Thomas Kuhn argued famously in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that Science was a young person's game, and that most scientific breakthroughs were made by by young men or researchers new to the field in question. And Lakatos has made one of his criteria of an advancing research programme the ability of that programme to attract a steady stream of new, young recruits.
Of course these claims has been challenged. Wray, for example, has argued that:
...middle-aged scientists are responsible for initiating more scientific revolutions than young scientists given the proportion of each group in the total population of scientists.
But nobody working in the sociology/history of science has ever suggested that the goals of science are best advanced by the Old Timers League, which is essentially what we have above.
And to the mob at Steve's place, where comments of mine have been suppressed again. This is not a variant of the "argument of authority"; its a statement of the sociological facts of Science.
(PS. Kudos to anyone that can slap names on all the deniers pictured above, and anyone who can pick out the one not associated with Climate Change Denial get a special heads-up.
33 comments:
Still with the slime campaign using the "denier" label.
How pathetic.
You forget to add teh "funded by oil companies smear.
How Ad Hominem.
If you had good science backing your case you wouldn't need to go negative.
proves you are a WARmonger
I see that your secret bigotries have fully surfaced. Older. White. Males. You hate them, and whatever they stand for. Are there some repressed hatred issues against your father here? Are you a closet feminazi, hating all things from White and Male authority figures? Who would guess that people who have worked their entire lives in scientific study and discovery would be qualified to form opinions based on that lifetime of scientific research. Don't they have FEELINGS with which to form opinions about science?!
What's significant about these players is that without the denial machine, no one would have ever heard of them.
My favourite geezer-denier is one of my parents' engineer buddies. He's in his 80's, can't work a computer or a bank machine, rants endlessly about pseudo-science he never studies and is worried beyond all measure about this stock portfolio, a lot of it consisting of investments in the oils sands.
The self-interest really doesn't do a lot for credibility.
That's the pity about actually working away doing scientific research in obscurity rather than becoming a publicity whore like Suzuki.
Is that what you feel is the key to scientific credibility, ti-guy? Popularity?
My favourite AGW believer is a young guy with no scientific background and no formal training in mathematical or statistical analysis. He thinks Michael Moore films contain real facts. He believes 9/11 was a US gov't plot. Doesn't read newspapers, books, internet, anything. But gets his opinions from the tv anchors. And - now get this - votes Liberal because they're "good for Canada". Everytime I recall that comment I can't stop laughing!
Al Gore and Suzuki are popularizing work done by others. Entirely different.
Global Warming in Action !!
Snow today in Jo'Burg South Africa.
You notice how all the geezers have beady eyes and look like dorks. Especially Tim Ball. I think part of what we're seeing is the revenge of the socially awkward. These people never got over high school, seethed with resentment their whole lives and are going for one last shot at pay-back against the entire planet before their dotage solidifies. That's what my parents (in their mid-70's) think, anyway.
Let that be a lesson to all you trollies...get off the computer, get some exercise, fresh air and sun (which will clear up the skin) and start dating.
more Australian Deniers . .
Fruit may be frost damaged
AMELIA ELLISTON
27/06/2007 :: 5835 hits
LOCAL citrus producers have their fingers crossed waiting to see if their fruit suffered frost damage after the area experienced its coldest June day ever last week.
Consecutive days of thick and heavy frosts, and temperatures dropping to as low as four degrees, may have taken their toll.
Is one of these nonnies not aware that it's mid-winter in the southern hemisphere?
ti-guy,
Flat planets don't have such nonsense.
Gravity is just a theory too. It's really intelligent falling.
If I told my grandmother about global warming she'd close the window to stop the heat from escaping.
Now we can lay to rest why the CPC doesn't want to do anything for the environment. The entire party's grassroots has dementia.
or sniffed too many exhaust fumes.
So, let's get this straight.
You want your scientists to be younger and less experienced/developed.
And you want your media shills to be older to give the appearance of experienced credibility.
Who cares if the old media whores are just desperate to get back in the spotlight and will jump on any bandwagon to do so. It's those devious Denying curmudgeons who've spent their lifetime in underground labs and cubbyhole offices tucked away somewhere, only to appear now as the opportune time to reap the celebrity they've cultivated? Do you know any scientists at all, and what their personalities are like?
jay, I think you're the typical AGW believer!
Right, it's because of dementia that we don't believe the bullshit your so-called 'scientists' are pushing.
Don't let the green Kyoto Kool-Aid stain your shirt.
Strange how a vast majority of scientists support my view. Strange how the data I collect myself for my job is showing the same. Strange indeed.
BTW, what the fuck is AGW? That a new buzz word meant to confuse people further since all your other attempts have failed miserably to disprove the truth that Global warming exists and you want a free ride?
Anon 3:36
"You want your scientists to be younger and less experienced/developed."
Not what I want. A healthy scientific field is, roughly speaking, one that is attracting newer and younger members. A stagnent field is one in which the members are going gray and dying off. Look at these guys, and tell me which catagory they fit in.
BCL,
You've been bumped upto to a NC-17 rating. Sorry about the f word!.
What I've always wanted, jay.
jay, AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming. It's actually a good phrase to use, because some denialists will say: "Of course I believe in global warming" while the small print in their weaselly little eyes says "But it's perfectly natural, not caused by humans at all; nature is too big to be affected by the emissions of us 6 billion or so humans." So using "AGW" pins down exactly what it is they are denying.
oh, and ding dong, did you get your cheque from the oil companies today?
Who here would prefer to go to an eighty year old medical doctor, who remembers his early training best, instead of a 40 year old doctor who's had more recent training, as well as experience, and who keeps up with the new developments? There may be eighty-year olds who do keep up, but there are probably plenty who don't.
Is that what you feel is the key to scientific credibility, ti-guy? Popularity?
No. Where'd did you get that ridiculous idea? From your meth dealer?
Best comment on the thread:
Jay said...
ti-guy,
Flat planets don't have such nonsense.
Gravity is just a theory too. It's really intelligent falling.
If I told my grandmother about global warming she'd close the window to stop the heat from escaping.
Now we can lay to rest why the CPC doesn't want to do anything for the environment. The entire party's grassroots has dementia.
3:27 PM
Great post! Timely.
For good health find a physician your own age and grow old together -- proverb
Thanks Holly Stick,
Thanks. I guess its what I call just global warming since it doesn't come in more than one form. Like reality as opposed to religion/faith.
I think we should be getting everyone to put there names to what they believe. Then we can go after the deniers when the worst of it (climate change) hits us. Maybe tax them more that the rest of us who are pulling our weight. The taxes could then be used to fix the damage these assholes inflicted upon the rest of us.
We really see what passes for 'debate' when Liberals are involved. Name calling mostly, ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.
"You're wrong because -
I've never heard of you."
you're an old white male."
somebody I don't like also agrees with your position."
you're a conservative."
BCL.
It is an interesting idea that only young people have good ideas. I work in software development, am about the same age as you and have had to put up with a lot of young whippersnappers spouting the same line about how it is a young man's game. It is strange though that they all make the same mistakes that I have seen their predecessors make of the last 20 years. While it is true that youth can and often does bring a freshness of approach, it is also true that sometimes it brings a selective deafness, arrogance and an inability to admit mistakes until they are hauled over the coals. That side of their character needs to be tempered by people that have been around the block a few times and can point out a few mistakes. I don't know if your list of people here fall in that category or not.
Kind Regards
jay,
With regards to taxing those who pollute most, have you seen bcl's blog entry on Ross McKitrick's T3 tax. It ties tax rates with actual warming in the troposphere, where the CO2 warming is most pronounced. Interesting idea, although it will never happen.
I am glad you are calling it global warming, I don't like the new phrase "climate change", which smacks of a cop out to me.
Regards
Ian,
Thats what they(deniers) want you to call it because it implies change that is occuring naturally. This kind of natural change comes from continental drift, massive volcanic eruptions and minor cyclic changes that more often than not correct themselves.
Global warming on the otherhand explains the continued upward increase in average global temperatures without focusing on the impacts of said increase because climate systems are complex and shifting climate patterns will result in areas extremely hot or extremely cold. Both of which are detrimental to us and other life. The use of climate change is meant to confuse.
an example is from theis comment
" Ding Dong Kyoto's dead said...
Global Warming in Action !!
Snow today in Jo'Burg South Africa."
As you can see this individual confuses normal climate patterns as proof that global warming is not occurring, but he fails to understand that it is winter in the southern hemisphere. A simple ignorance on a subject combined lies propagated by deniers as resulted in this ignorant individual becoming a liability to society rather than a team player.
Most deniers are unfortunately outdated in their thinking and understanding of the planet. Most of these deniers were educated before the theory of continental drift was finished.
How do we expect them to be able to grasp something much much more complicated?
We can't expect them to but at the same time we need to make it understood that we need new talent as these guys have given the younger generation quite a mess that they don't even understand how they created it.
Fortunate for us, we have a lot of people who know what they are doing but said ignorant individuals are the government and it's supporters.
Anyone get the feeling we are screwed until the boomers with their sense of entitlement pass on?
ian,
I think it needs to be kept as simple as possible, dumbed down so to speak.
T3 tax a good idea but too confusing for the average joe to understand and support.
Hi jay,
I think it is a sad fact of life, but I don't think there are many team players left, certainly not in the UK. It's been everyone for themseleves ever since Thatcher in the 80's over here.
Actually it is pretty cold over here too. Last June was the hottest on record, this is probably going to be one of the coldest and almost certainly the wettest. Funnily enough while the anti-AGW crownd are using this as "evidence" that AGW is a myth, the pro side are using it as proof that it is real. Personally, I think it is just weather and not part of the overall trend.
This is the problem when politics gets in the way of science. One cooler year is not proof of a lack of global warming. It is the overall trend that needs to be looked at.
Always an excuse for the Liberal point of view, isn't there? You're never wrong, are you? And when you've been PROVEN to be wrong, you won't even face up to it. Even if there's doubt, as with AGW, you can't even debate it but move directly to hysterical attack mode. Luckily for you, you have the MSM on your side to give you a free ride - no hard questions for Liberals, please. It might expose their inanity a little too much.
Thanks for article!
Thanks for interesting article.
Glad to read articles like this. Thanks to author!
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
Post a Comment