Climate scientists only say what they do because of dependence on government funding.“their projections have failed to forecast the actual changes in climate”.“modelers who crouch over their supercomputers rarely looking outside to see what is happening”.“it is the catastrophists you hear from, to the virtual exclusion of all other voices”.“warnings range from none to the extinction of mankind”.“by climate change the alarmists mean catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”.From there he proceeds with a sequence of emotive and unsubstantiated assertions intended to deny any seriousness about the issue of climate change, adding for good measure a heavy dose of mocking aspersions. The author begins in a tone of objectivity … “I have noted …” he says, as if standing on a pedestal from where he views a grand landscape with clarity. The letter professes an objective viewpoint under the title of “Back to the basics in the climate change debate”. Take for example the letter in today’s Cape Times from a self proclaimed “lukewarmer” who is a retired geologist (why am I not surprised). One clear symptom of the absence of objectivity is when rhetoric is dominated by unfounded assertions. Yet, absent any objectivity one faces the thorny question of consequence. Does that mean it is a good thing that objectivity is one of the rarest elements on the planet? It seems that people deeply fear that just one gram of pure objectivity could destroy society. In consequence, we have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves.” So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern, or attracted much sustained inquiry. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. But we tend to take the situation for granted. “One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. (The paradox of this post is that it is probably not purely objective)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |