Skepticism about science and medicine

In search of disinterested science

The political division over climate change

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/11/01

A friend sent me this link  to a report of Senator Ted Cruz showing himself to know more about science and facts associated with alleged global warming than does the chair of the Sierra Club.

Looking for coverage of this story from other viewpoints simply confirmed that The Left  has its own facts and theories and The Right  has its own different facts and theirs, as I remarked in the inaugural post on this blog, A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?

In my view, Cruz is right on the science in this case but quite wrong in his politics. So I seem able to keep my science and my politics separate — but then perhaps that is not the case on every issue?

 

Advertisements

6 Responses to “The political division over climate change”

  1. Mark said

    Yeah, this is a bitch. Too many people see most other people believing two things and then have a difficult time seeing how things could be any other way. Henry, you have partially inspired me to post my own anger and swear-word-filled blog post (they don’t come any other way on my blog) about people who put things together when they shouldn’t. Enjoy:

    https://pissedthefuckoff.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/quit-putting-stuff-together-that-doesnt-belong-together-you-stupid-motherfuckers/

  2. Frank said

    Nice video on Karl Popper and Climate Change as “unfalsifiable”, i.e., NOT scientific: “A theory that explains everything explains nothing”

    • Henry Bauer said

      Frank:
      Thanks, a delightful citing of mutually contradicting assertions by climate-change dogma.
      It would always be good, though, to emphasize that nowadays “climate change” is a deceptive shorthand euphemism for HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING OWING TO CARBON DIOXIDE.

      And we don’t need Karl Popper to point out that when a theory is not falsifiable, it isn’t very useful. That’s common sense, doesn’t need philosophy of science. For instance, you could use it to predict anything and everything, since nothing is incompatible with it.

      As human-caused climate change is continually being held responsible for everything and everything, including cooling as well as warming, etc., etc., it’s time that the media stop disseminating this nonsense.

      At least, it would be past time if facts and evidence were at issue. But it’s politics and vested interests, including innumerable reputations of “climate scientists” and of the policy makers who have been scammed. They’ll defend their mistakes to the death, and they have the means to do it.

  3. Frank said

    Judith Curry: “Policy advocacy when combined with understating the uncertainties risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity, without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.”

    • Henry Bauer said

      Frank:

      Curry is too optimistic. Science’s no longer deserves any reputation for honesty, let alone objectivity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s