,
20 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
A comment under my article at Spiked.
It's fairly typical. I've seen thousands of them over the years. It speaks to the fact that 'science' has bought no information to the climate debate.
It has instead basked in the glory that alarmism has given it.
It's fairly typical. I've seen thousands of them over the years. It speaks to the fact that 'science' has bought no information to the climate debate.
It has instead basked in the glory that alarmism has given it.
Only in the most extreme, radical, far out, and dubious estimations of "impact" are problems of the kind and scale that this chap fantasises about produced. And not for a very long time, let alone by 2030.
But in his head, he thinks it's a scientific FACT.
But in his head, he thinks it's a scientific FACT.
I'm asked to respond to a fantasy. A science fiction dystopia. Not anything which has happened, or which could plausibly happen in just 11 years. I'm 'denying' science.
"Science" has a lot to answer for.
"Science" has a lot to answer for.
And then this is moralised, personalised... I must be a bad person for not giving a toss about the people who will suffer in 2030.
It's ideology, pure and simple. Pure, blind, irrational ideology.
It's ideology, pure and simple. Pure, blind, irrational ideology.
And it's a weird ideology.
If crop failures do occur, then we will grow different crops, or grow them in different ways. Agriculture on this planet spans a very wide of climatic conditions.
It is *ideology* which says that agriculture is not possible outside of a niche.
If crop failures do occur, then we will grow different crops, or grow them in different ways. Agriculture on this planet spans a very wide of climatic conditions.
It is *ideology* which says that agriculture is not possible outside of a niche.
Green ideology wants you to think that agriculture is a gift from nature, not something people do, worked out by people, who organise themselves in various ways. On this view, farmers just take.
It's like medieval theology.
It's like medieval theology.
It cannot be reasoned with, because it's preoccupied by things which have not happened, probably won't happen, and by there being no solution to those problems. The entire outlook is configured in that way.
How are you supposed to argue a fantasy counterfactual factoid?
How are you supposed to argue a fantasy counterfactual factoid?
This is why I'm a climate change sceptic.
Until the role of ideology is understood, the science does not mean anything.
Until the role of ideology is understood, the science does not mean anything.
Ah, but he's just some guy on the Internet.
Of course. But the point stands: science has not lifted his understanding. Yet it is the institution his argument implies we must respect and defer to.
But it gets worse than that.
Of course. But the point stands: science has not lifted his understanding. Yet it is the institution his argument implies we must respect and defer to.
But it gets worse than that.
I have never detected any improvement in the quality of the argument as one moves up the food chain from just-some-guy-on-the-Internet right to the very top of prestigious scientific institutions.
Very often, in fact, the opinions of presidents of the oldest scientific academies are no better than the opinions than the bloke at the pub's.
The difference is that the bloke in the pub isn't dangerous.
The difference is that the bloke in the pub isn't dangerous.
Here's another fairly routine response... "Where's yer evydense?"
Here's some evidence. climate-resistance.org/2007/05/the-ro…
And some more. climate-resistance.org/2010/06/the-gr…
And some more. climate-resistance.org/2010/06/the-gr…
And even more. climate-resistance.org/2011/01/nursin…
Plenty more where that came from. climate-resistance.org/2014/09/how-no…
I won't bore you with the rest. There are hundreds of examples of scientists -- senior scientists -- showing no more aptitude for positions of authority than someone plucked off the street at random.
"What about you", they screech, "what are your qualifications, eh?"
I don't claim to have any.
It's debate which is ultimately the great leveller, in science and in politics. That's why they hate it.
I don't claim to have any.
It's debate which is ultimately the great leveller, in science and in politics. That's why they hate it.
Damn... Typing too fast.
Ought to have been:
"... in fact the opinions of presidents of the oldest scientific academies are no better than the opinions of the bloke at the pub..."
Ought to have been:
"... in fact the opinions of presidents of the oldest scientific academies are no better than the opinions of the bloke at the pub..."
