´óÏó´«Ã½

"Some think scientists should champion a return to the idea of science as the pursuit of systematic doubt."
It ought to be the systematic pursuit of doubt.
"Lord Rees pointed to the area where he believes science has recently had the most contentious policy impact, and where the stakes are highest - climate change, one of the subjects of his second lecture.
There has not been much room for doubt and uncertainty in the climate change debate, and some are arguing that it illustrates the need for a new relationship between science and politics."
The phrase 'the stakes are highest' is post-normal science talking. That is not science at all but conjecture and politics. By ensuring the framing of the argument in that way it automatically excludes the views such as 'the stakes are not high at all because it is not man doing it' to 'the cost of trying to stop it (without even being certain it would) is far, far more than the cost of adapting'.
The originators of post-normal science insist on two things; 1. The facts are secondary to a consensus and that 2. The most consensual outcome can only be achieved if opinions of all spectrums are included.
The actions of the IPCC and world Governments excludes contrarian opinion, insists there is certainty when there is not and insists there is a consensus when there is not.

To understand the limits and benefits of science simultaneously all cabinet ministers should be made to study quantum mechanics, see the double slit experiment for themselves, marvel at the counter-intuitive yet undeniable and proven 'hardy's paradox.

They may then take adifferent approach to 'climate science'.

I have no objection to the outcomes of 'climate science' i.e. moving towards a more sustainable future that doed not rely on the ridiculous cencept of 'eternal growth'.

We should be moving to amore sustainable future, not because of climate science but because if we dont we will try to use more and more of a finite resource which will become rarer and rarer and more and more expensive until we reach the point that we start to kill each other for control of it.

Why do we need the poxy politisizes 'excuse' known as climate change for goodness sake. There are far more compelling arguments to do it!!

Just bonkers.


P.s. I would like to apply for the job of Merlin in David Camerons 'Camelot'...anyone know where I can apply?

oh goody, lectures, like they used to have, with experiments and bunson burners and ...things, I used to hope they would blow up just for a bit of drama but they usually fizzle out.....

i remember the media being gung ho about climate change as 'fact'. Even to the point of propagandising it as such. So if there is a bit more questioning in the media that might also be good? How many in the media are trained in science? Do the media know 'what questions to ask' about 'no doubt science'? When all that was in no doubt was that it was a cocktail of an agenda by those running the carbon exchanges, one world maoist cultism and governments who saw another way to tax people?

at least all the pompous 'flat earthers', 'climate deniers' name calling has evaporated as so much hot air.

when climate changers were showing people 20 year charts and saying there was 'a trend' why did no one point out that climate ice ages work on 100,000 year cycles and if you place the 20 year trend on the longer ice age chart all you see is nothing unusual and that everything is normal and that to pretend you can see a trend is ridiculous?

sometime the vested interests on all sides do not want to hear?

A CAT ASLEEP IN FRONT OF AN ELECTRIC FIRE.

To cool down, do you get rid of the cat? And what if the fire is controlled from 'elsewhere'?

SUSAN: PLEASE DEFINE "KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE".

"A knowledge of science will become increasingly important as the 21st Century progresses"

I take issue with that statement. What is needed is the ability to know when scientific rigor is/has been applied, to any piece of purportedly 'scientific thinking' - INCLUDING ONE'S OWN.

Being in a position to sound authoritative, while quoting hypothesis as fact, has got the planet in a bizarre mess, and put a fair few innocents in prison for extended terms.

No to dumb knowledge - yes to wisdom.

A bit like with 'reporting', I think a step forward would be getting back to a relationship between scientists, engineers and politicians based on competence, independence and fact, as opposed to team-playing, patronage and opinion.

But as we are now well entrenched in an era of 'enhanced narratives', what is and might be seems well suborned to what some have decided to shape into what 'should' be, with all efforts devoted not so much to investigation any more in favour of pre-production or changing things to suit in the edit suite to ensure things are quickly 'settled'.

And that... isn't science.

PSSSSSSST JUNKK (#7)

Any sign of Susan?

As it happened, I was paying quite closer attention to the Met Office Red/Black composite graphics on Sunday evening and yesterday. I was surprised to see the large Black area extending southward nearly to LGW predicted on the 0600 forecast suddenly retreat at the speed of light at 1200!! The new southern Black boundary then went only as far south as Central Scotland.

Explanations for this came there none - how people who rely on this stuff for flight planning are supposed to make good decisions beats me!.

Just pre-announcement of yet another category of ash cloud flyable under yet more conditions, risk-assessments, etc.

Then, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Newsnight covered the topic of VA. Aha! I thought - now the UK public will get some clarity. Wrong. All we got was a deeply-flawed piece (with an incorrectly labelled diagram of an engine) about the effects of VA. If you do cover technical topics, please, PLEASE get right whatever detail you DO include. The material is already dumbed-down, after all!