This inspiration continues here and follows on from Part 1 –
Having covered definitions and thoughts on the subject of ‘perceptions‘, touched on how they might be not necessarily be reliable, and raised the area of problems arising there-from, I would like to apply some of this to one of my pet subjects – the AGW debate/discussion/discourse/diatribe/debacle, whatever name seems appropriate to you. If you follow my blog, this will come at no surprise!
This particular thread arises from having read, not only the subject article, but an article on a blog supporting AGW (or whatever they choose to call it, depending on what the climate happens to be doing at that moment). I don’t think it fair to name this author or the article. On the other hand, I’d like to quote from it and that may be unethical or even illegal. I’ll have to take my chances. (If the author happens to read this, I will respond with acknowledgement if so desired).
Some specific extracts:
brought up a familiar argument used by many whom would like to reject the current standing conclusions derived by scientific investigation; he insisted that if the science was so strong, it is up to me to convince him of that.
If, to the best of our scientific knowledge, something seems to be true, testable and repeatable, is it the obligation of the scientific community to convince the lay audience as such before the weight of the evidence is acted upon?
Scientific methodology prospers when done in the open as this allows a global network of experts to cross-examine the procedure, the results and the conclusions. Different minds give different perceptions leading to alternate, and otherwise unthought of, modes of testing. What stands up and is repeatedly supported by independent findings becomes a building block for our model of the natural universe, as best understood at this point of time by our species. It’s a special thing. It’s not set in stone, however, it’s as credible as we’ve yet derived.
That should be sufficient to make my point. Ok, we are looking at perceptions rather than the science. It is well-known that the science debate is raging. There are two overall groups of scientists, each with opposing theories.
From a simplistic point of view, one claims adequate proofs of man-made pollution being the cause of global warming and detrimental environmental changes, and of the need for and appropriateness of a particular solution – carbon trading and financial controls. They claim opposition scientists are wrong, not qualified and/or don’t have peer backing.
The other, claims the ‘above proofs’ are not validated, as many other scientists are not in agreement. They offer what appear to be reasonable scientific evidence of alternative scenarios. They also claim media bias in favour of the AGW group and scientific organizations and publishing bias against their own group. In addition, there are strong claims against the pro-AGW group of ulterior motives.
Both are perceived by their own followers to be practicing good scientific principles.
Both perceive their opposition to be lacking in valid scientific procedures.
Either could be right, but not both, because they are opposing theories. Logically one or possibly both are wrong.
For my part, selecting which is likely to be wrong is not difficult. There is much, perceived by many who are qualified to understand the evidence, that is wrong, or inadequate, with the pro-AGW “science”. That is the conclusion gained via my perceptions.
The above cited extracts are included as examples of false perceptions and logic.
In the first instance, it is the science that should be convincing, not the conveyor. And the science is not being perceived as convincing.
In the second, there is a need for the scientist to convince other scientists, not the lay people, of the validity of his science. This has not been achieved. Further there is a statement that the science is true, testable and repeatable. This is, at very best only a perception and a false one at that. At worst, a deception.
In the third instance, the author has it exactly right. However none of his criteria apply to the scientists he is supporting. He falsely perceives a situation because of his bias.
A final example – the email stating ” a trick to hide the decline” is perceived by “them” as legitimate science, a clever way of using data when the evidence is not otherwise complete. To me and most, it is perceived as false science and proof of it.
Bottom line – the AGW debate is full of false perceptions. The scientists are working with perceptions, many of them false. The supporters, likewise. The governments and media are doing worse, I believe/perceive them to be downright dishonest.
Therefore, my perception of this issue is that there is absolutely no substantiation for the current actions by governments and other organizations to impose costs and controls on countries and the people. How can earth-shattering decisions be justified if made on evidence that can best be described as ‘perceptions’, rather than science!
- Nearly Three-Quarters Believe Global Warming Data Falsified (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
- The truth about AGW is becoming CLOUDy (thebrightlibertarian.blogspot.com)
- Global Warming Credibility Problem (themoderatevoice.com)
- Carbon Tax – “Sorry Julia, Bob and Greg, you are wrong” (tgrule.wordpress.com)
- Good Article on the CLOUD Test (minx.cc)
- Has the AGW argument imploded? (hotair.com)
- Rick Perry Versus the True Believers (pajamasmedia.com)
- Nearly Three Quarters Believe Global Warming Data Falsified (dakotavoice.com)
- Despite obligatory AGW reference there is some science in here (junksciencesidebar.com)