Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (
-   -   AGW to and fro (

AemJeff 08-16-2010 08:19 PM

AGW to and fro

Originally Posted by look (Post 175670)
Following links from your article, I found this:Read the whole thing:


I have two words for you: group selection. What perks do you think the scientists and those benefiting from the Green Revolution receive? Who gets hurt by the over-hype of the global warming story?


Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 175465)
The CRU email theft didn't show "malfeasance" on the part of East Anglia scientists. There have been multiple inquiries into this issue, and only minor problems were found. Among those, some of the scientists were found to be "'unhelpful and defensive' when responding to legitimate requests made under freedom of information (FOI) laws." :

Aside from you quibbling about what's required to show "malfeasance" how do you think this is contradicted by what you've posted here? Starting an argument about whether the content of an email messages (from a store of thousands) containing a request that you haven't shown even to have been acted upon, is sufficient grounds for a general charge of "malfeasance" is a bet you'd lose. There has been an investigation into this matter - something I've already pointed out in this conversation. Do you have information that was withheld from the inquiries?

You tell me, please, what it is you believe regarding "[w]hat perks [...] the scientists and those benefiting from the Green Revolution receive?" That's an insinuation for which you've provided no basis at all.

AemJeff 08-16-2010 09:10 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Action and Contemplation (Joshua Knobe & Eric Schwitzgebel)

Originally Posted by look (Post 175674)
Here's the most recent quote in this sub-thread:

So, Gore and Monckton are polemicists, which is bad. Hansen and Lomborg are scientists, which may be good or bad, depending on whose side they're on?

Please briefly point out the deep flaws in the Spiked article I posted.

Let's start with the word "scientism." It's an unearned epithet often used to try to trump scientific arguments with irrationality. Complaints about media coverage of science certainly have a real concern at their core. Science journalism is often ignorant, over-specified, sensationalized bullshit. But that's not new, and pinning the IPCC report to that observation is also ignorant, over-specified, and sensational. The problem has existed forever, mostly because journalists and/or their editors are generally not educated in the sciences, and because journalistic writing practices tend to aim for a low target - the assumption of a sophisticated understanding on the part of their readers just isn't made, for the most part. That did not begin with the IPCC report, and the IPCC report has nothing directly to do with the phenomenon. The article goes on and on spinning an entire theory about that nonexistent relationship, making huge unsupported assertions. For example:

Politically spun and politically interpreted, science is first made incontrovertible and put on a pedestal; turned, in a word, into scientism. Then, science is used to close down political debate. Finally, it is said to confirm the folly, hubris, selfishness and general dirtiness of mankind. Whatever our pretensions, we are now supposed to be pretty loathsome compared with the grandeur of the polar ice caps that now face ruin at our hands. And, in the same spirit, what mankind could really be doing with technology becomes trivialised.
There's not a single honest phrase in that entire graf. The use of the passive voice, avoiding any specifics or justifications, plus the overloaded adjectives, and a conclusion that has nothing at all to do with anything else it says. Not only is it bad writing, it crappy polemics.

By the way, I haven't said there's anything wrong with engaging in polemics. I'm political - so are you. We engage in polemic all the time. Lomborg's points are rational for the most part, by the way. So are Al Gore's. Both of them have faced accusations of cooking their rhetoric, and both of them are probably guilty to a certain extent. But the each have a point, as well. Monckton, on the other hand is simply a crank. I'm sure he has a fine grasp of the classics - but he misrepresents scientific topics badly. Here's one scientist's rebuttal to a speech Monckton made:

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.