Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > How Kuhn on Scientific Revolutions Illuminates the Present Climate Science Debate

I think Thomas Kuhn helps provide perspective on climate science debate developments since climategate. SEE THIS chart
on paradigm shifts in scientific revolutions.

Notice the "crisis" phase. Under it comes "insecurity." Now, what counts as insecurity? Confrontation (eg, Mann's new book, on "The Hockey Stick and The Climate Wars"); fighting and "acting out" are likely. Hence, NAS scientist Dr. Peter Gleick's fakegate scandal. And pseudo-scientific claims like "global weirding" are invoked to "explain" typical variations in weather, but now loudly -- and with ridiculously high levels of confidence - attributed to 'climate change.'

And all of this stems from Mann's Hockey Stick. His refusal to hare data and methods led to denial instead of veridical engagement with the facts. But -- as psychiatrists will point out -- denial always hides a secret agenda. What exactly is that agenda?

Loyalty to "the agenda" (and "lying for the cause" as seen in fakegate_ was furthered by, the web site set up by environmental PR group based in Washington, DC, and thereby married to a cause instead of science. This spread group-think and elaborate confirmation biased rationales. And Mann and Hansen and Gelick's paranoid delusions of persecution!

Mann's hidden agenda is evident in the climategate emails: hold doubts privately, don't express them publicly; hence Kevin Trenberth's cry about the lack of 2000s warming, that "it's a travesty we can't explain it." And it explains Keith Briffa's relative fringe status. And in climategate 2.0, the line "this will not end well" caution about the deceptiveness of scientists.

Meanwhile, the Team upheld its "consensus" front in public, even as the evidence turned against the monolithic CO2 driven climate change narrative. And enablers like Keith (Aucoin, PhD [assistant professor] dominating this comment thread) signing on to defend the Faith, and spouting irrelevant nonsense.

With climategate, the Great and Powerful Oz, ie the leading cadre of IPCC climate scientists, is shown to to have withheld many important questions and substantial doubts about their ideas. Not only did the public discover this, but so have many scientists important and leading scientists like Oxford physicist Jonathan Jones or the scientists in Germany who wrote "Die kalte Sonne – Warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet." One is a leading Green party physicist, the other a climatologist.

Kuhn, of course, show us that either the doubts about the anomalies the governing model of normal science either resolve, or else scientists begin to defect, causing even more conflict. Thus, the "Kalte Sonne" scientists see more merit in solar-based climate science. And Svensmark's cosmoclimatology hypothesis is looking like a more and more influential theory with every report out of CERN.

The popular science writer who inspired me in my teenaged years, Nigel Calder, points out that paradigm shift like plate tectonics in geology or catastrophic asteroid impacts in paleoclimatology take 20 to 25 years to develop. Svensmark originated his theory in 1992. And therefore the next five years are crucial to see if fruition arrives.

Singer on Mann & Climategate Heading to Court at junkscience

Apr 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterOrson