If Freud Had Met Climate Catastrophists…

Some quick rewording on an old statement by Sigmund Freud, referred to by Gordon Marino on the NYT:

The climatology of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (cAGW) is not opposed to science, it behaves itself as if it were a science, and to a certain extent it makes use of the same methods; but it parts company with science, in that it clings to the illusion that it can produce a complete and coherent picture of the future of the Earth’s climate. Its methodological error lies in the fact that it over-estimates the epistemological value of its computer-based operations… But cAGW has no immediate influence on the great majority of mankind; it interests only a small number even of the thin upper stratum of intellectuals, while all the rest find it beyond them.

2 Replies to “If Freud Had Met Climate Catastrophists…”

  1. Since it’s not clear from your rewording, I’ll point out pedantically that Freud was talking about philosophy (not CAGW), the universe, not “the future of the Earth’s climate”, and “our logical operations”, not “computer-based operations”.
    As for interesting “only a small number even of the thin upper stratum of intellectuals” – if only.
    (Freud probably didn’t know, but his fellow-Viennese was proving him wrong as he spoke)
    The absence of interest in the question of the veracity, credibility, possibility, or probability of CAGW from ANYONE in the “thin upper stratum of intellectuals” is one of the reasons for my continual pessimism as to the outcome of the global warming “debate”. Of course there are honourable exceptions in the scientific world. But can anyone name any prominent intellectual who has looked at the question with a critical eye?

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.