Comments on: It’s like thinking but it’s not thinking

By: Doc Richard

Doc Richard — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:54:57 +0000

Science questions everything, so it would be fair to say it is sceptical. Science produces theories, and the AGW theory is now pretty much consensual, apart from a few geriatric oddball engineers.

Science cannot dictate policy. Politicians do that, and they are now pretty much on board with AGW theory, though they are still shy of taking the necessary action, partly because only 75% of the electorate are convinced, due in no small measure to the influence of journalists like CJ, Richard Littlejohn, and Melanie Phillips.

By: hellblazer

hellblazer — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:40:42 +0000

SD is right, Mr F, and your first sentence is so egregiously off-base that I wonder if your extensive scientific training must have taken place somewhere rather odd. (Try overturning the consensus on electromagnetism and see where you get, if that doesn’t cause the semiconductors in your keyboard to blow.)

There are plenty of research papers which point to the idea of man made global warming being more of a political argument than fact.

Ah, this word “plenty”again. Of course, even if we assume that there are “plenty”, however many that may be, not all research papers are as valid as each other. Strange how we’re supposed not to be so “sceptical” of those ones, eh?

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:14:01 +0000

No, testing evidence is the way science “should be done”. “Being sceptical” is the lazy person’s way of looking clever without having to do any reading.

By: F0ul

F0ul — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:02:41 +0000

being sceptical is the way science should be done. That is why asking for a consensus in a theory is wrong and a sign that something is not right.

As Einstein said ‘No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.’ These people who are in the climate change industry seem to ignore or at least dislike that idea – and maybe that is where the idea of ‘unbeliever’ is coming in!

There are plenty of research papers which point to the idea of man made global warming being more of a political argument than fact. When flaws are being highlighted, its because the researcher is in the pay of some large ‘bad’ organisation – when did we start shooting messengers?

History will show that the shrill of the global warming fanatics was very hollow, however, who wants to admit they were wrong? Just look at the people who believed in Eugenics at the start of the 20th century!

By: Sarah

Sarah — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:57:01 +0000

I don’t think CJ would be in any position to tell anyone that they’re quibbling over rhetoric. He’s the supreme quibbler.

By: hellblazer

hellblazer — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:58:56 +0000

Given that this is the same man who, if memory serves right, poked fun at Bernard Levin’s irrational talking up of Uri Geller and his “some-scientists-are-closed-minded-and-there’s-room-for-doubt” sophistry… oh dear, oh dear, CJ. He didn’t get where he is today by being so woolly-headed, did he?

This para alone has two big problems:

…and there are plenty of highly qualified scientists ready to say that the whole idea is a case of too many of their colleagues relying on models provided by the same computers that can’t even predict what will happen to the weather next week

Firstly, what does he think `plenty’ means? Is he not sceptical about what his use of that word betrays? Secondly, and no doubt CJ would dismiss this as quibbling over rhetoric, in dynamical systems it’s quite conceivable that it will be easier to predict mid-to-long term trends (ceteris paribus as CJ might say) than to predict the short term. So cracking wise about short-term errors isn’t being sceptical, it’s being ignorant.

Ooh, almost forgot to say: nicely written post.