It also supports the position that Global Warming is based not on science... but consensus. Please take the time to read it. A small snip is shown below and the whole article is found HERE.
And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.
When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?
To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.
-End of Ramble
1 comment:
Michael was right on track. I truly wish that people would learn to think for themselves and stop following Al Gore over the cliff. And I just love the new WE commercials (http://www.wecansolveit.org) with Pelosi / Gingrich and Sharpton / Robertson talking about making a difference with Global Warming. The WE website furthers the kool aid drinking in their definition of Global Warming. "We human" has caused the problem with all our carbon dixoide emissions. Plenty of scientists believe that if humans we to completely, not cut back, but completely stop burning fossil fuels that the percentage drop in CO2 would be insignificant and not a factor for global warming. Face it, the Earth gets warmer and colder over time and man has little to do with climate change. Now to be clear, we humans should be good stewards of the environment and take care of the planet - that's a completely different conversation.
Post a Comment