Let them hate, so long as they fear
Posted by aogFriday, 27 September 2013 at 09:59
TrackBack Ping URL
News from the the global warmening crew, this time from Germany —
the German ministries insist that it is important not to detract from the effectiveness of climate change warnings by discussing the past 15 years’ lack of global warming. Doing so, they say, would result in a loss of the support necessary for pursuing rigorous climate policies. “Climate policy needs the element of fear,” [German Green Party politician Hermann] Ott openly admits. “Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic.”
Well, we certainly wouldn’t want any sort of dispassionate, rational discussion on the subject. It might not come out they way the EUlite want!
I did like this bit, though — not connecting the dots. Earlier in the article we have
A survey conducted on behalf of SPIEGEL found a dramatic shift in public opinion — Germans are losing their fear of climate change. While in 2006 a sizeable majority of 62 percent expressed a fear of global warning, that number has now become a minority of just 39 percent.
Is that what Ott considers to be the “effectiveness of climate change warnings”? I’m all for that kind of “effectiveness”.
P.S. Isn’t it amazing how people can see this, yet think “that couldn’t happen with other government regulatory policies I support”?
Monday, 30 September 2013 at 14:48|
Bret: You are talking about the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.
You also said Did you miss the Michael Mann & Hockey Stick controversy? He and his ilk certainly ignored the MWP & LIA. Flattened them right out of the data.
Gibbon wrote Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in the late 1700s. About halfway through the first volume, he spends a couple pages talking about, of all things, climate change. Using primary references, he demonstrated that the European climate had undergone several changes from cold to warm and back over the preceding 1500 or so years. How Mann et al got away with eliminating first hand experience in favor of some tree rings remains a real mystery.
[AOG:] it’s not me who says “the science is settled”
Whenever I hear or read this, I am completely baffled. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), or whatever it is called now, is alleged to be a scientific theory, which has become sufficiently determined to be considered settled.
I’m calling shenanigans. Veering into the philosophical for a moment, all scientific theories are hypothetico-deductive constructs. That is, in order for some set of statements that constitute a hypothesis to be considered within the realm of rational inquiry (aka “science”), that set of statements must include deductive consequences.
For example, evolution is a scientific theory because it includes many deductive consequences (earth must be very old, inheritance must be particular, etc). If even one of those consequences is violated, then the theory is either false, or at least incomplete. For another example, according to Newtonian mechanics, we should not be able to distinguish both stars in a binary star system. But we can, and when telescopes of sufficient acuity were invented that could detect those systems, the very first cat was out of the bag that Newtonian mechanics were wrong.
Contrast with CAGW. Has anyone ever heard of one deductive consequence of CAGW? In other words, if the CAGW hypothesis can be considered a valid scientific theory, what deductive consequences must follow?