not Siberia (it is essentially a “barren island”), to the Gulag Archipelago which their grand old man upon whose birthday they worship the Earth, Sta1in, made so popular, heh… . Hm.
Exagerating for the greater good is liking drinking heavily for your enjoyment. It works for a while, but then the cyncism hangover sets in. The public can only be duped for a short while.
Great quote, Mark (and your two cats, too)!
Quite the contrary. Whoever in Academia claims her research is useful, should be defunded immediately. Scientists are supposed to go for truth and nothing but. And truth is utterly useless. Beyond the fact, of course, that the entire modern world is based on spinoffs of this very quest. This is why it is a good idea to throw taxpayer’s money into the bottomless pit of science, but only if scientists are doing their job and keep a safe distance from an utilitarian mindset.
When in the year 1888 Friedrich Reinitzer observed that cholesteryl benzoate had two distinct melting points and on his request Otto Lehmann found it was in a crystalline albeit liquid state between them, they certainly did not have either mobile phones or LCD displays in mind, but were deeply interested in how Nature actually works.
Janice Moore says:
January 21, 2014 at 1:26 pm
“Thanks for the constructive criticism, Dirk H.. Your wit is super, but, I couldn’t have added that pun for it never occurred to me.”
Contemporary illustrations:
http://www.der-orion.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=416:mondsig&catid=25:die-andere-seite&Itemid=43
Thanks for sharing that great link (at 2:29pm today), Dirk. LOL, so thaaaat’s what Herschel saw through his telescope. Heh, heh, looks more like (given it was 1835) he had it aimed at downtown Paris, France.
(btw: I still, from time to time, chuckle at your “light years of letters ago” — perfect — riposte to that blah, blah, blah, guy — good one.
You are a fine commenter. In the words of a German advertising slogan I often saw in Munich in 1986, “Gut…. besser….. {Dirk}!” (hope I spelled that correctly))
Quite so.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/quite_so/
Corruption by noble cause.
Neil Young, David Suzuki, Al Gore. Greenpeace’s anti-GMO stance against Golden Rice.
For the greater good, all is acceptable.
Janice Moore says:
January 21, 2014 at 2:42 pm
“You are a fine commenter. In the words of a German advertising slogan I often saw in Munich in 1986, “Gut…. besser….. {Dirk}!” (hope I spelled that correctly))”
You did. And I have to return the compliment. Always good fun talking to you.
“Meanwhile, climate change modelling suggests the number and severity of natural disasters is set to increase. Completed last December, one of the recommendations is for a boost in meteorologist numbers.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/forecasters-face-heavy-weather-20120608-201py.html
=======================================================================
😎
Nothing like a financial collapse to get the sheople’s attention. Then promise them “green pastures” and they’ll follow.
(I have a different Shepherd.)
Me, too, Gunga Din. #(:))
And His promises are never illusory.
Dirk!
That is so cool. I thought you could not care less what I said! You are welcome for the compliment and danke shoen for “talking” to me. LOL, I think that the blah, blah, blah, guy DID swallow a telephone book (I can’t recall his name and I don’t want to).
Sleep well, dear German ally,
Janice
=============================================================
Many come up with something that is of value because it is of use to the user,
The problem is when the only thing they come up with are words that are of use to the user of the used…and they are willing to pay for those words. (Using taxpayer money, of course.)
Re: Mike Maguire says: January 21, 2014 at 3:14 pm
Way to shout it out, Mr. Maguire. No, you weren’t obnoxiously “loud,” lol, I’m just recalling how you were (ARE, no doubt, heh) not afraid to speak out boldly for the truth IN PUBLIC and admiring that about you. Keep it up! (smile)
Yup. For those pitiful climastrologists… ‘s rainin’ aaaaall the ti-himmmmme. They are NO DOUBT, singin’ the blues these days, and “HA, HA, HA, HAAAAAA,” I say.
#(:))
“Stormy Weather” — Billie Holiday
(yes, not “science,” but, taking a break to listen to some good music can help one keep on keepin’ on in the marathon-of-knowledge that is WUWT, I think, thus, it actually promotes science…)
Yeah, just keep on crying, you climate losers. Get used to it.
Before too many more years go by, you (unless you stop being a vassal to the Father of L1es….) are going to be crying for a looooong time.
Microsoft has a pure science research arm with a multi-billion dollar budget. Did you know that 2 years ago they developed a contact lens that monitors blood sugar without needles:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/collaboration/stories/functionalcontactlens.aspx
Your comments deserves far more analysis than I have time for but simply, Individuals and businesses outside of academia have produced extremely large quantities of science, and if they hadn’t had large quantities of their wealth creation taxed away, they probably would have produced much more.