[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
| 
			Status: Not Logged In; Sign In 
Science-Technology Title: Physicist: Climate Scientists Are Giving Science a Bad Name Professor Garth Paltridge, formerly a chief scientist with Australias Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Division of Atmospheric Research, says that the behavior of certain members of the climate science establishment is seriously threatening the publics perception of the professionalism of scientists in general. Many climate scientists are much less sure about man-made global warming than they will admit in public, he says. But rather than reach out to skeptics in order to open up the debate and explore the uncertainties, they have instead closed ranks and rubbished anyone who disagrees with them:  Their high-handedness, Paltridge says, is redolent of medieval religion:  But the medieval priests eventually lost the battle. As will the climate alarmists because the public simply do not trust them:  It is not even certain that climate science qualifies as an actual science. Being driven by a political agenda rather than by experimentation and evidence, it is more akin to post-modernism:  Scientists  even climate scientists, Paltridge generously argues  are not generally wicked, idiotic or easily suborned. But they do have to eat, and almost all the research money right now is available for scientists pushing the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one. Also, the whole field is mired in such uncertainty that is quite impossible for anyone  whether skeptic or alarmist  to prove their position.  Climate science is an example of what Funtowicz and Ravetz call post-normal science in which the facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent. In such circumstances it is virtually impossible to avoid sub-conscious cherrypicking of data to suit the popular theory of the time. Even Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were not immune from the problem. It is nonetheless the case that once freed of the burden of having to earn a living or retain their tenure in an academe in thrall to the man-made global warming narrative, scientists do seem much more ready to take a skeptical position:  Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top  Page Up  Full Thread  Page Down  Bottom/Latest 
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
(Edited)
 I kinda figure that was the objective -- Further alienate conservative sheeple from Science, Logic, Reason.   Observe how effective alienating several generations from the facts of natural selection has been - with not only creationist opinions rejected, but millions of kids who "believe" they can choose their gender.   The result is a psychotic cultural detachment from reality.   {golf clap} 
  
 Well, politics and science are not compatible. 
 
  
 Reading the whole thing, it seems that honest science is not compatible with getting lucrative grants and research jobs and a big reputation.   I like the end of the story where the global warming stalwart retires and suddenly repudiates all the global hotting stuff. And everyone looks so surprised... 
  
  | 
	|||||||
| 
 [Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register] 
  |