Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

The role of consensus in science

Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922–1996) is one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential. His 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited academic books of all time. Kuhn's contribution to the philosophy of science marked not only a break with several key positivist doctrines, but also inaugurated a new style of philosophy of science that brought it closer to the history of science. His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions.

In the postscript to the second edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn says of paradigms in this sense that they are “the most novel and least understood aspect of this book” (1962/1970a, 187). The claim that the consensus of a disciplinary matrix is primarily agreement on paradigms-as-exemplars is intended to explain the nature of normal science and the process of crisis, revolution, and renewal of normal science. It also explains the birth of a mature science. Kuhn describes an immature science, in what he sometimes calls its ‘pre-paradigm’ period, as lacking consensus. Competing schools of thought possess differing procedures, theories, even metaphysical presuppositions. Consequently there is little opportunity for collective progress. Even localized progress by a particular school is made difficult, since much intellectual energy is put into arguing over the fundamentals with other schools instead of developing a research tradition. However, progress is not impossible, and one school may make a breakthrough whereby the shared problems of the competing schools are solved in a particularly impressive fashion. This success draws away adherents from the other schools, and a widespread consensus is formed around the new puzzle-solutions.

This widespread consensus now permits agreement on fundamentals. For a problem-solution will embody particular theories, procedures and instrumentation, scientific language, metaphysics, and so forth. Consensus on the puzzle-solution will thus bring consensus on these other aspects of a disciplinary matrix also. The successful puzzle-solution, now a paradigm puzzle-solution, will not solve all problems. Indeed, it will probably raise new puzzles. For example, the theories it employs may involve a constant whose value is not known with precision; the paradigm puzzle-solution may employ approximations that could be improved; it may suggest other puzzles of the same kind; it may suggest new areas for investigation. Generating new puzzles is one thing that the paradigm puzzle-solution does; helping solve them is another. In the most favourable scenario, the new puzzles raised by the paradigm puzzle-solution can be addressed and answered using precisely the techniques that the paradigm puzzle-solution employs. And since the paradigm puzzle-solution is accepted as a great achievement, these very similar puzzle-solutions will be accepted as successful solutions also. This is why Kuhn uses the terms ‘exemplar’ and ‘paradigm’. For the novel puzzle-solution which crystallizes consensus is regarded and used as a model of exemplary science. In the research tradition it inaugurates, a paradigm-as-exemplar fulfils three functions: (i) it suggests new puzzles; (ii) it suggests approaches to solving those puzzles; (iii) it is the standard by which the quality of a proposed puzzle-solution can be measured (1962/1970a, 38–9). In each case it is similarity to the exemplar that is the scientists’ guide.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Must I do every thing for you...its been posted online here now a few times. But I can dig it up for you again...not everyone keeps a cut/paste file ready to fling out....

Allow me to do your thinking for you.

The answer is ), zero, nada, zilch climate scientists have been fired for their views on climate science.

The French TV weatherman was fired for shilling his book on the job.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have just discovered a conspiracy. It seems that all the Canadian are AGW folks.

LOL! And who better to express it than Robin Williams?!

Of course, we already knew that AGW was all the fault of Canadians, but now we know that you guys are to blame for everything.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Of course, we already knew that AGW was all the fault of Canadians, but now we know that you guys are to blame for everything.

AND we're always the first to apologize.

...sorry, was it not my turn?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

... Known facts like the Big Bang Theory?
Remember how anyone that questioned it was a Denier of science but now are proven right?
Remember the consensus of the Big Bang....well it popped but will anyone apologize to the scientists who were ridiculed and forced into silence? Na....

When do you think the Big Bang Theory was discredited, or lost it's position as the most widely accepted scientific theory of how the universe developed into its present state.
I must have missed that news.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Allow me to do your thinking for you.

The answer is ), zero, nada, zilch climate scientists have been fired for their views on climate science.

The French TV weatherman was fired for shilling his book on the job.

Don't know yea or nay about firings, but there has certainly been evidence presented of denial of career advancement, reduced or lost funding, and ostracization. May or may not be credible, but such evidence has been publicly presented.

But maybe more significant are the inducements in the form of peer pressure, grants, career advancement, professional prestige, and heavy political influence. NOAA seems to be spearheading & coordinating the research, and it is a part of an executive branch agency. With other such historically apolitical agencies (e.g. IRS, Energy Dept.) having become so politicized during the current US administration, it adds to the skepticism. There is also a strong anti-capitalism/wealth redistribution undercurrent which occasions the CC debate that has become a major theme of the Democratic party. So it is little wonder that it has become a polarizing issue, and frankly persuading the minority of scientists to join the scientific consensus is the least of the obstacles facing those who are advocating the AGW position.

There are certainly many good reasons to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, for example, but vilifying an entire industry that remains absolutely essential to our way of life is lousy politics, imho. I share the hopes of others of supplanting fossil fuels with a safer, cleaner alternative, but like it or not, the same energy cos. who produce our fossil fuels will ultimately have to be part of the solution. Polarizing the electorate is good for re-election efforts, but is entirely unproductive for reaching political consensus.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Don't know yea or nay about firings, but there has certainly been evidence presented of denial of career advancement, reduced or lost funding, and ostracization. May or may not be credible, but such evidence has been publicly presented.

Can we see evidence of that evidence? I know Curry is claiming she is no longer a member of the tribe, but she left the tribe some time ago.

It is your assertion which requires your evidence.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Visualization will serve you poorly in understanding string theory.

Oh sorry, I was not trying to visualize string theory. Not sure it, string theory, is valid.

But while watching the wave interference pattern interaction of droplets falling on flat smooth flowing water (the flow representing time in this case), I visualized what that would look like in 3d. Which got me thinking of the big bang and larger structures of the universe. Which got me thinking that a single point source of inflation, from a different dimension.


BTW folks, the big bang, like string theory is just theory. Like god, there is no proof of it. The big bang sort of fits the observed universe. But it is only one theory of many. There is steady state (though perhaps with an isolation) and the universe riding on the back of a pandimensional turtle. Oddly equally valid, in theory.

We do not know all that we don't know. There is the niggly bit of extra acceleration that objects in a sling shot around a gravity well, picks up. It's tiny (fraction of a MPS), but no one knows where it comes from.

I tend the think the big bang could be valid. But lets not chastise people that finds fault with it. There is after all no convinsing proof that is how the universe came into being.

Much like climate models. The models are true only if they model everything without assumptions. The models may predict climate, but may not be complete or conclusive.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

There is also a strong anti-capitalism/wealth redistribution undercurrent which occasions the CC debate that has become a major theme of the Democratic party.

The carbon tax is supported by many conservative:

Conservatives

including the American Enterprise Institute.

WRW politicians are playing on the cynical, anti-government attitudes of your citizens.

[newhaul]

They don't usually outright fire people from government funded agencies. An example I have from personal experience. Some years ago during the Clinton administration my mother worked for NASA she was an arnp specialty was diabetes. She was at a medical symposium with Hillary Clinton . She was asked her views on the healthcare system. Her vies were not in line with the administrations accepted view. About a year later she lost her job due to " budget cuts". 6 months later they hired 2 new people,e to do her job. Which actually required additional budgetary allocations. IMO you buck the system to loudly. They eliminate your position meaning they lay you off ( a quiet was to fire you wherein you can't complain they fired you)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Here's yet another scientist who has become sceptical, with his reasons which are well worth reading.
(Adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science._

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever | Daily Wire

Your "scientist":

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-van-biezen-0738b48a

An adjunct professor is someone who is hired by a college, usually on a part time contract, to teach but isn't a full member of the faculty. They do not conduct research.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

They don't usually outright fire people from government funded agencies.

Sorry about your personal experience, but that is not evidence of climate scientists being fired for their views.

Most climate scientists work at universities.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Why is the central finding of AGW holding up for so long, despite all these flaws? Are all these scientists simply not as smart as a bunch of bored cruisers with right-wing/libertarian tendencies?

Labeling, stereo-typing, and simplistic generalizations are never helpful. Just here on a sailing forum, we've already heard from sailorchic with an engineering/science background who calls herself a liberal but has some skepticism about AGW. And there's Muckle, also with some sort of scientific/technical background, who accepts the basic scientific consensus about AGW but believes it's harmful effects to coral reefs and maybe other parts of the planet are overstated. (I apologize and will correct if I've inadvertently misrepresented either of their basic positions).

I'm sure there are many others who don't necessarily walk either party's line, and have varying levels of acceptance & skepticism. This is healthy. Even the diehards like Jack, Gord, and Mike (among many others) seem well-versed with the scientists in the opposing camp & the basis for their skepticism, and are therefore able to contribute meaningfully to the debate.

In short, I think you should read more, avoid stereotyping, and open your mind a bit. I have no illusions of it changing your mind on CC, but it might help you understand a bit better where people with different views are coming from. If nothing else, it will help solidify the views that you already have.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Sorry about your personal experience, but that is not evidence of climate scientists being fired for their views.

Most climate scientists work at universities.

No need to be sorry she wasn't and as far as the climate scientists working at universities that is true but where does the funding come from? Now how long do you really think a climatologist would be kept on the payroll if thy didn't at least help keep the funding comming in.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Most climate scientists work at universities.

And according to one of the many articles presented here in this thread (sorry can't remember but can try & find), CC theory has been around long enough that many of the scientists who enter the field of climate science (as opposed to meteorology, for e.g.) are people already predisposed & sympathetic to the AGW position. It has become, after all, a "hot" topic with lots of funding and potential for advancement. So like the politicians leading the charge, it may be a lot of scientists trying to prove a theory that most have already decided is the correct one.