Disunity yet again plus impolite scientists
A couple quick points. First, check out Joe Romm’s post on this recent Times article. Apparently most meteorologists neither have training in climate sc...
Month: March 2010
The many dimensions of doubt
I’ll respond yet again to Paul Newall at the Galilean Library. Paul asks: “What, then, is the difference between someone who seizes on doubts to d...
The IPCC does work
Let’s continue with Paul Newall’s great post at the Galilean Library. Paul writes that “if science has become so deeply specialised that even...
Do scientists unintentially screw over black people (part II)?
On Wednesday I went to a panel on science education at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It was a fascinating exchange. To highlight ju...
Who can comment on global warming?
Paul Newall of the Galilean Library has a great comment on doubt and disunity in science. He raises a particularly interesting point on expertise: If everyone ...
Applied epistemology
My recent philosophical musings along with Ben Hale’s suggestion that climate change conflicts can partially be explained in terms of philosophy has got m...
The wait-and-see approach to climate change
RickA graciously responded to my calling him a denier: I would like to avoid the term denier however. It should be reserved for people who do not believe that t...
Is it reasonable to deny climate change based on the evidence?
Ben Hale writes that climate change deniers may not be ideologically driven and instead have “competing ontological and epistemological claims, as well as...
The “scientific” consensus of climate change
Joe Romm recently highlighted the large number of organizations that think man-made global warming is a danger. Romm apparently hopes to bolster the case for g...
The disunity of science and the denial of climate change
You often hear individual scientists preaching about “how science works.” While I think outreach is generally a good thing, I am not sure we should...