No, it's not "all in your head"...
Here, resistance to the science is driven by an ideology and an identity called individualism, which centers on the belief that a fair society is one in which a person succeeds on his or her own merits. What does that have to do with the climate, you ask? Well, nothing obvious -- except that libertarian individualists think that the climate issue is a way of clamping down on something they hold in very high regard indeed: the free market. Scientists can try to explain the facts here till they're blue in the face, but if they don't disarm the concerns rooted in ideology, they'll never disarm the resistance.
its all about controling the masses and 100% of the HOT AIR produced comes from the various eco-freak groups and Al Gore the #1 source of HOT AIR
"Free Markets. Here, resistance to the market is driven by an ideology and an identity called Communism, which centers on the belief that a fair society is one in which everyone cedes decision-making to a select few self-anointed. What does that have to do with markets, you ask? Well, nothing obvious — except that communists think that free markets are a way of clamping down on something they hold in very high regard indeed: world domination. Economists can try to explain the facts here till they’re blue in the face, but if they don’t disarm the concerns rooted in ideology, they’ll never disarm the resistance."
Chris Moonbat
When so called "scientists" are consistently honest about their work and let the facts speak for themselves, allow intensive vetting by peers and public to separate chaff from the wheat, continually hold important the pursuit of increasing mankind's understanding and ably resist the temptation to take on the role of tribal "medicine men" but instead communicate plainly and willingly admit uncertainty and mistakes to all that care to listen...then those individuals can make a serious claim on being relevant to the society they serve.
But that's not the reality for many of the Ivy towered academia clan. Instead they want to attack the very type of people that's given mankind the greatest gain in scientific knowledge: the courageous questioning strong charactered individual. They've become a protectionist group themselves and don't seem to be as much bothered by the truths they don't know as they are by others who question what really they do know.
"...libertarian individualists think that the climate issue is a way of clamping down on something they hold in very high regard indeed: the free market."
Geez, how could I be so wrong? Here I was thinking that the issues I hold in the highest regard respecting climate change were common sense and critical thought.
You can't argue facts to emotion....you'll loose every time.
From the linked article:
"Scientists can try to explain the facts here till they’re blue in the face, but if they don’t disarm the concerns rooted in ideology, they’ll never disarm the resistance."
This article sets up a false dichotomy between non-scientists and scientists. A "scientist" who opines on any matter outside of his purview and claims it is a scientific opinion is a fraud.
The article also ignores that scientists are also ideologically driven and that apostasy carries heavy penalties.
Scientific expertise requires a very heavy investment of time to acquire that expertise. This is time not spent learning others things. General knowledge and experience are the keys to wisdom, something that scientists are sorely lacking.
Lastly, the Federation for the Humanities and Social Scientists says this:
"the social sciences are fields of study that involve .... anthropology, archaeology, criminology, economics, education, linguistics, political science and international relations, sociology, geography, law, and psychology."
Scientific opinion? Really? It is to laugh.
"...libertarian individualists think that the climate issue is a way of clamping down on something they hold in very high regard indeed: the free market."
Can we run with the missing corollary...
"...while socialist individualists (humour me, disregard the blatant oxymoron) think that opposition to the AGW climate argument threatens something they hold in very high regard indeed: the unfettered access to other people's money."
what I was going to post has already been said here. Blackfox, excellent post
Humans are basically emotional reactionaries, and there in lies a large part of the problem in disseminating the "truth". And so called scientists should be on the fore front of this knowledge
The word "scientist" can be used to describe those who work in some field of science or those who believe in scientism.
The latter are simply ideologues of course.
I consider it a breach of fiduciary relationship.....(breach of trust)...resource people who fabricate science for their political/financial ends.
LEOs were initially our guards/protectors, enforcers of the law....now they are politicized arbitrators usurping the function of the courts. Eg: SOP is to arrest the MAN....or the winner.
Oh how I wish Richard Feynman was alive! He who coined the phrase "cargo cult science" and described what it was. David
The article presupposed that scientists are an homogeneous authority in all things and all reflecting pure knowledge unaffected by political or economic bias. This is a classic "argument from authority" fallacy. Scientists from the Pew survey opining on the overwhelming safety of genetically modified foods or use of pesticides might just be a little less bought and paid for by the political class than say the "climate scientists" who have proven nothing from their (unscientific "consensus") on one hypothesis (single variable of CO2 from humans) other than the failure of past predictions through GIGO modelling. Throwing a billion dollars a day at strengthening that bias does nothing to advance science.
Even if the author wasn't out to lunch on CAGW, I would choose liberty AND global warming.
@John Chittick:
"The article presupposed that scientists are an homogeneous authority in all things and all reflecting pure knowledge unaffected by political or economic bias. This is a classic "argument from authority" fallacy."
Absolutely! Having know a number of them over my long years, I can attest that they are as human as every other human on this planet and subject to the same bias', prejudices, and all other human foibles (greed, envy, ignorance, arrogance, kindness, etc., etc).
But I'll go you one better. Let's take a poll asking the question
"Do you believe that polls have any meaning when the questions asked are subject to several different interpretations and consequently different answers?"
This would be a valid poll as it has only 2 possible answers, Yes or No.
In former years a 'researcher' or 'expert in his field' would give an opinion on the proper way to think about a problem or the course of action we should take. Now it's all about what 'the scientists think'. The overuse of the term 'scientist' is nothing more than an appeal to authority.
As noted by EBD in yesterday's Reader Tips, Dr Richard Lindzen has continued to question the CAGW orthodoxy. Well that's because he's "completely insane" and all "climate deniers" are completely insane because, well everyone knows we have a climate!
Funny and ironic piece on the all cats are dogs climate change crowd:
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/climate-change-deniers-are-completely-insane/
Newsflash, new dense atom has been discovered which will vastly increase the size of government, while extinguishing that exact amount of freedom:
"Pelosium: A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named Pelosium. Pelosium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311.
These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. The symbol of Pelosium is PU. Pelosium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons within the Pelosium molecule, leading to the formation of isodopes.
This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.
When catalyzed with money, Pelosium activates CNNadnausium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons as Pelosium."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397526/final-solution-nuclear-iran-charles-krauthammer
Bullshit. Densest element is Trudopian. :))
"Climate change is mostly due to human activity." Wow! And where is this climate change happening?
Yeah like all the HOT AIR produced by AL GORE,BARACK OBAMA,DAVID SUZUKI and the memebers of GREENPEACE every time they open their pieholes
The author of the referenced piece hasn't a clue how true science works. First, science doesn't operate by consensus and any area of human endeavor that is based on consensus is not science. That, medicine is not a science - a statement that often gets fellow physicians quite annoyed at me when I state it. However, the BC College of Physicians clearly states that ones practice is based on what is accepted as appropriate by the majority of physicians -- that's not scientific as such an arrogant premise is based on the fallacious assumption that what the majority does is right.
Under the current consensus driven medicine that exists in Canada today, the modern version of Semmelweis would be even more rapidly drummed out of the medical profession than he was in the early 1800's. Thus, medicine, and many other fields that claim to be scientific fail that test miserably.
True science involves the generation of hypotheses relating to various phenomena and testing those hypotheses by experiment. Before experiments are performed, the scientist who has generated a hypothesis regarding some natural phenomenon states what results are expected from the experiment if the hypothesis were true. Examples of such valid science are Newton's laws of gravitation, Einstein's predictions of the gravitational bending of light by the sun in 1919, and the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment which disproved the existence of the aether.
True scientists expect people to test their theories vigorously and rejoice in people trying to disprove them as only a theory which survives the best efforts of intelligent individuals to prove it wrong is likely to be valid. A true scientist, once he has come up with a theory, will do his utmost to discredit it as it's all too easy to assume that one has made a great discovery only to find a mistaken assumption buried deep in ones work. When I was a researcher, scientific meetings were very aggressive no-holds barred affairs where scientists from other labs would attempt to discredit my research and very often came up with things I hadn't thought of. My job was to determine whether their points were valid or not, and if they were, determine how much they affected my theories. When I went into medicine, I was often criticized for my "unprofessional" assessment of people's medical "research" where the brutally frank assessments I was used to were viewed as "non-productive" and "inappropriately harsh". My response then and now is that if something is BS, it's best to point this out as directly as possible rather than couch my responses in diplomatic terms so bland that crap research will continue along the same useless path.
The predictions of "climate science" have failed to materialize and, the fact that "climate science" has made predictions which have clearly failed experimentally means that the fundamental tenets of this theory have been falsified. The response of "climate science" to such statements has been much akin to the Catholic church's prosecution of Galileo whose astronomy was heretical although the current model of the solar system is based on the "heretical" views of Copernicus and Galileo. Thus "climate science" is not a science, but a religion. There are large elements of "cargo cult science" as defined by Feynmann in "climate science", but the appeal to authority, the insistance on slavish adherence to an increasingly shaky orthodoxy and the increasingly shrill demonization of opponents make "climate science" most similar to such primitive religions such as islam which utilize the same techniques to quell all opposition to what are percieved as inviolable truths.
It's not surprising that such a moonbat would attack individualism as the primary threat to institutionalized "science" is the uncontrolled brilliant scientist who comes up with "heritical" theories that disprove massive bodies of "approved" "scientific" work by those who consider themselves to be "scientists". Many of the most brilliant thinkers in the world have had little conventional university education and have not been good team players. One of the greatest impediments to scientific progress now is the massive government funding of science which makes even the best scientists unconsciously frame the results of their research in terms which makes them more likley to get future funding. This ossification of the scientific method will likely only disappear once there is a general financial collapse, governments fall apart and self-organizing scientific research organizations again become the norm.
The system of bureaucratic "science" will eventually become totally dysfunctional and one just hopes that total financial collapse comes soon enough so that such a totalitarian organization doesn't have enough time to create a total surveillance state and eliminate any vestige of independant thought. Even if this were possible, such a system would have very low survival value given that it is a poor fit to an unknowable external reality and will in short course be destroyed by a universe which cares not a whit about institutional delusions.
I find it interesting that the same people who believe scientists about AGW don't accept their views on GMOs. Does that make them smarter or stupider than those of us who have our doubts about the human causes of climate change and the proposed fixes?