Chill!

[Blue Peter]

I see it the other way around. Why is climate science singled out as absolutely pure, honest and almost divine when all other science is ruled by dirty realities of politics and funding?

And yes, science has always won over religiosity, but in many cases it has taken quite some time. In the really nasty cases it takes a generation. People rarely change opinion, so for a new idea to win the carriers of the old idea simply have to die first.

Probably because it's the only one which is attacked - though I suspect if you looked at other sciences which are beleaguered in some way (e.g. parapsychology), you would find similar behaviour,


Peter.

[UndercoverElephant]

Your comparisons are a bit hilarious, and completely irrelevant. How come that you warmists can never stick to the subject?

It's bang on-topic, MacG. At issue here is the status of scientific knowledge. Science is not like an other sort of knowledge-generating activity, and because of this the results it produces in the form scientific consensus carry a greater epistemic authority than other types of knowledge claim. Put simply: people like you do not apparently understand how science works and why scientific results should be taken seriously, and not argued with from a position of ignorance or political/religious dogma. That's why I compare climate change denialism and creationism: they both amount to attacks on science itself, one motivated by religious dogma and the other by politics, ignorance and the natural human unwillingness to accept really bad news.

You have a very... eh... "romantic" view on science.

No MacG, I have a degree in philosophy, which specialised in philosophy of science and cognitive science, and a science-based history which includes having been Richard Dawkins' forum administrator for two years. My view on science is clinical, not romantic.

Such romantic views are only found in people on the outside. We on the inside know that we function just as everybody else - if there are funds to apply for, we will apply!

You are not a scientist, MacG. That is perfectly obvious from your posts, which are bluffs. You are pretending to be a scientist, and you are doing a pretty poor job of it.

Of course there are factors in scientific progress which depend on things like organisational politics, funding methods and human psychology. Thomas Kuhn proved that several decades ago. But the idea that what ends up as "scientific consensus" is being driven by scientists need for funding is propaganda of precisely the type which is peddled all the time by mainstream media sources like the Daily Mail and by vested interests who are deliberately trying to discredit climatology for political reasons. You are an ignorant liar, MacG.

[contadino]

To bring things slightly back on topic, in this respect, climate science is no different than any other science. As Chris has said, why is climate science singled out as being bogus because of these factors while no other science is?

I don't think it is just climate science.

Take a look at bees - pretty much all the work on research into CCD has been funded by pesticide manufacturers, and some people still show surprise when the results come back showing "nothing to do with pesticide use." Strange that the only independently-funded, peer-reviewed work on the subject (University of Toulouse) concluded that pesticides were, in fact, the cause.

And that's rather similar to all the research carried out in the 60s and 70s about the effects of tobacco - funded by tobacco companies.

Still, so long as there are 'scientists' around willing to put their names to pre-written reports in exchange for a fat cheque, there will be climate change deniers.

[UndercoverElephant]

Is there such a thing as the greenhouse effect (anywhere) or is it a pseudoscientific myth?

Did you get an answer, UE?

Of course not.

[UndercoverElephant]

Is there such a thing as the greenhouse effect (anywhere) or is it a pseudoscientific myth?

Did you get an answer, UE?

The choice of methaphore in the form of "greenhous effect" is not very suitable.

"methaphore"?? Hmmm... Well, that'll be some new organic molecule with one carbon atom then???

METAPHORS in science are just useful as tools to help people understand complicated ideas. They are not the guts of scientific theories.

In a man-made greenhouse, there is a physical boundary in the form of glass walls and a glass roof which physically isolate the atmosphere inside the greenhouse from the surrounding atmosphere. That is not the case in the various atmosphere models people juggle with. I dont expect any of the warmists to understand the difference though.

Is there, or is there not, a greenhouse effect working on Venus?

[MacG]

<snipp> You are an ignorant liar, MacG.

When coming from a warmist, I take it as a compliment!

[MacG]

Did you get an answer, UE?

The choice of methaphore in the form of "greenhous effect" is not very suitable.

"methaphore"?? Hmmm... Well, that'll be some new organic molecule with one carbon atom then???

METAPHORS in science are just useful as tools to help people understand complicated ideas. They are not the guts of scientific theories.

In a man-made greenhouse, there is a physical boundary in the form of glass walls and a glass roof which physically isolate the atmosphere inside the greenhouse from the surrounding atmosphere. That is not the case in the various atmosphere models people juggle with. I dont expect any of the warmists to understand the difference though.

Is there, or is there not, a greenhouse effect working on Venus?

As I wrote: I do not expect you to understand.

[UndercoverElephant]

Another romantic. Well, that is the world we live in, and I have to love it as it is.

You're sort of right, except that science does also seem to have some mechanisms which balance out the bogus factors, since, in general, science does seem to work.

To bring things slightly back on topic, in this respect, climate science is no different than any other science. As Chris has said, why is climate science singled out as being bogus because of these factors while no other science is?


Peter.

I see it the other way around. Why is climate science singled out as absolutely pure, honest and almost divine when all other science is ruled by dirty realities of politics and funding?

Again you reveal that you are a fraud. Climate science is not being treated by the people here, or educated people anywhere, any differently to any other science. It is quite clear that your opinions have been driven by reading other people's propaganda.

And yes, science has always won over religiosity, but in many cases it has taken quite some time. In the really nasty cases it takes a generation. People rarely change opinion, so for a new idea to win the carriers of the old idea simply have to die first.

This is true, but the current state of climate science does not fit this description. This happens when something revolutionary happens in science, such as when Newtonian-Einsteinian classical physics was being replaced by quantum mechanics during the first three decades of the twentieth century. There is nothing revolutionary about climatology. It is not THAT which makes climatology unusual. What makes it unusual is that in this case, there are profound political and economic consequences which follow from accepting the science at face value. The big lie here is that there is a massive disagreement within the scientific establishment about climate change. During "scientific revolutions", this is what you expect to see. What we actually see is a massive disagreement where the scientific community is on one side, whilst an assorted rag-bag of politicians, economists, journalists and ignorant members of the general public on the other.

Penny dropping yet?

[UndercoverElephant]

I see it the other way around. Why is climate science singled out as absolutely pure, honest and almost divine when all other science is ruled by dirty realities of politics and funding?

And yes, science has always won over religiosity, but in many cases it has taken quite some time. In the really nasty cases it takes a generation. People rarely change opinion, so for a new idea to win the carriers of the old idea simply have to die first.

Probably because it's the only one which is attacked - though I suspect if you looked at other sciences which are beleaguered in some way (e.g. parapsychology), you would find similar behaviour,


Peter.

Strictly speaking, I'd argue that parapsychology isn't really a science at all, but that is for another thread because it is to do with the metaphysical and epistemic underpinnings of science, and this discussion is all about political influences intruding into the debate.

[UndercoverElephant]

The choice of methaphore in the form of "greenhous effect" is not very suitable.

"methaphore"?? Hmmm... Well, that'll be some new organic molecule with one carbon atom then???

METAPHORS in science are just useful as tools to help people understand complicated ideas. They are not the guts of scientific theories.

In a man-made greenhouse, there is a physical boundary in the form of glass walls and a glass roof which physically isolate the atmosphere inside the greenhouse from the surrounding atmosphere. That is not the case in the various atmosphere models people juggle with. I dont expect any of the warmists to understand the difference though.

Is there, or is there not, a greenhouse effect working on Venus?

As I wrote: I do not expect you to understand.

Answer the f***ing question, arseshole.

[biffvernon]

Could we all just pick our favourite?

[emordnilap]

It would be very interesting to find out who employs our Scandinavian troll.

[contadino]

Could we all just pick our favourite?

OK.

[Andy Hunt]

I admit that MacG is succeeding in dispelling any doubts I may have had about this. Not in the way he might hope though, perhaps. Even if he is a scientist, he has already said that he is corrupt, so anything else he might say cannot be trusted. And of course it is in the nature of the corrupt to assume that everyone else must be as well.

[Blue Peter]

Strictly speaking, I'd argue that parapsychology isn't really a science at all, but that is for another thread because it is to do with the metaphysical and epistemic underpinnings of science, and this discussion is all about political influences intruding into the debate.

Fair enough, I was just trying to think of a contested area, where the contesting makes the subject behave in atypical ways,


Peter.