11.07.2013 22:55:16

hcUAAGTMNzof

Lubos:Thanks for the post and bringing this to my atotntien. I hope this may be an opportunity for you to consider the following:Consider the fact that Scott is wrong on her assertions regarding climate and the consensus, etc. Then take into account what Michael Crichton called the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.Eugenie Scott is correct that there are parallels between the two debates. She misunderstands the nature of the parallels, but the real parallels are in fact quite striking. Just off the top of my head: (i) an authoritative claim of "consensus" among all scientists, when science doesn't operate that way and there is serious question about the extent or breadth of the consensus in any event, (ii) labeling those who dare question the status quo with pejorative labels, (iii) claiming that all who question the status quo are "anti-science" and, therefore by definition, not worthy of consideration, (iv) official proclamations from organized science organizations that the science is "settled" and that there is no debate, (v) failure to properly define and quantify what is being discussed so that terms and definitions are slippery and can serve the particular consensus claim being made, (vi) reliance on models about things that are not currently observed but that allegedly occurred in the distant past or could occur in the distant future, (vii) an organized campaign behind the scenes to keep papers out of scientific journals, (viii) an organized campaign behind the scenes to sack journal editors who dare publish articles against the consensus . . .We could come up with more parallels between the two debates -- they are indeed quite striking.What we are seeing from Scott in this climate propaganda is not a departure from her usual approach. It is her usual approach.

Rosenite