You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
I think there is reason for concern when entire fields of study that have great influence upon policymakers are built upon foundations short of the irrefutable bedrock of logic. For an example of why this can be dangerous, I invite you to learn more about Keynesian economics.
AGW has a mountain of circumstantial evidence to be sure, but it's far from being proven an empirical fact such as claiming that the sun will rise in the east. Until indisputable mathematical proofs exist for AGW (which is nigh impossible for such a complicated system as global climate), it should not rise to a level that puts it beyond debate. It's fine not to spend time debating it in that course, but I hope the professors are at least disclaiming that AGW is a very strongly-supported hypothesis and that those taking it must to some extent "believe" the AGW conclusions based upon the preponderance of evidence.
As for me, I think the whole debate is pointless since we cannot possibly cease and reverse the damage we necessarily inflict on the climate through industry, mining, agriculture, forestry, fishing, etc - we HAVE to do those things to feed and shelter ourselves. I think we are better served to invest our collective intelligence in finding ways to thrive in the face of climate change which no matter what we do is inevitable. Unlike the dinosaurs, we have thumbs and supercomputers to help us in that regard.
... an empirical fact such as claiming that the sun will rise in the east
The sun doesn't rise in the east. The earth spins towards the east.
To deny anthropogenic climate change is to either deny the fact that light interacts with matter, or the fact that we are changing the chemical composition of the earths atmosphere. You can legitimately debate the amount of change, but to say that the change isn't happening is to ignore fact.
The sun doesn't rise in the east. The earth spins towards the east.
Yeah yeah, you get my point. I agree that anthropogenic climate change is a given just by the mere existence of mankind.
"Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course"
That is what concerns me since consensus does not make something factual. Very likely to be sure, but not a fact. To refuse to even engage those who question if humanity is a significant factor in climate change is just bad science. They thus are teaching a class based upon assumption/belief, and that means this presumable science course is really a faith-based course founded on the notion that "98% of climate scientists can't be wrong". While the article lacks detail about this course, I assume it's more of a social engineering course wherein they discuss the means by which society can be pushed in a direction that reduces AGW. That is fine as long as they make it clear to students that the this is not a pure science course.
I'd like to know more about the profs too, because quasi-science courses often use "science" as a curtain to mask ulterior motives. Are they stakeholders in some "green" technology being developed at that school or elsewhere such that they refuse to debate anything that might call into question the central thesis behind their anti-AGW endeavors? This is a legit question to ask when a science professor refuses to stay true to the scientific method and casts out any undesirable factors or opinions. DISPROVE the deniers instead of DISPARAGING them; antipathy doesn't belong in pure science.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] repoman ago
I think there is reason for concern when entire fields of study that have great influence upon policymakers are built upon foundations short of the irrefutable bedrock of logic. For an example of why this can be dangerous, I invite you to learn more about Keynesian economics.
AGW has a mountain of circumstantial evidence to be sure, but it's far from being proven an empirical fact such as claiming that the sun will rise in the east. Until indisputable mathematical proofs exist for AGW (which is nigh impossible for such a complicated system as global climate), it should not rise to a level that puts it beyond debate. It's fine not to spend time debating it in that course, but I hope the professors are at least disclaiming that AGW is a very strongly-supported hypothesis and that those taking it must to some extent "believe" the AGW conclusions based upon the preponderance of evidence.
As for me, I think the whole debate is pointless since we cannot possibly cease and reverse the damage we necessarily inflict on the climate through industry, mining, agriculture, forestry, fishing, etc - we HAVE to do those things to feed and shelter ourselves. I think we are better served to invest our collective intelligence in finding ways to thrive in the face of climate change which no matter what we do is inevitable. Unlike the dinosaurs, we have thumbs and supercomputers to help us in that regard.
[–] oedipusaurus_rex 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The sun doesn't rise in the east. The earth spins towards the east.
To deny anthropogenic climate change is to either deny the fact that light interacts with matter, or the fact that we are changing the chemical composition of the earths atmosphere. You can legitimately debate the amount of change, but to say that the change isn't happening is to ignore fact.
[–] repoman 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yeah yeah, you get my point. I agree that anthropogenic climate change is a given just by the mere existence of mankind.
"Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course"
That is what concerns me since consensus does not make something factual. Very likely to be sure, but not a fact. To refuse to even engage those who question if humanity is a significant factor in climate change is just bad science. They thus are teaching a class based upon assumption/belief, and that means this presumable science course is really a faith-based course founded on the notion that "98% of climate scientists can't be wrong". While the article lacks detail about this course, I assume it's more of a social engineering course wherein they discuss the means by which society can be pushed in a direction that reduces AGW. That is fine as long as they make it clear to students that the this is not a pure science course.
I'd like to know more about the profs too, because quasi-science courses often use "science" as a curtain to mask ulterior motives. Are they stakeholders in some "green" technology being developed at that school or elsewhere such that they refuse to debate anything that might call into question the central thesis behind their anti-AGW endeavors? This is a legit question to ask when a science professor refuses to stay true to the scientific method and casts out any undesirable factors or opinions. DISPROVE the deniers instead of DISPARAGING them; antipathy doesn't belong in pure science.