Who knows why that is - it's just how I see he remarks in the article.

quote:

Originally posted by APL:
Who knows why that is - it's just how I see he remarks in the article.

Fair enough, I find it difficult to understand what he is saying too.

But, unfortunately APL stupid statements don't prove the argument either way. This is a statement by Martin Durkin, the anti-AGW documentary-maker of The Great Global Warming Swindle:

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

Science is make an observation, create a theory, test the theory by predicting something new with the theory and then seeing if the prediction is true. Then test for other new things and use the theory until a counter example is found then modify or abandon the theory.

Whether that's post normal, post modern, neo quasi pseudo paranormal or what ever; the above is what science is.

If you're using a theory to predict something in 100 years time then you may have to wait 100 years to test it.

If you can't wait that long then you make a guess at what will happen based on best judgement (not science but concensus). Trouble is you don't know who has the best judgement.

But when it comes to scientific judgements it usually isn't the politicians but it will be honest Joe/Josephine Scientist within his/her field of specialism.

Problem with Global Warming science is it covers lots of fields.

Just a quick post to spot the dishonesty of Melanie Phillip's selective quote that has passed at least some on both sides by. Here's a fuller quote:

quote:

Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to "identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much".

This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,

So Hulme did not say

"Self evidently, dangerous climate change will not emerge..."

He is replying to Tony Blair's request, and is really saying:

Science does not answer questions of the form of "what is self-evidently dangerous", since it is a subjective question.

The rest of the article seems to be about the fact that challenge to science that has big impacts on society is more from challenges to the scientific process than from challenges to the science. But also that scientists need to develop new processes that fairly influence policy and society, because just authoritatively telling people there is a problem is not always sufficient.

quote:

The rest of the article seems to be about the fact that challenge to science that has big impacts on society is more from challenges to the scientific process than from challenges to the science. But also that scientists need to develop new processes that fairly influence policy and society, because just authoritatively telling people there is a problem is not always sufficient.

'
Care to expand? you seem almost as obscure as Hulme

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
The rest of the article seems to be about the fact that challenge to science that has big impacts on society is more from challenges to the scientific process than from challenges to the science. But also that scientists need to develop new processes that fairly influence policy and society, because just authoritatively telling people there is a problem is not always sufficient.

The very first sentence:
Climate change is happening, but it appears that science is split on what to do about it.

sets the tone for the article and clearly makes the mark that AGW is a fact.

Then on this premis ingored the fact that there is disagreement within the climate science field:
One of the central reasons why there is disagreement about how to tackle climate change is because we have different conceptions of what science is, and with what authority it speaks - in other words, how scientific "knowledge" interacts with those other realms of understanding brought to us by politics, ethics and spirituality.

... this is a not new view point either this concerned with public opinion rather than scientific opinion (because any 'true' scientist will know that all that matters is getting to the facts), or he is saying that scientist's must consider abandoning facts for political correctness.

Then having said this starts to slate the disbelivers throwing polictcal weight of the IPCC behind his argument saying in effect let's not listen to these scientists let society have control.
Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. But there are two other characteristics of science that are also important when it comes to deploying its knowledge for the benefit of public policy and society: that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, and that it can be modified through its interaction with society.

The problem with this of course and why we are arguing on this forum is that the information fed to the society that is used to modify scientific knowledge is being highly influenced by government propaganda so government uses society to modify scientific knowledge.

And this is pretty much the theme throughout the message being:

Ignore the dissenting scientists.
Listen to (but don't criticise) the IPCC
Accept (government controlled) public opinion is to modify scientific knowledge.

Concluding:
Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.

Which is the direct opposite to your interpretation Steve.

Which part of...
that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, and that it can be modified through its interaction with society

... implies your point:

that scientists need to develop new processes that fairly influence policy and society

quote:

quote:
The rest of the article seems to be about the fact that challenge to science that has big impacts on society is more from challenges to the scientific process than from challenges to the science. But also that scientists need to develop new processes that fairly influence policy and society, because just authoritatively telling people there is a problem is not always sufficient.


'
Care to expand? you seem almost as obscure as Hulme

Sorry, I had a bit of trouble with his article. It's quite densely argued.

I think he is saying that there is a scientific process that is good at getting to the science. But, the clear message being given by the science is not being accepted by the general public. The reason it is not being accepted is that people are attacking the scientific process, not the science itself.

Scientists in controversial areas might argue "I'll do the science (design an atom bomb, clone a baby etc.) and let the politicians take the tricky decisions about morals and ethics. However, if a scientist chooses to apply his values, he may decide to influence the political process. Just giving the scientific results doesn't always work for the reasons above, so the scientific process may need to be extended to deal with these situations. I may be wrong with this interpretation.

APL said:

quote:

Concluding:
Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.

Which is the direct opposite to your interpretation Steve.

The full paragraph basically says that we all have a role in educating ourselves in the science, because we all have something to offer in looking for a solution.

How does general public attack the scientific process? The main scientific process would be the peer reviewed process. Are you suggesting that Hulme is suggesting that the general public has lost faith in the peer review process

Or perhaps it is easier to say that Hulme doesn't really know what he is talking about

quote:

How does general public attack the scientific process? The main scientific process would be the peer reviewed process. Are you suggesting that Hulme is suggesting that the general public has lost faith in the peer review process

I'm just trying to interpret what he says. He's not saying that the science is wrong which was Melanie Phillips' interpretation. I meant that people such as lobbyists and politicians attack the scientific process, and the general public lose trust as a result. My interpretation of his views, not my views!

This reminds me a bit of the good old days when we would try and interpret some obscure Bob Dylan lyric. I decided in the end that even Bob Dylan didn't know what the meant :-) Perhaps Mike is in the same category.

The most important bit is where he argues that sometimes science needs to be sidelined. That appears to be what is happening at the moment with GW.

Fact is the IPCC report doesn't predict anything that can be tested to be true or false.
It isn't science. It's a political party. And who is to benefit? Aren't the oil companies generating record profit?

quote:

Sorry, I had a bit of trouble with his article. It's quite densely argued.

Yes Steve what you are experiencing it the cognitive dissonance that comes from finding out that the cause you so fervently believed in is a total hoax.
I think rationalization will be your next step on the road to recovery.
Followed by anger, depression, and finally acceptance.
Either that or your head will pop like one of those computers that Captain Kirk uses circular logic to force into system overload.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

Concluding:
Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.

Which is the direct opposite to your interpretation Steve.

The full paragraph basically says that we all have a role in educating ourselves in the science, because we all have something to offer in looking for a solution.

The full paragraph may or may not say that - the whole article however says:

Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.

Post-normal science is Orwellian double-speak for politics, plain and simple.

Politicians need problems they can solve. They can only solve man-made global warming - at least they think they can.

quote:

Yes Steve what you are experiencing it the cognitive dissonance that comes from finding out that the cause you so fervently believed in is a total hoax.

How does taking a crack at me help with the discussion? I don't "fervently" believe in a "cause", I'm just pretty sure the science is correct. I'm trying to move the discussion on from the disgraceful selective quoting of Ms. Phillips.

The guy is saying the science is right but that the science alone can't solve the problem. He works for an organisation that doesn't do much science, it mainly does economics and politics related to the science. I think it could have been a more useful article if it had been proof-read for clarity.

quote:

Originally posted by antidogma:
Post-normal science is Orwellian double-speak for politics, plain and simple.

Politicians need problems they can solve. They can only solve man-made global warming - at least they think they can.

Unimaginative politicians need things to 'save' and not things to 'develop'.
Why?
Because 'Saving' something almost guarantees success - especially if the thing never really needed saving in the first place and the public can be duped into believing it does.
'Developing' something brings with it a huge risk of failure because it involves owning new ideas for moving forward.

Blair turned out to be politically bankrupt of ideas and 'risk-averse'. Instead, he plays the 'saving' game in an effort to gain the grandiosity he craves in the history books. WMD - that backfired on Blair because it became know that what he was setting himself up to 'save' us from was a ghost... it didn't exist. Remember the terrorising 'mass destruction' part of this. Blair dusts himself down and has another go (get a move on Tony, your time's running out!). This time the 'mass destruction' Blair is going to 'save' us from is presented in the form of a much more cunningly chosen ghost. Unlike WMD, GW is too elusive for the public to disrobe and so Blair's success in 'saving' us from this new 'mass destruction' is guaranteed for him.

In this abuse of power, it's worth asking - who's weapon is it and what is being massively destroyed? It well may be that the 'weapon' is deceit and it is 'hugely destructive' to our developed, secular democratic society.

It's a pity the Greens get taken in by all this. Who's genuine values are being exploited?

The willingness to exclude the human race from the eco system is rediculous. It is as if we came from another Planet and have no right to use resources or displace other animals to care for our own species...

Our ability to survive is amazing we can adapt to changing conditions unlike anyother species

Nature should be respected and cherished where possible but not at the expense of another human being...

The planet maybe warming what people need to realise is that our government will exploit this situation to squeeze more tax out of us...

CO2 is a minor gas there are other variables such as methane which is more efficient at storing heat than C02....

Dont forget the sun its not always on gas mark 6 the heat from that does increase on occasions
but that is what seems to missing in some peoples arguments that it is in fact the sun that heats this planet.....

When I first came into this forum a while back I did it with an open mind I checked out several sources for both theories as the cutters and pasters suggest...From what I can see both sides manipulate the truth....

my own personal conclusion is that we could not possibly be responsible for the variations in temperature that have occured since 1940...
The make up of the atmosphere just does back upThe flawed IPCC report.. As for climate models well you could input a simple model to make 2plus2 equals 5....