Denying climate change is a matter of pride to those who embrace the idea of 'minimal anthropogenic responsibility for climate change'. Their argument fundamentally rest on the premise that climate change is a natural phenomena; that there is nothing unusual about the current fluctuations in the Earth's climate, and that whilst there might come a time when humanity poses a threat to the climate, the facts are not currently on the side of politically-motivated scientists and liberal media commentators.
The reasons why I do not support such assertions are:
1. Many such assertions have proven false in the past. i.e. Dire warnings of asteroid impacts, ice ages, so climate change needs to be treated with some suspicion.
2. Many scientists and journalists base the 'irrefutability' of the evidence - not on science - but the popularity of the hypothesis among scientists. Its not even all scientists, but that does not even matter. Its a clan of politically-motivated scientists. The problem with this is that science is a question for decade, not opinion polls. This is particularly important when you consider that probably only 3-5% of scientists are critical thinkers. The vast majority will perform science which will not contribute to the world. i.e. They are malfunctioning bureaucrats supported by similarly hopeless tenured professors who helped them get a PhD because they felt sorry for them, and they make them look good. That is the more typical climate for 'scientific advancement' in the more academic universities, and is unquestionably better in the more applied unversities. They are not all useless.
Now let us turn our attention to the journalist who incited this article - Ross Gittins, the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald with his 'beat up' on education. i.e. 'Beat a stick and they will come'. He draws an analogy in his story of climate change deniers. Gittins says:
"That's why climate change-denying scientists get a degree of media publicity out of proportion to the relevance of their qualifications or how representative they are of scientific opinion".
Actually the amount of media recognition given to 'climate change deniers' is pitifully small. Despite that a lot of people in the community remain suspicious or cynical about such claims. Is it because it has always has a political edge, because the evidence does not stack up, because the alternative hypothesis of solar flare variations have yet to be fully investigated (despite offering good correlation).
How is it that this journalist - who is an economist - can be so sure that the science stacks up if they have no training in climatology. After all the whole basis for his argument is that 'deniers' are unqualified. He also implies that science ought to be a media contest, so there is a great lack of intelligence in his assertion.
I guess he is one of the economists who think all people are rational so the media is very effective at determining the truth of arguments. Well, the profession of economics is in disrepute, and economists of this calibre are clearly to blame.
Scientific trials by media are not the way science ought to be conducted. There is a lot of bad science around, and it is being used by politicians to adopt a broader-based tax on energy. Of course they dare not do that if it cripples the economy...but don't give them that power.
---------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
No comments:
Post a Comment