Kiwiblog has drawn my attention to a post by Steve Maharey, former Minister for Social Development, at The Pundit. He writes about the looming ETS select committee hearing;Evidence from competing points of view will be heard by New Zealand’s elected representatives. This evidence is to be treated equally. Public officials will be asked if they have been impartial. Those who advance the position that human activity is contributing to climate change are to be set against those who oppose this view – as if they are equals.
Of course they are not. The overwhelming view of the science community is for the former view. A tiny minority oppose this view. They may be right – minority views can be right – but in this instance they will have to work very hard if they are to be taken seriously given the depth of the evidence they are seeking to question.
It is a little like asking for a committee to be set up on the evidence that smoking causes cancer and then treating all submissions equally. It would be funny if it were not so absurd.
Steve Maharey's idea of science is well captured by these words from 2003;
"I know of no social science that says the nuclear family is more successful than other kinds."
When it comes to science, Mr Maharey doesn't look very hard. And he is now Vice Chancellor of Massey. What chance critical thinking?
9 comments:
Thank goodness Maharey is not still in Parliament and therefore able to be on the Select Committee.
The big concern is what sort of propoganda will he be promoting at Massey.
LM, the scince of climate change is physical science. It is not social science. You should know this. You'll also know that ad hominem is not a valid form of argument (BTW, 'pdm' -- that's why your comments are rarely worthy of address).
LM, if, despite the ACT Party slant of the inquiry, the select committee report comes out in favour of the validity of human-induced climate change, will that change your mind? if not, why not?
Taking into account the FACT that the scientific method always necessarily embraces falsifiability, what would it take to change your mind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Falsifiability.html
[PDM - i'm happy to debate with you, but you'll need to avoid abuse.]
Change my mind about what? That the so-called majority consensus must be right simply because they have the numbers?
I don't know if recent climate change is either unusual, or caused by man. I will leave it up to the 'experts' to debate. But debate they must be allowed to do.
LM - sure, debate is fine. As Maharey says, minorities can of course be correct. That, of course, is what science is always about. If you're unwilling to admit to the falsifiability of the theory you adhere to, then you are not being scientific. That's why, when people say, "prove to me that human-induced climate change is totally true," they are not being scientific.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of the people who comes down on the side of denying the veracity of the theory of human-induced climate change? If so, what would convinve you to change your stance? The Select Committee?
Anyways, maybe we should all forget about the believe/believe that argument; nobody will every agree in time. How about this fella's argument
"LM - sure, debate is fine. As Maharey says, minorities can of course be correct."
Yet he makes it very clear he does not believe so in this case.
I have never described myself as a denier. It may be a trite and convenient label but I am an agnostic.
Every temperature prediction that the IPCC has made has been proven false by actual subsequent measurements. In retrospect, the errors in the predictions have been explained away in ways which sound reasonable. However, until such time as the IPCC can make predictions which are bourne out in reality, it is reasonable to conclude that the IPCC does not have as clear an understanding of climate science as some protagonists claim.
People are already dying in the third world as a consequence of bio-fuel policies adopted to mitigate CO2 emissions. Before we adopt more policies which will bring suffering to people, we need empirical evidence. I.e. predictions from models being bourne out in reality, and predictions from those verified models - combined with economic projections - that the mitigating efforts themselves will alleviate more suffering than they cause.
The current position of many appears to be to guess that when we do get our climate science right, that the prognosis will be poor and that climate change will cause more suffering than mitigating efforts. The only way I can go along with this at this time is to take it on faith, I won't do that.
This isn't the time to take rash decisions, it is the time to work hard on the science so that sound decisions can be made as soon as possible.
Dave Christian
Every temperature prediction that the IPCC has made has been proven false by actual subsequent measurements. In retrospect, the errors in the predictions have been explained away in ways which sound reasonable. However, until such time as the IPCC can make predictions which are bourne out in reality, it is reasonable to conclude that the IPCC does not have as clear an understanding of climate science as some protagonists claim.
People are already dying in the third world as a consequence of bio-fuel policies adopted to mitigate CO2 emissions. Before we adopt more policies which will bring suffering to people, we need empirical evidence. I.e. predictions from models being bourne out in reality, and predictions from those verified models - combined with economic projections - that the mitigating efforts themselves will alleviate more suffering than they cause.
The current position of many appears to be to guess that when we do get our climate science right, that the prognosis will be poor and that climate change will cause more suffering than mitigating efforts. The only way I can go along with this at this time is to take it on faith, I won't do that.
This isn't the time to take rash decisions, it is the time to work hard on the science so that sound decisions can be made as soon as possible.
Dave Christian
Harpoon - I cannot recall ever abusing you unless you consider disagreeing with you to be abuse.
Continuing to put leaded fuel into my Cadillac and motoring lifes highway I'm all for the debate on climate change to rage back and forth as long as it dont stop me having fun.
Dirk.
Post a Comment