Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

DeSmog understanding of the issues

Have you had a look around at DeSmogBlog? The crowd crowing about and disseminating the fakegate documents? Peter Gleicks chief cheerleaders.

The following is a comment I made to a posting on the matter at Samizdata:

Part of the issue is that DeSmogBlog contributors, or at the very least one of them, demonstrably don’t understand the issues about which they write, and are therefore unable to draw rational conclusions.

I refer you to a posting by Chris Mooney of that parish (and my response is here), in which he expresses bemused puzzlement over what he dubs the "sophisticates effect" – "a relationship between more knowledge on the one hand, and climate science scepticism on the other, among conservatives:"

Referring to a Yale study he acknowledges "For citizens as a whole, more literacy and numeracy were correlated with somewhat more, rather than somewhat less, dismissal of the risk of global warming."

He then goes on to say
"In my experience, climate skeptics are nothing if not confident in their ability to challenge the science of climate change—and even to competently recalculate (and scientifically and mathematically refute) various published results. It’s funny how this high-level intellectual firepower is always used in service of debunking—rather than affirming or improving—mainstream science. But the fact is, if you go to blogs like WattsUpWithThat or Climate Audit, you certainly don’t find scientific and mathematical illiterates doubting climate change. Rather, you find scientific and mathematical sophisticates itching to blow holes in each new study."

What Mr Mooney clearly doesn’t appreciate that setting out with the intention of ‘affirming’ "mainstream science" is about as unscientific as you can get. The thought of blowing holes in a study is what should be getting scientists out of bed every day.

He can’t evaluate the arguments about science because he clearly has no understanding of the philosophy which underpins, or should underpin, all scientific endeavour.

That you can’t debunk something which isn’t bunk to start with goes straight past him.

This is the standard of scientific understanding demonstrated on one of the leading warmist advocacy sites.

4 Comments

  1. RAB says:

    I’m sure you will have seen this Cats, but it is definately in the cut out and keep class to waive under the noses of the likes of Chris Mooney when you encounter them…

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

  2. Lynne says:

    Mooney regularly partakes in the Kool-Aid mass of the Church of Alarmism. Like all true believers he sees no empiricism, hears no empiricism and speaks no empiricism.

  3. GW says:

    From physicist Micho Kaku’s article, Has A Speeding Neutrino Really Overturned Einstein, in the WSJ last year:

    No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.

  4. GW – the converse also applies of course. It doesn’t matter how many people with no understanding of science, or scientific method latch on to the idea of climate change because it supports their pre-existing prejudices. Their views mean absolutely nothing for the truth of what they are talking about – pro or con.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: