- The big war is arguably over.
- The political war over whether anthropogenic climate change will be the primary driver of global energy policy is pretty much over.
- But it seems that climate change is not going to be the primary driver for global energy policy; the UNFCCC is losing that war.
- Without political impetus, what is the rationale for continued trench warfare between the climate scientists that defend the IPCC and the skeptics? I can’t think of any.
- Climate science will continue on its merry way, with a spectrum of view points and ideas on how and why the climate system is changing, and how humans and ecosystems respond and react to this change.
- Climate scientists have made a clear and cogent case that we are facing risk from the threat from anthropogenic climate change.
- The nature and magnitude and likelihood of this threat is the subject of continued active investigation.
- Let the economists, military/defense intelligence experts, resource managers, and yes politicians, sort out how we should manage these risks.
måndag 8 november 2010
Science: The Art of Making Distinctions
Compromise in gladiator fight and science has little (public) interest.
Judith Curry writes in Ending the War with Skeptics:
Maybe the political war is over, but not the scientific. So, why not then a nice peaceful compromise between CO2 alarmists and CO2 alarmism skeptics? Because, science is not about making compromises. Science is about making distinctions and compromise blurs distinctions and thus is non-science.
The same holds in war, love, arts and sports, where compromise is of little interest. In the big battle for survival mixing between different species is prevented. A compromise between a peacock and a pig is not fit for life.
A large part of science is classification, and classification is about making distinctions.
It is possible to formulate a compromise between a flat earth and round earth theory, e.g. by saying that the Earth is locally flat and globally round, with the result that both theories are correct: The earth is both flat and round! But what is the interest of such a hybrid theory?
It is possible to formulate a compromise between CO2 alarmists and skeptics, by saying that
CO2 may have some influence (possibly zero) on global temperatures. But again this has no
interest. And the essential role of a scientist is to say something of interest (to humanity), to make a distinction and not a compromise.
Therefore, Curry's call for End of War with Skeptics, has little interest. If the big war is now over, there must be winners and losers.
Blurring of differences is an essential element of democratic society: We are all equal with equal opportunities (in theory). But science is not democratic politics, and equality science is not interesting (to the public financing science).
Compare with the new SPPI report Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?