The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Good planets are hard to come by > Comments

Good planets are hard to come by : Comments

By Andrew Glikson, published 9/2/2010

Climate change: the international system required to protect the lives of future generations is failing.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Raredog, I read your links (and the comments), thanks.

Following ‘post normal science’ to its logical conclusion, progress will be stifled by over indulging the ‘wannabe’ scientists, or “extended” peers. Don’t get me wrong, there are some very well intentioned people out there, but they are not specialists.

Behind the scenes there are very many specialists, all contributing to how humanity should best adapt to a changing climate, and how best to live in a more sustainable way. These people are not stupid, and they really do come from all sides of the spectrum.

In this ‘age’ of computer technology, many people have access to a vast amount of information, and that’s great. But just because they have access, doesn’t mean they understand the information they have access to. For example, testing and applying complex technical nuances related to the adjustments required to the satellite temperature record following a re-calibration of ‘on-board’ instrumentation due to a changing orbit or aging sensor.

Re: Smith - yes, some people completely misunderstand the processes and data provided by the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) – what they do, and how they do it.

There is a concerted campaign by certain groups and individuals in very high places (with vast amounts of power, money and control) to maintain the status-quo. Indeed, there is intense lobbying and funding going on to ensure the required action in tackling human induced climate change is thwarted.

Fossil-fuel based energy and automobile industry lobbies, right-wing think tanks, etc, have been known and shown to distort evidence, doctor reports and otherwise cast doubt on the science. Big tobacco did the same and produced many “scientific” studies “disproving” the link between smoking and high incidence of lung cancer.

Not all climate sceptics or media reports fall into this category, of course, and several valid issues have no doubt been highlighted. But the increasingly shrill chorus in the current campaign against the IPCC and its core findings does 'smack' of orchestration. If it walks like a duck, smell like a duck and behaves like a duck - it probably is a duck.
Posted by qanda, Monday, 15 February 2010 11:08:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that Quanda. This issue stirs up a hornets nest in all sectors, raises flight or fight impulses, hackles on the alpha males or elicits the impulse to play ostrich when something seems that scary, and they feel so helpless, or can not comprehend living otherwise than their current gadget-augmented comfort. As I've argued previously, most if not all, scientists and 'green' commentators on climate issues are genuine, decent human beings deeply concerned about how to live sustainably and with equanimity.
However, now I want to extend an olive branch to the opposition. I think I know one of the critics on this site - Jon J - and they are also a genuine decent human being and a scientist of integrity whom, and I'm speculating here, has been driven into this cynical position through overexposure to less than commendable 'green' tactics.
So I urge those working on all facets of the climate change agenda to chill on the warrior stuff, stay genuine and decent, and treat everyone else as you'd wish to be treated - we're all in this boat together. So you don't need to ask, as the boy in 'The Road' does, "Are we still the Good Guys"?
Posted by Dr Merlyn, Monday, 15 February 2010 12:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many thanks for your considered reply qanda, and also to Dr Merlyn for his comments. Whilst there are some aspects of post-normal science that I like I do not support the notion per se, especially the idea that "in post-normal science, the maintenance and enhancement of quality, rather than the establishment of factual knowledge, is the key task of scientists".

This comment, in my mind, is not what science is about (even though quality is not defined) but I suspect it is this notion that has driven climate science to rely so much on modelling, projections and conjecture. If the IPCC reports had suggested these "grey" notions (for instance, the timing of the melting of the Himalayan glaciers) were only possibilities as a part of post normal science, rather than implying that the science was settled at the 90% plus confidence level, then they might not be having to fight a rear guard action. Unfortunately, catastrophic climate science was sold to the public as hard normal science, which now leaves its practitioners in the unenviable position of fighting for their reputations and careers if they do not wish to be seen as part of a fraudulent process.

Judging by the coverage Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia’s CRU, has had in the British "Daily Mail" over the weekend then it is only going to get messier and messier. Eventually our mainstream media is going to have to start asking these hard questions too, especially as the post normal science notions of catastrophic climate change have penetrated so deeply our institutions and political discourse. Continued.
Posted by Raredog, Monday, 15 February 2010 2:26:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued: Regarding your comment about "a concerted campaign by certain groups and individuals in very high places", I think that cuts both ways – self interest and preservation will always take precedence. Dr Merlyn’s "genuine decent human being[s]" are found on both sides of the equation. Both sides, I think, have been used, in the post normal science context, as part of a Hegelian dialectic to introduce a global carbon trading market, initially.

In the March 21, 2007 edition of "The Australian" Paul Kelly wrote about then British Chancellor Gordon Brown: "My ambition is to build a global carbon market founded on the EU emissions trading scheme and centred in London" to which Kelly adds, "The bill will create statutory carbon budgets that will be managed "with the same prudence and discipline" as financial budgets. For Brown, the carbon will be counted like the pound sterling."

Kelly summarises this position as the "debate is no longer just about the environment. It is about economics, culture, ideology and foreign policy. The old debate about climate change believers and sceptics is dead (being kept alive only for political gain). The new debate is about policy solutions."

In the world of post-normal science with its "extended facts" and reliance on "grey literature" Paul Kelly stays on message. Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, quoted in "The Guardian" newspaper sums it up best by saying that, "…'self-evidently' dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking . . . scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence." Readers can draw their own conclusions.
Posted by Raredog, Monday, 15 February 2010 2:26:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looks like this conversation has exhausted itself, so this is just a postscript if anyone reads through - I was mistaken and the 'jon j' on this topic is not the one I know.
Posted by Dr Merlyn, Thursday, 18 February 2010 9:52:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doc Merlyn (welcome to OLO)

You have quals in adult education? Why not join the thread

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10060

and add your tuppence there?

I can't help but feel there is a growing anti-science movement out there. If we can't educate the adults, how can we be expected to educate those that follow in their footsteps?
Posted by qanda, Thursday, 18 February 2010 10:22:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy