Sunday, January 20, 2019

I'm going to have to write it 'scientist', because this idiot

is a disgrace to the real thing.
[Scientists] want to be sure to have sufficient factual evidence to infer a conclusion about climate. But waiting for assurance to pile up in a chain of facts can mean waiting too long if we cross a threshold where earth systems tip into less hospitable behaviors. In short, fact mongering can stunt our thinking in dangerous ways.
'Fact mongering'.  Think about that. 

As far as I can tell, his thesis is logically, or empirically, flawless. It is the rhetoric of it that has me wondering. He highlights a set of facts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about specific weather phenomena. What he doesn’t mention are the words in bold at the top of the same report stating that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and changes are “unprecedented.” When Pielke says the IPCC substantiates his claims, that may be literally true, but also rhetorically questionable. [Again, emphasis mine.]
"If we concentrate on actual facts, it won't be enough to scare people into thinking the way we want them to!" is what this seems to boil down to.  And that is one hell of a disgusting way for a scientist to think.

No comments: