" />

Academia on the Verge of a New Dark Age

Dec 13, 2016 |  Leo Goldstein

Font Size  

  

Academia on the Verge of a New Dark Age

Dec 13, 2016 | 

Leo Goldstein

Editor’s Introduction: It has been widely reported that President-elect Trump is considering cuts to NASA’s Earth division, which is a major source of “climate change” research.  Broadly speaking, climate change research has become a cause favored by the political left and dis-favored by the political right. 

The following article by Leo Goldstein is a strongly-stated criticism of global warming theory that focuses on the political left’s support for the theory. We publish it in the spirit of opening the door to discussion of an important topic, and we welcome contrasting views. One such contrasting view is presented by Bruce Gilley in "The Lack of Prudence of Fossil Fuel Supporters."

To be clear, the National Association of Scholars does not take a position on catastrophic man-made global warming. We are, rather, champions of scientific integrity, including skeptical examination of hypotheses and careful consideration of alternative hypotheses. To this end we uphold the importance of allowing dissenters in the scientific community reasonable space to make their arguments and to advance evidence that supports their critiques. 

The closing off of debate in several areas of legitimate scientific inquiry concerns us.  The most conspicuous example is the claim that climate science has reached a “consensus” of CO2-forced climate change and that those scientists who continue to dissent from the “consensus” do so in bad-faith.  The attacks on so-called “climate deniers,” however, are far from the only instance in which contemporary academe has circled the wagons around a favored view and prevented the more robust debates that would, in the long run, lead to more solidly grounded science.

Science is only a collection of methods, and scientists themselves are human, with all the vulnerabilities of humans.  Among those vulnerabilities are susceptibility to groupthink, psychological overinvestment in one’s opinions, confirmation bias, and unconscious self-interest.  These are inevitably factors that influence all scientists to varying degrees, and the pursuit of science requires a constant effort to neutralize that influence.  The most effective check on human fallibility is open debate in which each contributor must be ready to meet well-informed objections to his ideas.

Some areas of science, however, have found themselves in a whirlpool of circular reasoning to the effect that any and all doubts about a favored theory are to be seen as ill-informed, ignorant, or deceptive.  The whirlpool provides a rationalization for refusing to give any real consideration to dissenting views which, merely because they express dissent, are treated as illegitimate. 

There is such a thing as frivolous dissent that does not deserve much if any response from the scientific community.  It is late in the day to contest the value of the Planck constant.  But a great deal of non-frivolous dissent is often brushed into the same bin that serves as the resting place for crank formulations. 

The gate of contemporary academic science is also guarded by those who insist that any would-be challenger has to meet a very high threshold of evidence to warrant a hearing.  The principle is analogous to a boxing championship:  to challenge a champion, the challenger must work his way up the ranks.  This is a reasonable safeguard—provided the challenger is allowed to have those preliminary fights.  A system that forecloses the possibility of a serious challenge has a deep flaw.  


 

Academia on the Verge of a New Dark Age

by Leo Goldstein

One of the strongest and most longstanding political/social prejudices has been that Liberals represent Science and Reason, while Conservatives oppose them.  This opinion was probably imported from Europe, where it had some ground in the Enlightenment period.  But it has never been the case in America. The fact that overwhelming majority of post-WWII scientists held liberal beliefs is not evidence, because scientists comprised only a tiny minority of Liberal or Conservative supporters.

Over the last thirty years, in fact, Liberalism has been taken over by the hard Left, abandoned science and reason, and become a hotbed of obscurantism and oppression.  The myth that Democrats were the party of science but Republicans were anti-science played a significant role in this downfall.  One notable phenomenon is the rise of the so-called “postmodern science,” a product of cultural studies.

Al Gore’s War on Science

Al Gore played a unique role in corrupting and degrading the American scientific enterprise.  He belonged to the group of “Atari Democrats” who made an early alliance with the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, but Gore had neither aptitude not training in science.  He was no friend of science.  Gore compared science to the Faustian bargain:

[W]e have chosen to escape the Malthusian dilemma by making a set of dangerous bargains with the future worthy of the theatrical legend that haunted the birth of the scientific revolution: Doctor Faustus. Some of these bargains have already been exposed …” (Al Gore, Earth in the Balance, 1992, pp. 127-128)

In 1993-2000, Vice President Gore removed many distinguished, independent-minded scientists from the leadership of the American scientific community, replacing them with his political allies—especially from the environmentalist movement.  For example, he fired Will Happer from the position of the Director of Science in the DOE, after Professor Happer suggested measuring the UV radiation impact of the alleged ozone layer depletion.  This and other symptomatic cases are described in Michael Gough’s excellent book Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking (2003). Gore’s staff further demanded that distinguished oceanographer Roger Revelle’s name be removed from an article against global warming alarmism that Revelle had co-authored.  Gore’s unsuccessful attempts to intimidate Professor Fred Singer and to manipulate Ted Koppel, then an ABC anchor, were well-publicized as well. 

But the media and academics believed that science had no enemies on the left, so these misdeeds were largely ignored.  The publication of Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (1994) by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt, the Sokal affair (in which physicist Alan Sokal submitted an article of deliberate gibberish phrased in politically correct cant to Social Text, and got it published), and similar expressions of academic dissent were too little and too late. Other processes leading to the corruption of National Academy of Sciences and scientific societies are outside the scope of this article.

“Postmodern Science” and Climate Change

A scientific theory must match empirical observations.  This is the essence of the scientific method, universally accepted for at least four centuries.  Francis Bacon formulated it in 1620.  A liberal arts education has long included sciences and required observations of nature or lab experiments.  More recently, Karl Popper refined our understanding of the scientific method.  It is currently accepted that any scientific theory must be testable (“falsifiable”) – the theory must have a non-trivial inference which is observable and can be demonstrated to be wrong (“falsified”) if the theory is incorrect.  A theory contradicting natural or experimental observations must be rejected. 

But then came “postmodern science,” with its constructivist epistemology, which declared science to be nothing more than what scientists say is true.  In the postmodern framework, physical laws are just social conventions.  If we were to take these postmodernists (or cultural constructivists) seriously, we would have to believe that gravity comes and goes as scientific opinion changes. This nonsense seems too absurd to do any real harm in the twenty-first century. Nevertheless, it has seriously harmed scientific institutions and scientific education, not least because it became a cornerstone of the climate pseudo-science.  For example, the climate models of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are “validated” by comparing their results to other IPCC models rather than to actual climate change data. 

Every day the popular media tells us to ignore physical reality, to disregard scientific measurements (such as satellite temperature measurements), and to forget that carbon dioxide is a plant food, but to listen to the alleged consensus of the UN-appointed scientists.  In the process, there appeared a whole new area of studies, measuring the alleged “scientific consensus on climate change.”  Never mind that these studies always come up, with remarkable unanimity, with the same unsubstantiated figure of “97% scientific consensus” that first appeared in 2004.

In hindsight, it seems that climate alarmism unleashed itself from its last attachment to the scientific method around that same year.  By that time the physical research had shown that potential surface warming from the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide did not merit public concern.  In 2001, even the IPCC acknowledged that, sotto voce, by removing the qualifier anthropogenic from its definition of climate change.  The last remaining justification for public concern about climate change was Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ chart, which was disproven by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in 2003.  But climate alarmists have paid no attention to how their scientific position has been undermined.  Their reaction to their scientific critics instead has been defunding, firing, media smear, and legal and illegal threats.

This should cause no surprise. After all, alarmist “climate scientists” have openly and brazenly rejected the scientific method and instead resorted to “postmodern science.”  A 2010 lecture by Dr. Stephen Schneider, one of the scientific leaders of climate alarmism and a founder and editor of the Climatic Change journal, provides representative examples of attempts to justify that philosophical turnabout: “Climate system science, like others, it is really a preponderance of evidence based outcomes, it is not falsifiable. … There are still some people who think [climate science] operates on the basis of falsification.” Having thus acknowledged that “climate science” was not a real science, Dr. Schneider explained that its theories are based on decisions by what he called “the scientific community” rather than on empirical evidence:

By the scientific community, I do not mean non-climate scientists, who drop in opinions from the outside, I am talking about those people who actually do the work. … The critics almost never showed up at scientific meetings. They just write blogs and screeds and do ‘audits’ without really being members of the community.  So they’re not welcome. That’s absolutely true because they’re not part of the debate. That’s cultural. That’s not a matter of who’s right and who’s wrong. [1]

Thus, he acknowledged that the “climate scientists” were an insular group, refusing collaboration with real scientists.  In other words, his “scientific community” essentially has been using cult methods, and their activity has been to defend and develop the cult’s dogma.  Dr. Schneider became a “climate science community organizer,” and rejected empirical evidence and scientific method in his other works as well: “But science is not empirical when you’re discussing the future. There is nothing empirical about the future.”[2]

This misses the point entirely.  From Archimedes' principle through Newton’s laws to the latest developments in pharmacology, science has justified itself by its predictive power—by scientific theories’ ability to pass empirical tests.

Practically all American universities have either enthusiastically embraced the climate pseudo-science, or have quietly assented to it.  For a long time, natural and technical sciences have been replaced with environmental and “interdisciplinary” studies.  And in some cases (e.g. explaining greenhouse construction), even high school physics and biology are taught incorrectly to fit the climatist narrative. The intellectual insufficiency of “climate science” has not prevented it from going from triumph to triumph. Truth is great, but it does not prevail without human endeavor to stand for it.



Leo Goldstein is a mathematician and software engineer who lives in Texas.

 

[1]  February 4, 2010 lecture in Stanford University. Quoted from Darwall, Rupert. The Age of Global Warming: A History (2013), Kindle Ed., loc. 11160-73, and the author’s transcription from the video at youtu.be/mmlHbt5jja4.

[2]  Schneider, Stephen H. Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate, 2010, p. 47.

 

Image: Galileo e Viviani, 1892, Tito Lessi

Robert W Tucker

| December 16, 2016 - 12:05 PM


QUOTE: “From Archimedes’ principle through Newton’s laws to the latest developments in pharmacology, science has justified itself by its predictive power—by scientific theories’ ability to pass empirical tests.”

Mr. Goldstein would do well to learn something about the history and philosophy of scientific method.

First, what there was to mean by ‘science’ in the period of Archimedes and the canons of reasoning in force among today’s sciences are materially different. Moreover, there is no universal set of canons, presuppositions, stipulations, etc. shared by all of today’s scientific domains of inquiry. One wonders if Mr. Goldstein is aware of the points at which the canons evolved to embrace experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Does he know that the evaluation sciences were recently developed and display important discontinuities with many other sciences?

Second, predictive power is one among many in a complexly knit family of criteria for adequacy in scientific theories. Is Mr. Goldstein aware that most theorists rate heuristic value above predictive power in assessing the utility of a theory?

Last, shoehorning theoretical validity into passing empirical tests sounds a lot like the school of Logical Positivism that we rejected for good reason nearly a century ago.

With a grasp of the foundations of science that is this weak, it makes little sense to go on to assessing Mr. Goldstein’s mastery of meteorology.

Terence Zuber

| December 17, 2016 - 9:21 AM


“Climate scientists” have self-serving computer models (garbage in, garbage out) but little historical data. The National Weather Service was formed in 1870 - as a branch of the Army. So, for the Continental US, you have data from where the Army was stationed. No data for Alaska, then, for example. Custer probably did not have a weather section at the Little Big Horn, but if he did, they weren’t reporting anything anyway. It only became a civilian office in 1890. Little data for the rest of the world - Antarctica, the North Pole, Siberia, inland China, the South Pacific, interior of South America, Africa. The accuracy of any such data is questionable due to the crude instrumentation employed, and the lack of uniformity in collecting data. The first reliable data comes with Geosynchronous weather satellites in 1970.So, the “climate scientists” have all of 46 years of data.And no, tree rings don’t count.

Justin

| December 17, 2016 - 9:30 AM


“Climate scientists” have self-serving computer models . . .”

Mr Zuber - You seem to be suggesting that the world’s climate scientists are all biased in the same direction. In addition to the improbability that all members of any scientific community would be biased in a specific direction, what is the nature of this coherent self-serving bias that you allude to?

Terence Zuber

| December 17, 2016 - 3:25 PM


I was referring to “climate scientists”. Not climate scientists.

jon halsey

| December 18, 2016 - 9:11 AM


Justin, he “nature of this coherent self-serving bias that [zuber] allude[s] to?”:  Follow the money!

John Wenger

| December 21, 2016 - 12:10 AM


I am no expert on climate change (in fact, my field, like the author’s, is Mathematics), but I do have to comment on one thing he spoke of:  science as a predictive and falsifiable enterprise.

Now most of the time that is true.  However, there are certain fields where neither of these is possible.  One is cosmology, and another is climate change.

In the field of climate change, you can make predictions and test them, but if takes hundreds of years before the predictions can be assessed, and if those predictions are catastrophic, what is one to do? 

I would say, look at the science and do the best you can under the circumstances.  Debate the issues (and yes, everyone should be invited into the debate) and then go by whatever consensus emerges.  Can this lead to a mistake?  Of course, but what is the alternative?

John C. Wenger

McCall

| December 21, 2016 - 11:30 AM


Tucker identifies the flaws in Goldstein’s argument based on the logical foundations of science; Justin points to a flawed presupposition; Wegner points out how the article fails to recognize downside risks of being wrong when event horizons exceed our lifespan.

These are among the most valid considerations.

I see another consideration based more on psychology than logic. An impartial read of Goldstein’s piece sees a great deal of emotion, especially anger and emotional hyperbole common to those driven more by ideology than fact. Goldstein is attempting (and failing) to employ science as a cudgel rather than a means of seeking truth.

Personally, I have yet to discern why it is that so many conservatives get hot under the collar when presented with the facts of climate change. Are the drivers of their heated rhetoric religious, financial, or a tortured logic that climate scientists must be liberal and therefore their work must be discounted? I’m sure that some service providers are liberal; do those who reject the facts of climate change refuse to patronize them?

A calm, dispassionate explanation of why so many conservatives expend so much energy fighting the facts would be helpful to me.

Terence Zuber

| December 22, 2016 - 9:03 AM


What “facts” are McCall talking about? As I pointed out, “climate scientists” have no workable data - just a succession of constantly-shifting computer models. We aren’t talking “facts” here, we’re talking faith-based religion. According to Al Gore (in 2006), the High Priest of the Climate Change religion, after 2016 the world is doomed anyway.  And the penance that the Climate Change religion prescribes for our environmental sins won’t solve the problem - but it will make liberals feel a lot better about the state of their souls.

Mark Pawelek

| February 27, 2017 - 2:30 AM


Robert W Tucker said: ... Is Mr. Goldstein aware that most theorists rate heuristic value above predictive power in assessing the utility of a theory? ...

If climate alarmists want us to jump on board their ship and predominantly blame carbon dioxide for global warming, they need answer Popper’s question: “What experiment can we do to show it’s not carbon dioxide?”  What potentially failing experiments does Robert W Tucker propose?  Climate is a chaotic non-linear system. Data is inadequate and disputed: partial and generally missing, sometimes wrong (e.g. due to the urban heat island effect). Much of Africa, Amazonia, central Asia is not sampled. 71% of the surface is sea or ocean, which is inadequately sampled. Weather stations tend to be where people are; as do scientists. 5% of the earth’s land has 95% of its population. The other 95% of land has the other 5%. Vast amounts of data are interpolated.  Yet climate alarmists prefer to ignore the only complete surface temperature record - the satellite data. The alarmists rely heavily on theoretical reconstructions - climate models - which only consider 3 out of over 10 important factors which have been shown to affect climate.

Robert W Tucker

| February 27, 2017 - 1:16 PM


Mark Pawelek,

I think you are confusing the positions among those in this discussion. Nothing in my remarks suggested that Popper’s conjecture/refutation model of scientific progress should or even can be determinative in most forms of inquiry that we call “scientific.” To the contrary, I suggested that scientific understanding (i.e., what we conjecture to be most likely but never certain in matters of science) progresses along multiple fronts and that these paths vary with the nature of the science, most specifically with the nature and scrutability of the phenomenal field(s) of interest.

I attended some of Popper’s lectures in the 1970’s. I also met with him. I know that he was somewhat dismayed by what he viewed as an illogical overextension of his C/R model. His point was that knowledge progresses on balance by refuting well-formed scientific hypotheses, and that the integration of the most relevant and best-supported conjectures that have yet to be refuted are best viewed as forming a provisional picture of the truth. Importantly, nothing Popper said can be construed to support the notion of a grand-theoretic test of refutation implied in your challenge. In many fields of inquiry, such grand tests are not feasible or sometimes even possible under current understanding. In such cases, science looks for smaller tests of components from which inferences are reasonable.

I find it odd on two fronts that you argue for such a rigid and absolutist interpretation of scientific evidence.

First, climate science is but one of many sciences for which such tests are not feasible. Yet, I hear only of climate science from a group of people who seem to be dogmatically possessed of a particular view and a particular political leaning. I cannot help but wonder why this is so important to them while, at the same time, they seem to have no interest in similar scientific uncertainties.

Second, the position you appear to take cannot pass the test you would have the community of climate scientists pass. Are some climate scientists guilty of allowing their political ideology overshadow their scientific objectivity? I am not a climate scientist but based on my knowledge of other sciences, I am sure that there are such scientists. And shame on them. However, whatever loss of objectivity I think I see on that side of the discussion is overshadowed by the ideologically driven selective reasoning on the other side of the discussion. Why is this so?

I look at three broad issues when I evaluate a scientific dispute that is beyond my expertise in order to determine what position I should take.

First, I do not attempt to interpret evidence beyond my scope of expertise. Instead, I examine the scientific and experiential credentials of those on all sides of the issue. Achievements of relevance and peer review are among the elements of this examination.

Second, I examine the degree of consensus among the most highly credentialed experts.

Last, I examine the upside and downside risk of being right or wrong in taking each stance.

When I work through these three steps with respect to the topic of human sourcing of climate change, it would be clearly irrational to come down on the side of those who would deny such impact. No objective person would claim that the preponderance of rational criteria do not favor this position over the alternative. Does this mean that this position is correct? Of course not. We rarely get this kind of certainty in science, never in fact.

The next step in taking a position on future action is less clear to me. Can we make the changes necessary to mitigate enough of the impact to make the effort worthwhile? I’m not certain. Thus, in a perverse sense, the course of action advocated by those would would deny the affirmative view may be good enough because it may be too late to do otherwise.

Mark Pawelek

| February 28, 2017 - 2:31 AM


Popper is right and is universally applicable to all sciences.

Your essay reply is a nice example of how to lower the reputation of a particular scientific discipline: ‘let scientists make it up as they proceed’ is how I distilled down your argument. In reality, science, as a whole, found it necessary to incorporate many checks on, not just hypotheses, but on field and experimental data. Popper’s falsifiability is widely accepted. Science recognises that real peer review is superior to pal review. The recent, and ongoing, replication ‘crisis’ shows that even field and experimental data can’t be trusted at face value. Replicated studies are of far more value than non-replicated. It’s not so much that data is faked. That’s rare. Far more the case that data is shoe-horned to pick the wrong sized foot.  Too little data, marginal p <= 0.05, invalid correlation claims. A single discipline can’t sort out the mess for itself. For example: social psychology might continue its preference for tiny studies with marginal p <= 0.05 misused to make invalid claims. In this case, statisticians are intervening in a debate with criticism that will, hopefully, improve the reliability of future results.

To get a better idea of problems within science I recommend you take a look at ‘Retraction Watch’ <http://retractionwatch.com>, the writings of statisticians such as Andrew Gelman <http://andrewgelman.com>, The Cultural Cognition Project <http://www.culturalcognition.net> (which is attempting to understand unconscious bias by scientists themselves), ‘Sense about Science’ (who tell the public to ‘ask for evidence’), initiatives such as Pub Peer <http://PubPeer.com> (which encourages anonymous criticism of published work). Better informed public, more clued up on scientific method and statistics can help science in the long run. Perhaps leading to better public policy. The elitist attitude to climate alarmists, and the climate faithful, is a perfect example of how to alienate the public from the scientific mainstream.

Mark Pawelek

| February 28, 2017 - 2:39 AM


Apologies. Near the end, that should read: “The elitist attitude of climate alarmists”.

NAJOHNSON

| March 05, 2017 - 4:31 PM


It always amuses me to see people so quickly jump on ideology for “conservative” objections to climate alarmism, and miss the ideological motivations for (at least many of) those pushing it.  And of course the financial motivations involved - the more catastrophic climate change is, the bigger the grant money pool available to those in the field, because its ‘more important’.

But attacks about ideology and motivation are entirely beside the point - that’s an ad hominem fallacy applied either way.  The important part is the *arguments* and *evidence*, not the motivations of the people making them, because the arguments and evidence do not depend on motivation.  An argument’s validity doesn’t change whether a harvard lawyer or a drunk high school drop out is making it.

So what is the evidence?  Has a single model accurately predicted temperature?  Last I knew the real temperature data was all well below model predictions, or *at best* barely within the low error bar of the least hot predictions.  When the models consistently run way too hot, the public is right to be concerned that ‘scientists’ are pushing an agenda which has little basis in real facts.

How available is it to the public? - not the summary of the results, but the actual data.  Is Mann’s graph so shocking if you got rid of the modern ‘real’ temperature data and just looked at the proxy data through the present?

Why is satellite data generally ignored?

And let’s not mention the NOAA massaging of the data in questionable ways that wasn’t even properly archived and thus whose conclusions cannot be checked.

As to how science operates - if your theory cannot be falsified, it’s not science.  Period.  Although in this case I’d say the invariable model failures have falsified most specific theories of catastrophic warming.  Anything which doesn’t get as far as a model doesn’t even deserve the label of ‘theory’.

As to why Climate Change generates more vociferous public engagement than fields like cosmology, it’s because cosmology isn’t asking for trillions to avert a supposed catastrophe.  (That’s trillions of dollars in direct tax costs, lost future productivity and economic growth, and other costs associated with over-regulation and higher prices).  That’s the bottom line on why the public cares more about one than the other.  Cosmology may be interesting, but it’s not asking people to open their wallets significantly.

For the record, I’m neither a conservative nor a liberal, and I support a weak hypothesis that anthropogenic factors are influencing earth’s climate to some degree.  Getting from there to catastrophic should require strong evidence, and ‘climate science’s’ model of the year which will have over-predicted temperature five years later by a significant amount is not strong evidence.

Robert W Tucker

| March 05, 2017 - 5:53 PM


NAJOHNSON,

You make several interesting empirical claims. Since I am not a climate scientist (on either “side” as it were), I look forward to seeing how these claims are received and responded to.

You do make one point that it false when you say, “An argument’s validity doesn’t change whether a Harvard lawyer or a drunk high school dropout is making it.” A full explanation of why this is false is beyond scope here (or at least takes more energy than I have for it today) but I’ll try shorthand for anyone who has not made up his mind. Here goes. When Einstein uttered E-MC^2 he was doing science. He uttered a proposition that was both conceptually and empirically grounded. On the other hand, if I were clever enough to teach my dog to make the same vocal utterance (sound pressure, phonemes, all that), he would not be doing science. In fact, similar to the drunk, he would not actually saying anything. Utterances are neither necessary nor sufficient to semantic content and semantic content is necessary to classifying a locution as true, false, empirical, conceptual, contingent, analytic, logical, etc..

Other than that faulty premise, have fun. I look forward to seeing what other experts have to say. 

NAJOHNSON

| March 07, 2017 - 5:15 PM


Robert W. Tucker,

I respectfully disagree entirely with your analysis.  An argument’s content is entirely contained in the ‘utterance’.  It does not depend on the speaker’s state of mind, motivation, or even personhood (or lack thereof).

For a demonstration using your own example, suppose that we recorded and then transcribed the identical ‘utterances’ of both Einstein and the dog, so that we had a text copy of both, each of which we leave off any indication of who produced it.  We then find some other people, and have them analyze the contents of those texts.  Can those readers analyze the argument being made?  Should the readers of the dog’s transcript come to different conclusions?

By stipulation, both texts are identical, because the dog ‘uttered’ the same thing Einstein did.  Any analysis of the dog’s text should be identical to Einstein’s text.  And we read arguments all the time - the text is sufficient to understand what is being argued.  We don’t need to track down the author and ascertain that it was a *person* to derive meaning from it.  Nor does the argument depend on the author in any sense - everything needed to assess the argument is on the page.

Now, I would agree the dog is not *doing science*, but neither would a person who was just parroting Einstein.  Science is a process, not just the end results or the individual argument’s amassed in favor of a conclusion.  But the dog *is still making the same argument*, and the fact that it’s a dog doesn’t have any bearing on the validity of that argument.

Robert W Tucker

| March 08, 2017 - 4:18 PM


NAJOHNSON,

Thanks for the comment. We are getting pretty far off topic. Rather than disagreeing further, perhaps we can close this off by engaging in a few thought experiments. If we still disagree, there is no need to bring those disagreements back to this discussion on climate change.

Going back to your original comment to which I responded, what is involved when one determines a proposition to be correct or incorrect? For example, suppose that the dog uttered E=MC^2 as a random vocalization and that Einstein uttered E=MC^3. Do you see any untoward implications in divorcing the process by which an assertion was constructed from the assertion itself?

Taking this back to climate change, it seems to me that the center of this discussion is less the empirical findings than the rationale that goes into them and their soundness for projections, etc.

Mark Pawelek

| March 08, 2017 - 4:34 PM


I think you’re just playing a game. I’m not interested in hypothetical arguments. The real world is far more interesting. Understanding the real world too. Watch this 13 minute youtube exposition explaining how climate fraudsters do their deceptions - with numbers not so much with ideas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ge9Nwu8MxE

PS: By the way, Einstein derived E = m C². He did not just dream it up. Dogs don’t derive formulae because one needs to do a lot of maths and read many physics papers to do that.