I think I'll go put it on some other threads as well.
Posted on 12/02/2009 8:03:35 AM PST by Leisler
"Slice your average environment ( reporter ) through the middle and you're going to find a left-leaning liberal arts graduate who is utterly out of his/her depth........
(Excerpt) Read more at devilskitchen.me.uk ...
Journalism majors are seldom among the sharpest knives in the university drawer.
I highly recommend going to the source and reading the article. Truly excellent diagrams and flow charts illustrating why this isn’t science.
Journalism is for people that can not handle the rigors of an English degree.
Our IP numbers are probably being recorded right now and we will all meet in the re-education camp in a few months.
You’ll like me. I talk a lot. Especially when awake. Why once I had this fellow I was talking to every day, for weeks. He even stood on a chair and threw a rope over a beam and around his neck and then kicked out the chair with a big smile on his face almost as if he was being released from some sort of fiendish torture.....
Don’t know if this is material for the racounteur, the psychiatrist or the exorcist....
And probably freeze to death in the onslaught of a new climate change induced ice age since the "settled science" of global warming will justify not issuing blankets and winter clothing.
I was reading through the comments to this article, and a commenter named Katabasis included a link to this:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
It’s somewhat heavy reading, but press on. It describes a movement in academia to “post-normal science” - a process that starts with a desired result and generates scientific-looking “research” to support the pre-ordained conclusion for the sake of advancing social, political or other goals. (What normal people would call “fraud” or “lying” for the sake of politics.)
About one-third of the way down, there is a section with many quotes from Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, and Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (UEA). These quotes are very clear that science doesn’t support climate change. Here are just three of Mike Hulme’s statements:
“…‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.”
“The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved…It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”
“It has been labelled “post-normal” science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus…on the process of science – who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy…The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity.”
There is more, much more. I am livid.
The Global left will have to find something else to inslave the world with.
Excellent!
Post-normal science
A new concept of science was introduced by Funtowicz and Ravetz during the 1990s…The concept of post-normal science goes beyond the traditional assumptions that science is both certain and value-free…The exercise of scholarly activities is defined by the dominance of goal orientation where scientific goals are controlled by political or societal actors…Scientists’ integrity lies not in disinterestedness but in their behaviour as stakeholders. Normal science made the world believe that scientists should and could provide certain, objective factual information…The guiding principle of normal science – the goal of achievement of factual knowledge - must be modified to fit the post-normal principle…For this purpose, post-normal scientists should be capable of establishing extended peer communities and allow for ‘extended facts’ from non-scientific experts…In post-normal science, the maintenance and enhancement of quality, rather than the establishment of factual knowledge, is the key task of scientists… Involved social actors must agree on the definition of perceptions, narratives, interpretation of models, data and indicators…scientists have to contribute to society by learning as quickly as possible about different perceptions…instead of seeking deep ultimate knowledge.
So this is not science as we know it. Science has to re-invent itself as a political tool, just as it was under Hitler and Stalin. Scientists must learn ‘as quickly as possible’ what will please the political elite, and serve it up. As one Richard Fernandez has written:
All in all, the notion of “post-normal science” seems like a complete contradiction in terms or a perversion of the standard definition of science as commonly understood. It appears to be an elaborate and dishonest attempt to pass off the preferences of a single group as some kind of pseudo-science. There’s a much simpler term for this dishonest phrase: politics. Post-normal science is nothing but a cheap and lying term for a political diktat; for the rule of the self-appointed over everyone else. Whatever truth “Global Warming” may contain it has surely been damaged by its association with this disreputable and vile concept which brazenly casts aside the need for any factual basis and declares in the most unambiguous terms that whatever values it chooses to promote constitutes a truth unimpeachable by reality and a set of values that none dare challenge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.