Popper became famous for his epistemological work demarking science from pseudo-science. It boiled down to testability. If a theory could be falsified by experimentation it was science, if it couldn't it wasn't. So Popper would argue that to say any theory is "settled" means that you are not talking about science but pseudo-science. By now it should be clear that I am building towards an act of heresy. In mainstream political and scientific debate today what held true for Einstein does not hold true for climate science. Climate science we are endlessly told is "settled". But to make the, perfectly reasonable, point that science is never settled risks being branded a "sceptic" or worse a "denier". "Denier" is one of those words, like "racist", which is deliberately designed to gag debate. And what is wrong with being a sceptic? The Greek root of the word means "thoughtful" or "inquiring" and that used to be a virtue. If to question a science which relies so heavily on computer generated modelling is to be a denier or a sceptic, then stack me up with the heretics and go find the matches. Because modelling is a black art and the models will be wrong. They might understate or overstate the outcome but they will change over time. Model failure is so common there is a name for it: model risk. If you doubt how badly things can go with impressive models then consider for a moment the recent financial crisis. A lot of very big companies paid a fortune to a cadre of mathematics and physics PhDs, called " quants", who developed models that were supposed to eliminate risk. Turns out they got it hideously wrong and some believe they made a bad situation a whole lot worse. As he goes on to say, you can be denounced as a denier even if you accept that man-made claimate change is a reality, but don't agree with the supposed solutions. And what is wrong with being a sceptic? The Greek root of the word means "thoughtful" or "inquiring" and that used to be a virtue. Indeed. Another crack, at the ABC of all places, in the virtually total media blackout of voices expressing doubt about climate change. And doubt can be in the form, yes the climate is changing, and we probably have played some part in it (though maybe a minor part), but that doesn't mean the world is coming to an end as those seeking to profit from engendering a sense of panic and hysteria, (money making rackets like Greenpeace or the WWF, or the various rent-seeking businesses flogging over-priced solar panels or those in government and academia whose funding and career prospects are now tied to it), say it is. Read it all. |
Posted via email from Garth's posterous
No comments:
Post a Comment