6 comments on “Javier Vinós Challenges Climate Orthodoxy”
Thanks - an important piece of climate journalism, and a good supplementary resource for readers of his books. (Which everyone should buy.)
Vinos' critique of the standard model and his alternative hypothesis concerning drivers of climate change deserve careful attention. Perhaps new management at the US Department of Energy can find room in their vast research budget to fund some of this necessary work.
Plus: His temperament and attitude are first-class, a valuable example for students and practitioners in all disciplines.
Thanks for sharing this informative discussion, which stimulated, among other things, this observation in the context of Oscar Wilde's literary spoofery. That is, on the Importance of Being Paradigmatic. With no apologies to Thomas Kuhn, the concept belongs nowhere in scientific inquiry, except perhaps as a foil for hubris. Let's celebrate the I don't know but I'll try to find out ethos. Let's insist upon transparent means of presenting truth claims about phenomena in the natural and rejoice when empirical evidence shows those claims to be false. Finally, let's keep in mind Richard Feynman's distinction between "knowing the name of something and knowing something."
The cant of climate pundits is repeated so often and so mechanically that it's become essentially empty of meaning.
This is a genuinely worthwhile discussion that should be shared broadly.
I immensely enjoyed reading "Solving the Climate Puzzle." It was incredibly insightful and has altered my understanding of climate science.
However, if you've got technical skills or a background in this field, Javier's previous book, "Climate of the Past, Present and Future," is a must-read. It's my favorite book in the climate science arena.
I have featured both books as references in my novels - partly as a tribute to this gifted scientist.
I am a little more intense than others when I come across work like this. I listened to part of the interview, but then realize that it was not going to penetrate the cranium unless I first read the book. So I did that, flagging passages that I needed to revisit, essentially demanding a second reading of the book, so many flags were there. ("Toss me the book" I asked my wife one evening, and then said "No, wait. With all those flags, it will fly here.)
I am on second reading, with no advice for others than to keep an open mind and critical thought tools on hand. Vinós freely admits he is engaged in hypothesis, with decades to follow before we have a scientifically useful understanding of climate. His industry, attention to detail, and modesty are among his strengths.
My less-than-scholarly take is that the Enhanced CO2 idea leading to AGW was already decided on during the time of the Climategate emails, and that the AGW movement from the start has used CO2 as a talking horse for misanthropy, wanting fewer people of less wealth on their planet. They know it is weak sauce only kept alive by strident censhorship of dissent and media control.
Thanks - an important piece of climate journalism, and a good supplementary resource for readers of his books. (Which everyone should buy.)
Vinos' critique of the standard model and his alternative hypothesis concerning drivers of climate change deserve careful attention. Perhaps new management at the US Department of Energy can find room in their vast research budget to fund some of this necessary work.
Plus: His temperament and attitude are first-class, a valuable example for students and practitioners in all disciplines.
A sound of reason vs alarmism.
Thanks for sharing this informative discussion, which stimulated, among other things, this observation in the context of Oscar Wilde's literary spoofery. That is, on the Importance of Being Paradigmatic. With no apologies to Thomas Kuhn, the concept belongs nowhere in scientific inquiry, except perhaps as a foil for hubris. Let's celebrate the I don't know but I'll try to find out ethos. Let's insist upon transparent means of presenting truth claims about phenomena in the natural and rejoice when empirical evidence shows those claims to be false. Finally, let's keep in mind Richard Feynman's distinction between "knowing the name of something and knowing something."
The cant of climate pundits is repeated so often and so mechanically that it's become essentially empty of meaning.
This is a genuinely worthwhile discussion that should be shared broadly.
I immensely enjoyed reading "Solving the Climate Puzzle." It was incredibly insightful and has altered my understanding of climate science.
However, if you've got technical skills or a background in this field, Javier's previous book, "Climate of the Past, Present and Future," is a must-read. It's my favorite book in the climate science arena.
I have featured both books as references in my novels - partly as a tribute to this gifted scientist.
It seems youtube has removed the video
I am a little more intense than others when I come across work like this. I listened to part of the interview, but then realize that it was not going to penetrate the cranium unless I first read the book. So I did that, flagging passages that I needed to revisit, essentially demanding a second reading of the book, so many flags were there. ("Toss me the book" I asked my wife one evening, and then said "No, wait. With all those flags, it will fly here.)
I am on second reading, with no advice for others than to keep an open mind and critical thought tools on hand. Vinós freely admits he is engaged in hypothesis, with decades to follow before we have a scientifically useful understanding of climate. His industry, attention to detail, and modesty are among his strengths.
My less-than-scholarly take is that the Enhanced CO2 idea leading to AGW was already decided on during the time of the Climategate emails, and that the AGW movement from the start has used CO2 as a talking horse for misanthropy, wanting fewer people of less wealth on their planet. They know it is weak sauce only kept alive by strident censhorship of dissent and media control.