Global Warming Doubts are Increasing Among Scientists
Original post made
by Greg, Southgate,
on Dec 20, 2007
Although this probably hurts my cause to promote safe and green nuclear power, I can only be honest about it. An increasing number of reputable sicentists are expressing their doubts about the current hysterial of global warming.
Of particular note is the intimidation factor involved:
"Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. "
Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 24, 2007 at 10:39 am
Terry, Methinks you chuckle too much, but it's gratifying to know that I make a difference in your life. :)
I hope you get the reference re: your posted (and somewhat masked) post above, apologizing for a rather incomplete knowledge about the philosophy of science. You haven't read Kuhn, have you? And certainly not Popper, not that it makes a difference to those who think they can spout about data points and their relevance to science, as they concoct their own, half-baked theories about whatever they don't agree with.
Foucault? You mean the philosophy of "Social Science" dude, right? Yeah, the guy who thought what scientists said about the dangers of AIDS was nonsense. (clue: I'm being coy here). That one cost him his life. (btw, you're talking to a guy who has read almost everything Foucault has written [what a *grand* waste of time!]
And, oh, btw, Foucault learned a lot from Kuhn. You should read him, too. That would help you understand the weak arguments made about scientific "evidence" that the anti-warming folks want to chatter about here.
I love debating about French intellectuals, mostly because they're such a lightweight bunch, on balance - relative to so many other out there. Now, if we're talking about Proust, or Montaigne, some REAL French intellectuals, with timeless insights - that's another story. They at least have something to say, compared to the blowhard, pop-star, always-on-the-front-page-of French postmodernist set (sect?) Derrida? Foucault? Lacan? Gimme a break! Nothing but a colossal waste of intellect, and many, many, overworked graduate student's and lit crit conferee's time. Pure junk, most of it. Why didn't they stop at Nietzsche, or Heidegger, Lewis Carroll, etc. - that, instead of the mindless regurgitation of old ideas under the rubric of their lame "postmodernism" - all driven by the French press. Really, really mindless stuff, dripping with pretension.
Now that we have that settled...
For someone who purports to understand how scientific theory evolves, and how we ALL profit from that - no matter the turns that the process takes - you seem to have a religious dedication to avoiding the fact (yes, fact) that there is a prepoderance fo evidence that supports global warming.
But you like to hedge your bets by saying "my guess is that the world is warming up"...and then suggest, contrary to every nation on earth (except ours) and the *massive* weight of scientific evidence that something needs to be done soon, that we shouldn't be too concerned now (e.g. "it's a marathon, not a sprint"). Huh?
And you did say you wrote your thesis on Foucault, right? It shows, because you appear to be putting together another one of Foucault's famous subjective (really, an understatement) rants.
About the library studies, show me evidence contrary to their conclusions - or keep guessing about the imaginary findings that don't exist. Or, is that something else you want to create a Foucaultian subjective thesis about? :)