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 > Scientific heresy > Comments

Scientific heresy : Comments

By Matt Ridley, published 4/11/2011

How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience using global warming as an example.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 30
  10. 31
  11. 32
  12. All
As far as climate change goes ...
1. Look at first principles -
a. Lots of fossil fuels have been brought out of the ground in the last 150 yrs(coal, oil, gas), processed, and combusted (burnt)
b. by-products include CO2 and other gases (including H20)
c. This equals a small % of total CO2 produced each yr
d. CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere & processed by vegetation
e. we have deforested a lot of the earth in the last 150 yrs.
f. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased steadily in the last 100 yrs or so, at a rate not previously seen without temp rises.
g. It is well modeled & projected that nett CO2 accumulation from fossil fuel burning would increase atmospheric CO2 levels
h. It is well documented and modeled that when atm. CO2 levels rise, temperature rises too.
i. We are continuing to produce and accumulate atm. CO2
j. Temps have risen.
k. .....

Most predict the human race and civilisation would survive climate change, but there is likely to be effects on some regions more than others, based as much on geo-politics or socio-economics as anything else (which is often the basic cause of famine crises, anyway)

That is likely to cause hardship, and conflict.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 4 November 2011 12:33:32 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
There are a few things we need to face up to - the first is that unlike people, not all opinions are created equal. I'm not a climate scientist.

Neither are most of you. So before any of us make any grand pronouncements, realize that there is no reason at all why anybody should listen to you on this particular topic.

That's why I'm not going to delve too far into the science.

I will make one point that I'd like you all to consider though - it's pretty clear that all natural environments consist of a fairly delicate ecological balance. You pump too many chemical into a lake and eventually you reach a tipping point and life in that lake dies. If you wipe out one species, other species die out as well. When Mao Zedong initiated the four pests campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign) he asked Chinese people to wipe out sparrows, mosquitoes, rats and flies.

History tells us how that turned out.

So, whether you believe in man-made climate change or not, wouldn't it be prudent for us to avoid altering the balance of our global environment, given the stakes?

I can't help but feel that most people have just jumped on one side of the argument, instead of stopping to seriously consider this point.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 4 November 2011 12:40:40 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
I’m VERY glad to see this on OLO! And I’m much encouraged by the comments so far: I’d expected to encounter a barrage of apoplectic outrage. It’s heartening to see so many measured responses.

The whole project of dividing the world into ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’ is profoundly unscientific at its core. So also is the practice of bruiting about apocalyptic predictions without releasing the underlying data, methodology, and calculations used to produce them. So also is the publication of results without clear and verifiable evidence of statistical significance. So also is manipulation of peer review. So also is the careless way that bodies like the IPCC allow WWF speculation to masquerade as valid research when it suits their purpose. So also is the refusal of too many institutions and scientists to retract over-reaching predictions when presented with solid evidence that their claims cannot possibly be sustained by any scientific method. Worst of all is the dreadfully ignorant assertion that ANY corner of science is EVER settled.

Ridley’s six lessons form a splendid platform from which to develop a POSITIVE critique climate science. There’s no conceivable scientific objection to any of them. Lots of good work has been done, but it’s useless in practical terms because the overarching warmist premise is pseudoscience: ‘A theory so flexible it can' [and too often does] 'rationalize any outcome.’

Thanks to Matt for the speech, and to OLO for spreading the word. Maybe we should all forward a copy to Julia Gillard. In fact, I think I’ll do just that.
Posted by donkeygod, Friday, 4 November 2011 12:59:45 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
donkeygod wrote:

>>There’s no conceivable scientific objection to any of them>>

You mean like the thoroughly debunked fairy tale that:

>>It was warmer in the Middle ages...>>

Is that what in your view there is "no conceivable scientific objection to any of them"
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 4 November 2011 1:25:49 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
Turn right turn left, the moment anyone starts rabbiting on about the delicate balance of ecology I know I'm listening to someone easily conned.

Nature is most definitely not delicate. In fact it is ruthlessly ravenous, & will obliterate anything you or anyone else does, in a very short time.

What returns may be a little different to what was there before any disturbance, but who are you or I to say that is wrong, or bad.

I would love to take some of these ecological fools to just areas that were settled before WW11, & challenge them to find any residue of that settlement.

Then I'd take them to areas of the Solomon Islands, where the yanks fought just as viscous a war on the jungle, as they did against the Japs. It doesn't take long to see the jungle won.

The only place that man beats nature is where nature has given up, like the Egyptian desert. We are only now starting to find evidence of a civilisation about equal to the Egyptians in middle America, where nature was still interested.

The conquistadors reported millions of people in the Amazon basin, before they introduced white man disease. Archaeologists are only now starting to believe this, as they find the evidence. Of course they have to be careful how they report these findings. Greenies, & thus Academia prefer to think of the Amazon as pristine. They hate the idea of a civilisation of millions there previously.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 4 November 2011 1:59:36 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
Stevenlmeyer
I am sure the author would agree that the question is not “Have scientists proved we are heading for climate catastrophe beyond all reasonable doubt?” This is not the question he asks, or the question he attempts to answer. Rather, he asks whether the case for global warming is propounded in a way that is consistent with scientific method, or whether it is pseudo-science. He concludes that much of it is the latter.

I agree with you that the balance of evidence suggests climate change action is prudent. But I also agree with R0bert and donkeygod. Though I am not a sceptic, I am concerned at the pseudo-scientific way in which Anthropogenic climate change is often propounded, and the highly unscientific way in which “deniers” are silenced or derided.

This does not make the AGW theory wrong – there is plenty of legitimate scientific evidence for it. But we are never going to get the theory or policies right if genuine, rigorous, sceptical science is displaced by pseudo science.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 4 November 2011 3:19:27 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 30
  10. 31
  11. 32
  12. All

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