Vet inte varför jag postar detta, men skrev ungefär detta idag som kommentar här.
From physorg: “Results showed that those who read the positive messages were more open to believing in the existence of global warming and had more faith in science’s ability to solve the problem”.
This study obviously aim to provide facts on how to save the lie AGW. A useful strategic effort if global temperature drops (say 1-2 degrees C). I also think IPCC’s Mojib Latif’s prediction of falling temperatures due to ocean cycles was made to save AGW when temperatures drop.
But no “normal” people who want to stay non-heretic dare to have an objective that differ from dangerous AGW. Here are thoughts on what I think may be a problem which can be discussed.
I think a problem may be a too strong dialectic approach in both science and society, and that power can be achieved using this. We are more busy to search for and establish truth on agreement than on the premise of -and humble search for objective facts.
AGW a lie? Non-scientific gloom and doom indicates dishonesty from those participating in that. But I don’t think this phenomenon is a just conspiracy. Not even if political goals somewhat seeded the issue. It was able to take off and expand in a methodologically relativistic context, where quite often leftists were the driving force. (Another important explanation is that media and politicians gain from alarmism, and together increases it.) Dangerous AGW fits discourses involving social responsibility well, thus it’s been rooted in universities. (Paradox: But if social responsibility is an attribute displacing objective truth it’s false and inherently non-responsible.)
Physorg also mention the cliché “growing scientific consensus” on global warming recent years in order to push a dishonest connection between actual temperatures a few years with IPCC’s dangerous AGW.
The issue dangerous AGW has been an overall success because it has been intertwined with politics (on highest level UN), and maybe also because the multi domain (holistic?) approach is too much encouraged on universities.
This is also Christmas evening for the Marxists, with their critical analysis. I understand critical analysis to be a branch in social science with the goal to identify cases of, say, injustice and oppression, which are used to push forward an alternative society (the socialist utopia) where the old bourgeois with these cases of injustice and oppression are targeted in order to eventually destroy the unjust capitalist society.
But if the problem is relativism in general — and dialectics — it’s not enough to describe it as a Marxist problem, although Marxists gain from this, and although former communists run much of the environmentalism after the communism era.
Dangerous AGW may be an issue in natural science where a successful replacement of truth with a construction with moral implications has been made with methodology of social science.
If that's the case a way forward — also to combat environmentalism — could be to try to target this phenomena. It isn’t easy for anyone to counter constructions regarded as holy truth with moral implications with facts. That’s why dissenters are heretics. But on the universities one should be able to discuss methodology and how politics has entered science, both in scientific bodies (e g what Lindzen describes in “Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed To Answer Questions”), or in e g too much of idealistic interdisciplinary approach with moral/social aims. In methodology Josh Willis adjustment of data in order to, explicitly confessed, fit theory is an example.
Btw, also extreme feminism’s construction on gender oppression, suggesting that girls shall be forced to play boys’ games and vice versa, escape reason. Global warming is a more simple, good, world saving issue.
Andra bloggar om: vetenskap, miljö, politik, klimatforskning