| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I am shocked by this. It took a full 8 hours for someone to handwave off
Ze'ev's posting because the source of the article was found to be a
"conservative" publication. I also found it odd that Paltrige's credentials
weren't somehow immediately challenged - after all, who's ever heard of
CSIRO? Perhaps the response was a little slow today because many of us are
out shoveling snow from our driveways.
Bob at PC
(Enjoying a day off due to a snowstorm)
________________________________________
From: Phys-l [phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] on behalf of
trappe@physics.utexas.edu [trappe@physics.utexas.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 9:46 AM
To: phys-l@phys-l.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Garth Paltridge: Climate Change's Inherent
Uncertainties
Perhaps some light may be gained into the scientific efficacy of
Wurzman's source from understanding the publication site, i.e.,
Quadrant. As near as I can tell it is not a refereed scientific journal.
From Wikipedia:
Quadrant is an Australian literary and cultural journal. The magazine
holds a conservative stance on political and social issues, describing
itself as sceptical of 'unthinking Leftism, or political correctness,
and its "smelly little orthodoxies"'.[1] Quadrant reviews literature,
as well as featuring essays on ideas and topics such as politics,
history, universities, and the arts. It also publishes poetry and
short stories. It is published ten times per year and its current
cover price is A$8.50.
It appears to be scientific in the newly defined sense of starting
with the answer and proceeding with the confirmation. In short:
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up." OR of the Karl Rove
marketing approach to science: "Repeat anything enough times and the
general public will believe it is true."
Karl
Quoting Ze'ev Wurman <zeev@ieee.org>:
This is from an atmospheric physicist who was a Chief Researchhttp://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/
Scientist of the Australian NSF (CSIRO) Division of Atmospheric
Research. Excerpts:
Climate Change's Inherent Uncertainties
<
Garth Paltridge, Jan. 2014.
/
Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are
aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product.
How is it that they can place hands over hearts and swear that human
emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet?/
...
In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the
possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global
warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating
the climate problem--or, what is much the same thing, of seriously
understating the uncertainties associated with the climate
problem--in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly
nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying,
perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation
for honesty which is the basis of society's respect for scientific
endeavour. ...
The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the
environmental movement first realised that doing something about
global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. ...
The scientists in environmental research laboratories ... were
forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this
forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation
of public opinion. ...
The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of
the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The
enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and
employment opportunity. ...
The trap was fully sprung when many of the world's major national
academies of science ... persuaded themselves to issue reports
giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were
touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of
the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the
assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the
scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. ...
Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no
comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of
serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster. It can
no longer use the environmental movement as a scapegoat if it should
turn out that the threat of global warming has no real substance. It
can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in
the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global
warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on
humanity. ...
At the same time, the average man in the street, a sensible chap who
by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign
from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather
than science which is driving the issue. ...
The chances of proving that climate change over the next century
will be large enough to be disastrous are virtually nil. For the
same reason, the chances of a climate sceptic, or anyone else for
that matter, proving the disaster theory to be oversold are also
virtually nil. ...
In short, there is more than enough uncertainty about the
forecasting of climate to allow normal human beings to be at least
reasonably hopeful that global warming might not be nearly as bad as
is currently touted. Climate scientists, and indeed scientists in
general, are not so lucky. They have a lot to lose if time should
prove them wrong.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l