The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it.
–Karl Popper, All Life is Problem Solving, 1999
via Benny Pieser
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Good quote. I also like Popper’s idea of falsifiability. It’s unfortunate that Climate Alarmists are so caught up in their religious fervor that they can’t grasp the concept.
Good quote. I also like Popper’s idea of falsifiability. It’s unfortunate that Climate Alarmists are so caught up in their religious fervor that they can’t grasp the concept.
Sheer ignorance. There has been a vigorous and healthy debate going on in the scientific circles for over a century about CO2 and AGW.
SJT – if anything – it’s the denialist scum shrill alarmism that’s the concern. Anything remotely associated with AGW climate science will automatically cause the entire economy to collapse and turn the nation into a police state. Denialists are alarming in their religious fervour about the AGW.
A symptom being the recycling of blog bilge no matter how often the idea has been dispensed with previous, not publishing, making a hash when they do (we’ll never speak of that paper again will we), and the old classic – first defined by Nexus6 “make shit up” (my fav).
Then there’s that book – which has degenerated now into high farce – just split a gut at Deltoid – Popper would be alarmed at the modern climate sceptics’ grasp on science and reality.
Shame shame shame.
SJT wrote:
Eh? I thought you were of the opinion that the science was settled and there was no (or at least, very little) doubt – what you just wrote sounds like we remain unsure of what’s going on. Which, as it happens, is my own view…
Luke wrote:
It’s really very simple Luke – if you want to change the whole basis of the worlds economy, if you want to throw away the system that has produced the greatest wealth, health and freedom for the worlds people in all our history, you can hardly expect to do so based on someone saying “trust me”, can you? You had better make sure you have hard, unequivicable evidence that the change is required. Because if you don’t (and I haven’t seen such as yet), you will have a hard time convincing people, especially those who do not currently enjoy the sort of lifestyle that you do (who happen to be the majority of the worlds population, alas), and who would like the oportunity to do so.
In case you didn’t notice, China is the worlds largest emitter of CO2, and it has absolutely no intention of limiting it’s CO2 emissions before about 2050 – by which time, even if they halved their growth rate, they will be emitting more anually than the the whole world currently does. Good luck getting them to change.
“only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff”
I assume that, given the quote, Jen is coming around to a more orthodox view of science. Now all she needs to do is to drag a few of the denialist Essenes out of their caves and into the debate. Good on you!
NB. I must say that I prefer these types of posts, all that rubbish about graphs is really tiresome.
“if you want to change the whole basis of the worlds economy, if you want to throw away the system that has produced the greatest wealth, health and freedom for the worlds people in all our history,”
These are highly ideologically loaded, subjective dogmatic statements. And that’s fine in the context of a debate. But they are nothing to do with science and could be refuted by any high school debater. I, for instance will assert that the there will not be changes to the basis of the worlds (sic) enconomy. In fact could you define the what you mean by the basis of the whole world’s economy? If not I’ll define it for you and proceed to undermine you argument on my own terms.
“and it has absolutely no intention of limiting it’s CO2 emissions”
“The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth”
Presumably the writer is a disingenuous rationalist?
It’s really very simple Luke – if you want to change the whole basis of the worlds economy, if you want to throw away the system that has produced the greatest wealth, health and freedom for the worlds people in all our history, you can hardly expect to do so based on someone saying “trust me”, can you?
Alarmist!
Patrick B
“could be refuted by any high school debater”
I take it you are not a high school debater then?
People won’t restrict their lifestyles voluntarily so if you wan’t the world changed to your ideology you will have to apply the North Korea recipe.
Way to go!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/03/satellite-imagery-gauges-economic-growth-and-land-use-change/
Patrick B wrote:
Energy and its cost is the basis the world’s economy – for instance, Streets send paddle pop sticks, wrappers, flavouring/colouring syrup and water to China, and get back refrigerated containers full of ready-to-sell ice blocks. Yes, they even send the water! Do you honestly think they are doing this for any reason other than cost? Do you really think that increasing the cost of energy (required for transport and refrigeration) would not make them reconsider where they get these things “made”? Just one example of the billions of transactions that occur globally that depend, to a large extent, on the price of energy. Almost everything you consume (food, household goods – everything!) depends on the price of energy – yes, even locally made stuff! Can you think of anything else that has such a diverse impact on the global economy? Put your answer here:
->
Furthermore, if we go down the “cap and trade” path, you’ll need to do some pretty heavy convincing to explain why this is anything other than a prop to stifle competition – the large “emitters” will get given their allowance, but the small startup company, with exactly the same costs, will have to buy theirs. And the less you’ve done to date, the bigger the allowance you’ll get – we’re punishing those who’ve already “done the right thing”, and rewarding those who didn’t bother! Even so, it only leads to less competition and higher prices – more profits for the big end of town, more pain for the plebs (the rest of us). And even after all that pain, our “gains” will be wiped out in a month or two by the efforts of the Chinese – who will, by virtue of the fact that they will not follow our example of cutting our own throats, be getting even more of our business because we will lose competitiveness even more against them. This is our Govt.’s “solution”? You support this “scheme”? Jesus…
SJT wrote:
Against you and your kind’s methods to solve a problem they can only show by toturing the data until it says what they want it to say, and whose solution, even at it’s most extreme and unrealistic levels, would result – by their own calculations – in a change of around 10% to what we are *already* “committed” to? You bet I’m alarmed! Why wouldn’t I be?
Marcus wrote:
Te he – probably more accurate to define him as a “mass debater” I think! 😉
People won’t restrict their lifestyles voluntarily so if you wan’t the world changed to your ideology you will have to apply the North Korea recipe.
False dichotomy.
What other forms of “education” do you propose?
Carbon taxes will only increase costs and mainly impact the less well off.
The green’s proposal to mandate poverty by going backwards a couple of centuries will lead to great outcomes.
All horse shit and no horse power!
“…..Sheer ignorance. There has been a vigorous and healthy debate going on in the scientific circles for over a century about CO2 and AGW….” SJT September 4th, 2009 at 9:13 am.
“…….95 per cent of ‘all the climate change science literature since 1834 was published after 1951’, while the number of articles published per year in atmospheric science journals tripled between 1965 and 1995….
….The first journal dedicated to climate change, Climatic Change, was founded in 1977….”.
For an outline of ‘The Discovery of Global Warming’ :
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/3540/
Lukey: “Then there’s that book – which has degenerated now into high farce – just split a gut at Deltoid – Popper would be alarmed at the modern climate sceptics’ grasp on science and reality.”
Talking about blog bilge, isn’t Deltoid where all the scientific creationists hang out? Ever tried to discuss Noah’s Ark with a creationist Lukey? Thats only a mild glimpse of what its like talking to an AGW believer. Ask for rational evidence, even a smidgeon will do, and they will just get annoyed and start up the personal abuse routine. Then, after that little number they direct you to a blog which will quote out the lines from IPCC Holy Scripture that tell you all about IPCC’s redemptive plan to save humanity. Evidence, sorry no, we don’t have that but we can provide with a substitute fraudulent product that might do the trick for you.
It must be frustrating being a sad little corrupt public servant like you Lukey, you just know you have the Really Big Truth that will save humanity but you just can’t put a finger on exactly how you know that you have the Really Big Truth. So you try on the fear, the uncertainty and the doubt, you tell them if they don’t believe they will all die. Where has this all gone on before? Well the priesthood figured it all out thousands of years ago, so you’re just re-inventing the wheel, you smelly little tosser.