Precisely because science is not my area (that being philosophy) I have to carefully consider both sides, and for some twenty years as a curious observer (if man causes global environmental problems I obviously want to know) I have read and listened to environmentalist claims - which get plenty of publicity - yet the science that challenges them gets ignored. What is most interesting is that time and again, this ignored science exposes the flaws, omissions, context-dropping, distortions, and other tricks that environmentalists get away with in the public light. And when their much publicized science and predictions are shown to be inaccurate, why do they not also with much publicity admit they were wrong and intend to learn from their inaccuracies - as we would expect intellectually honest, objective scientists to do? Instead we place attention on the alleged environmental problem of the moment until our attention is brought to the next one, and on and on, never looking back to see how the previously alleged environmental crises finally played out; let alone determining how true it even was. Environmentalists depend on the continuity of this manipulative process that relies on and reinforces a public's good intentions, scientific ignorance, and above all, its fear and short-memory.
What unutterable, ignorant, biased waffle!
I don't think science is in a position to know if AGW is true.
As someone who admits to knowing no science and only philosophy, this blogger is not in any position to assess science's position. Presumably he has been too ignorant of the science behind the fact of global warming to discriminate between genuine science and nay-sayer pseudoscience.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is an unwelcome fact to all of us, it is simply that some of us are realistic enough to face unwelcome truths and not to be misled by special interest denialist arguments.
The honest uncertainty of scientists regarding exact predictions of future numerical temperature elevations should be regarded as reflecting the complexity of climate predictions. There is no uncertainty, however, amongst genuine experts that the planet is warming due to human activity.
And how many times has the planet warmed after ice ages without humans around?
This tired old irrelevant argument should not have tempted someone who claims to understand epistemology. Perhaps his education did not include philosophy of science or critical thinking. He is committing the fallacy termed argumentum ad verecundiam and conveniently ignoring the opinion of genuine experts in the relevant fields. When in doubt, always defer to the opinion of unbiased experts in the field.
BlackSun provides a very good rebuttal of the foolish arguments in the comments section. I'll reproduce a small segment of his comments:
Finally, I'll address the collectivism accusation: Actually, it is the AGW-deniers who are the collectivists. They support allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to keep engaging in practices that essentially levy a heavy tax-burden on the rest of us. By depleting natural capital, the extractive robber-barons are externalizing their costs to other citizens and future generations. A true individualist libertarian would insist that everyone pay their fair share in the present-day rather than sloughing it off on their children, right?Sites Elsewhere: All atheists aren't bright . Climate-Change Denial: Aren't We Past That? . Al-Kafir Akbar: A Denialist Digs Himself In Deeper . Baseless Creationist Arguments Find a New Home .
On Global Warming : Drought, Peak Oil, and Climate Change: the Future is Now . Deny this .
On Denialism Elsewhere : Al Gore and the Attack of the Global Warming Cranks .
antropogenic, climatology, global warming, denialism,