There is currently a challenge to the consensus that global warming is a fact. Finally, "questioning" is saying a lot. Say that some fans have decided that global warming was the Trojan horse of statism.
A little ad hominem
Witness the number of complacency on Drieu Godefrid lemonde.fr:
The IPCC is dead, long live the debate! , charges against the "intellectual terrorism" and the arrogance of scientists. Perhaps the author does not he know that we like to open World forums for points of view to the best curry in the aftershocks that follow. At this game, the world rarely invites the best champion of the cause he wants to demolish.
What bothers me most is that the person is called liberal and lover of Hayek. Oculos habentes not videbunt. Would make it part of those silly liberals who see conspiracies everywhere statist, make a fixette on Islamofascism and love the neocons?
Enough ad hominem. Returning to the subject. What do we know about global warming?
Answer: on the one hand what we said and the other the knowledge of some phenomena that pose no debate such as melting glaciers and thousands of tropical species moving to areas believed to be colder.
Personally I did not consider the evidence of the climate debate. As the climate skeptics love to point out, there are many fake experts in this debate, wish to caution artificial just means that their opinion is that of others. I do not know, I say and I do not have to go have fun putting together my opinion myself. The search for truth ends of the amateur too often taking their bladders for lanterns.
If I did not know, I can still see something that is absolutely striking weakness of the argument climatosceptiques and its accompaniment by a powerful ideological interpretation.
The rationale of climatoscepticisme: very questionable data
climatosceptiques The argument focuses on multiple data it showed the total emptiness with reason (glaciers of the Himalayas curve of Al Gore, temperature readings impaired etc.). Far from seeing the necessary occurrence of error of fallible men, or simply to be humble in victory, she thinks it the beginning of a general forgery, which it will be a farce as you pull on the wire a knit to defeat him.
But in reality, despite all their efforts if the climate skeptics have been able to find these few facts on which they dwell, it is precisely because they can not find anything. They were in no way capable of reversing the general pattern of facts in favor of the theory of global warming climate.
However they did reveal several cases particularly lamentable lack of discipline among climatologists and are behind the downward revision of forecasts too many catastrophic. This must be credited to them.
The basis of irrational climatoscepticisme: suspicion policy
climatosceptiques Why have so many suspicions against the theory of global warming and convenience for the climatological conspiracy theory? Because there is something rotten in the debate on global warming, which is the ease with which the global warming theory lends itself to political interpretation.
lever criticism: millenarianism
Indeed, this theory has the features of a millenarian: the world's end is near (the temperature increases, we will be submerged), it is the consequence of your sins ( selfish consumers), adopt a more frugal life, throw your wealth, obey the prophets. Moreover, this theory is mixed easily with sentimentality (the poor countries will be hit first ... of course!), Low critical thinking (denial of any debate, hatred of dissent) and of course, and above all: the state (it must transform the planned economy system, trust us).
Although global warming is a correct theory, promoting it is not indifferent to some ideological considerations and it would be good for people to make serious diminishing of the household and other fun.
It is also remarkable that we felt as the announcement of a permanent disaster: what about the hole in the ozone layer? He made pshit. What about DDT? Influenza A? bird flu? From the financial crisis? Etc. What fuel suspicion.
Ideology of climate skeptics climate skeptics
The rest are not. Actually, they are more ideological in this story, you can say both that global warming does not exist and that global warming exists but does not have a human source ... The coincidence between the harm they award putative warming and cure state attributed to him is decisive in their belief so-called climate skeptics.
Treatment of fact is unable to refrain from ideological criticism: we're just so errors and excesses of those who support the existence of global warming to illustrate a phenomenon which it was decided that the causes were political.
amusing detail: even the climate skeptics who sneer at those who rely on speech to scientists at the IPCC they drink blogs to find out ...
Conclusion The relative success of the climate skeptics are at least critic is also positive: the confrontation will take place and a camp withdraw legitimacy. In the meantime he should not mix the causes and in particular does not involve the risk of climate skeptics question to other issues such as economic liberalism, as if a market economy was not able to cope with the challenge global warming where it is established.
A little ad hominem
Witness the number of complacency on Drieu Godefrid lemonde.fr:
The IPCC is dead, long live the debate! , charges against the "intellectual terrorism" and the arrogance of scientists. Perhaps the author does not he know that we like to open World forums for points of view to the best curry in the aftershocks that follow. At this game, the world rarely invites the best champion of the cause he wants to demolish.
What bothers me most is that the person is called liberal and lover of Hayek. Oculos habentes not videbunt. Would make it part of those silly liberals who see conspiracies everywhere statist, make a fixette on Islamofascism and love the neocons?
Enough ad hominem. Returning to the subject. What do we know about global warming?
Answer: on the one hand what we said and the other the knowledge of some phenomena that pose no debate such as melting glaciers and thousands of tropical species moving to areas believed to be colder.
Personally I did not consider the evidence of the climate debate. As the climate skeptics love to point out, there are many fake experts in this debate, wish to caution artificial just means that their opinion is that of others. I do not know, I say and I do not have to go have fun putting together my opinion myself. The search for truth ends of the amateur too often taking their bladders for lanterns.
If I did not know, I can still see something that is absolutely striking weakness of the argument climatosceptiques and its accompaniment by a powerful ideological interpretation.
The rationale of climatoscepticisme: very questionable data
climatosceptiques The argument focuses on multiple data it showed the total emptiness with reason (glaciers of the Himalayas curve of Al Gore, temperature readings impaired etc.). Far from seeing the necessary occurrence of error of fallible men, or simply to be humble in victory, she thinks it the beginning of a general forgery, which it will be a farce as you pull on the wire a knit to defeat him.
But in reality, despite all their efforts if the climate skeptics have been able to find these few facts on which they dwell, it is precisely because they can not find anything. They were in no way capable of reversing the general pattern of facts in favor of the theory of global warming climate.
However they did reveal several cases particularly lamentable lack of discipline among climatologists and are behind the downward revision of forecasts too many catastrophic. This must be credited to them.
The basis of irrational climatoscepticisme: suspicion policy
climatosceptiques Why have so many suspicions against the theory of global warming and convenience for the climatological conspiracy theory? Because there is something rotten in the debate on global warming, which is the ease with which the global warming theory lends itself to political interpretation.
lever criticism: millenarianism
Indeed, this theory has the features of a millenarian: the world's end is near (the temperature increases, we will be submerged), it is the consequence of your sins ( selfish consumers), adopt a more frugal life, throw your wealth, obey the prophets. Moreover, this theory is mixed easily with sentimentality (the poor countries will be hit first ... of course!), Low critical thinking (denial of any debate, hatred of dissent) and of course, and above all: the state (it must transform the planned economy system, trust us).
Although global warming is a correct theory, promoting it is not indifferent to some ideological considerations and it would be good for people to make serious diminishing of the household and other fun.
It is also remarkable that we felt as the announcement of a permanent disaster: what about the hole in the ozone layer? He made pshit. What about DDT? Influenza A? bird flu? From the financial crisis? Etc. What fuel suspicion.
Ideology of climate skeptics climate skeptics
The rest are not. Actually, they are more ideological in this story, you can say both that global warming does not exist and that global warming exists but does not have a human source ... The coincidence between the harm they award putative warming and cure state attributed to him is decisive in their belief so-called climate skeptics.
Treatment of fact is unable to refrain from ideological criticism: we're just so errors and excesses of those who support the existence of global warming to illustrate a phenomenon which it was decided that the causes were political.
amusing detail: even the climate skeptics who sneer at those who rely on speech to scientists at the IPCC they drink blogs to find out ...
Conclusion The relative success of the climate skeptics are at least critic is also positive: the confrontation will take place and a camp withdraw legitimacy. In the meantime he should not mix the causes and in particular does not involve the risk of climate skeptics question to other issues such as economic liberalism, as if a market economy was not able to cope with the challenge global warming where it is established.
0 comments:
Post a Comment