• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Climate change (Why do PFK bother with blogs?)

Hi all,
Further, I increasingly see science used more as an ideological weapon than an appropriate way to describe the universe. It's been hijacked by politics, and used dogmatically to censor and prevent further discussion and as a form of social regulation and control.
I don't think you can blame scientists for this, they are trying to retain some form of objectivity in a <"post-truth environment of alternative "facts"">.
Over population and its continued rapid growth is the single biggest factor contributing to all environmental problems and the biggest existential threat we face.....If the trillions of dollars spent on inventing new and interesting ways of combating global warming, were spent on environmental and social justice, education, health, and freeing people from the yolk of oppression, poverty, war, famine etc then the population would stabilise and start to decline within a few generations. And in turn all our environmental problems, including global warming, would gradually become far easier to solve.
I certainly agree with that.
Randal Carson is not a conventionally trained scientist but he appears to have a better grasp of the mechanics of global warming and associated scientific, ideological and political mumbo jumbo than most.
I'm not sure that he has any scientific validity. It is back to Karl Popper, "...........the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

cheers Darrel
Last edited:
I don't think you can blame scientists for this, they are trying to retain some form of objectivity in a <"post-truth environment of alternative "facts"">.
Nice article, and I agree with much of it, although I think there is more than enough hubris on both sides to go around. But, I guess for me it’s not really that simple. The demarkation problem, or where to draw the line between science and pseudoscience, is a philosophical debate that has gone on for millennia and still continues despite Karl Pooper’s contribution.

I’m of the view that science doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s a political, economic and cultural artefact. As such I don’t really blame science or scientists per se. And, I think that on the whole current scientific method still serves us well but it’s often exploited for political gain or other vested interests, sometimes by scientists themselves.

Scientist, particularly those eminent in their field of endeavour, can exhibit dogmatic devotion to paradigms, often those they have invested heavily in throughout their careers. They act as gate keepers and tellingly well overdue paradigm shifts sometimes don’t occur until after they have died.

In that sense, at least, current scientific method doesn’t necessarily follow Popper’s philosophy. In that successful attempts to falsify an existing paradigm can be and are swept under the carpet, or are often brutally attacked.
I never seen the blog and it's not available on Dave's link. But what l would say Science sometimes gets a raw deal because it's always evolving . If a scientist or more likely team of come to something what challenges the general thinking it's easy to build up a case to discredit the research. But as regards climate change many of the sceptics have changed their views in the recent couple of years. Whether it's the bulldozer of evidence by such as Sir David Attenborough or the fact that we live in a time were anywhere in the world can be accessed within hours . Evidence can be produced pretty quick.