posted
Nor would his methods hold up well against todays requirements, although his theories DO test true using modern methods.
However, he wasn't a biologist, was he? So why would his expertise transfer to that field automatically when the two fields are not connected?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT, they were all geniuses in their own right, and they helped found the basis of the new epistemology that Squicky mentions. I don't think anyone here denies that. However, their methodology was hit or miss by today's standards. Much of their work would not necessarily be accepted in peer-review journals today, and they (these aforementioned geniuses) and their work would be better for it.
Scientists get things wrong. Charlatans knowingly falsify data. Your given examples actually work for your opposition, I think. Due to the idea of reproducibility, people were able to follow the methods in the false or incorrect (like cold fusion) papers, and prove that the original papers/data were wrong. The reason the Korean genticist was found out was because the results couldn't be reproduced.
Personally, I think it is worse to hold those old masters on a pedestal, as opposed to the "arrogance" of believing we have a better method/system today than they did. People get idealized much more easily than a process, IMO. A process also is in constant use, and therefore is implicitly tested itself any time it is followed. The dead guys don't publish anything new, and their failures will inevitably be forgotten quicker than their accomplishments.
It seems like your attitude (in part) is that we don't respect our elders enough, or in you preferred manner. Which is neither here nor there in a scientific debate.
posted
Kwea, scientists back then were fairly interdisciplinary, due to the fact that there was no body of prior work (save Aristotle's, for the most part) to try and refine.
* Grandpa Simpson *
Back in my day, you couldn't walk 2 feet without tripping over a new species, theory, or postulate! You kids are slackers! It takes you _weeks_ just to come up with an equation!
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Issac Newton was not a scientist? William Harvey was not a scientist?
Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? Now we recognize that pro-spontaneous generation experiments weren't valid, but at the time everyone thought they were, except for a few odd balls. Just like now. Yes I know, now days we have a methodology, then they were just a bunch of guys that didn't know anything. Honestly, it's the arrogance of that attitude that just gets me.
quote:I will add, if they had been using proper scientific methodology, and all their evidence lead them to believe that spontaneous generation was true, then they would be right to exclaim its validity
...but the theory was still wrong, and thousands upon thousands of people needlessly suffered and died until they got it right.
Again, I'm not saying I think global climate change theory is wrong-I think they've got the fundamentals right. I think it just helps to put things in perspective.
Newton certainly wasn't a biologist. On a separate note, what pro-SG experiments? There weren't any! That's the whole point; people just assumed it was true until Pasteur did the anti-SG experiments.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Also, I wasn't aware that people did experiments trying to falsify the SG hypothesis back in the times you were talking about. Since you seem to be claiming that they are, I'd be interested in hearing about them. Could you provide a source or at least a summary?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT I think you are arguing the wrong thing here.
What Rabbit's post proves is not Global Warming Is Mankinds Fault.
You are right that the argument "X% of Y Agree's Z so Z is Valid" is an erroneous argument. It is flawed logic.
But that is not what Rabbit is arguing.
What Rabbit is saying is "100% of Scientists who meet a minimum requirement--offering factual evidence in peer reviewed publications--believe in X. So arguing Not-X by saying there are scientists who disagree is an invalid arguement."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal — the normal way to challenge an academic finding.
So, am I the only one that finds this line disturbing? I didn't get to read the whole article because of the required registration, so maybe she goes on to actually explain why that Internet posting is not valid, but as it is, it sounds like she's saying "you shouldn't even consider this evidence because it's not in a journal." Peer review is great and all, but that strikes me as a bit closed minded, just an excuse she's using so she doesn't have to actually refute his argument.
Anyway, before I go any further, for those who haven't seen them yet, here is the Wall Street Journal article she's talking about, and here is the "internet posting" that started the whole ruckus. Since this is science, ad Dr. Oreskes' results should be verifiable, Dr. Benny Peiser tried to verify those results by searching the same database of journals. Here's a summary of his findings.
quote:I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results. All abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") were assessed (3). The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years" (4).
Oreskes claims that "none of these papers argued [that current climate change is natural]". However, 44 papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (5).
The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes' results concern abstracts that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of abstracts reject what Oreskes calls the 'consensus view'. In fact, there are almost three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (6).
Furthermore, the only reason that his findings weren't in a journal is because Science magazine refused to publish his letter, saying it was because this information had already been widely dispersed on the internet.
I'm no expert, but his methods seem pretty sound to me, he even quotes a couple of the dissenting abstracts right there on his web page. Seems pretty clear that the claim that there were no papers that offered a dissenting view is false, unless he made up those abstracts himself, but that should be verifiable by someone who has access to those journals.
Switching gears a bit, one thing that is not being discussed is that, whether or not there is a consensus on humans being the cause of global warming, there are a whole bunch of other issues about it that there is definitely no consensus on, things like what effect will it have in the future and to what extent. And that's the area I think is what's really important. It's one thing to say "Humans are the cause of the warming we've seen in the past century," it's quite another to say "we will experience worldwide catastrophes if we don't stop emissions within 10 years." (and yes, that is the opinion of one actual scientist.)
That's the real problem. IMO, it's the big reason why we have so much resistance to the very idea of humans causing global warming; 'cause whenever we hear someone say that, it's usually accompanied by a whole bunch of other stuff that's there's not nearly as much evidence for. I mean, we see our local weathermen having trouble trying to predict the weather a couple weeks in advance, but that doesn't stop Al Gore from using his crystal ball to see the hurricanes and mass floods and heat waves that will engulf the earth over the next century.
Lastly, I think Mabus hit upon the crux of the issue for me. If the gloom and doomers are right, and we really are destroying the world through greenhouse gases, what are we really supposed to do about it? Cause I'm sorry, if it's really that bad, driving a hybrid and signing the Kyoto protocol aren't going to cut it. And if it really would take a return to 19th century agricultural society to fix the problem, then there exists the real question of if it would be worth it.
Personally, I think the earth is a bit more resilient than that, so I'm not too worried, but I wonder what the alarmists really hope to accomplish.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Are we now having a meta-argument about whether we are having an argument about global warming?
I mean, if the discussion has now fallen in the world to us arguing over who is actually giving what opinions... dubya Tee Ef is that about exactly?
Why, I ask for the zillionth time to the air around me, is this a political issue??? I should say, I do understand why it is... but WHY IS IT???
Why have we not slapped ourselves and said, my gosh, we've been completely ignoring all semblance of reason!!! Look at the facts... act prudently according to what you can find out! When the bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, did the US navy argue over the idea that they might have been Canadian planes painted to look like zeros??? NO! Gah world! Grow up!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummm... was that in response to my post? 'Cause if it was, you lost me. If it wasn't... you still lost me. In your analogy, is Al Gore Canada or Japan? Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:he even quotes a couple of the dissenting abstracts right there on his web page. Seems pretty clear that the claim that there were no papers that offered a dissenting view is false, unless he made up those abstracts himself, but that should be verifiable by someone who has access to those journals.
Truth is in the details. Some of the discrepancies observed are because Dr. Oreskes results were limited to the peer reviewed scientific journals. The two abstracts quoted on Mr Peisers website do not come from peer reviewed scientific journals. One is from the American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin. Although this is a peered reviewed journal, the article in question is not a peer reviewed research article. It is the report of an Ad Hoc commitee of petroleum geologists.
The second abstract he sites is from 'Futures', which is a magazine for traders and not a scientific journal of any kind.
I do not have time to read and classify 1000 abstracts to verify either set of results, but based on the data I've found already, Orestes appears to be the more reliable source.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is this science political instead of, well, scientific? This is a question that many scientists are trying to figure out.
The answer is that it has been made political.
If, and these are big if's not being debated by the original article, but if man-made global weather change is proven to be true, and if they are very detrimental, then logically we would have to do something to control or reverse it.
Such things would probably involve limiting and reducing the amounts of fossil fuels used.
Producers of fossil fuels do not like that idea. It hurts there financial future. So they start their own scare tactics, producing economic science that shows such reductions will hurt the entire economy.
This scares the auto-manufacturers who make much more money selling big expensive SUV's than small less expensive economy cars. Besides, US automakers aren't ready to compete in the economy car business with foreign competitors. So they back the scare tactics with fears of reducing choices on what you can buy.
Other manufacturers, fearing an increase in the cost of their energy due to global warming fixes, join the pack.
Now we have a segment of society, each heavy donors to elections, each with major lobbying groups, who would prefer that we do not have a problem with global warming.
They vow to defend thier dividends every step of the way, and they begin at the least prepared, least political, least financially sound root. They attack the science.
And since attacking it scientifically is not possible, they try to cover up the science with psuedo-science, confusion, misinformation, and fear.
That is how science gets to be politics.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Raven, I think you're overlooking the fact that scientists are politicians (spin doctors) as well. I once read a fascinating article that was all about how scientist mislead the public. Now, I know this sounds like a huge conspiracy theory, but it's not. I'm definitely not claiming every scientist is lying all the time. I always assume the best about people, so I can do no different in this case. Having been unable to find the article in question, I will try do my own recap: It's all about the money. When you're a scientist that has just completed a few grueling years of research on a specific topic and your funding comes from the government, then it's in your interest to make sure further research is required. (otherwise you'd be out of a job) So, without actually lying, but just presenting their results in such a manner that will persuade to government (or public opinion) that further research into the matter is important, they ensure themselves of continuous work. The deception is usually achieved by being vague. Example: you have just discovered that there is a threat to the public health. If you don't mention that the chances of infection are actually only 0.00000035%, yet make sure that everybody knows that the threat exists, people will be clamoring for more details in no time. And then you can persuade the people with the money that it would be best if you spent another few years analyzing the problem.
Please note that I do not think, that scientists are self-serving bastards. Far from it, I think that for the most part they are inspired people who work for the good of all humanity, but sometimes they think of themselves as well.
All I really wanted to say is: It's not just the people with the money who misrepresent their intentions, scientists are not infallible in this way.
My apologies if this post appears to be somewhat incoherent, but I'm working mostly from memory here. Good day to you all....
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people, including top policy makers in the US, have claimed that it is premature to make any changes based on the Greenhouse theory, because the theory is highly controversial.
That claim begs the question, "Is the scientific theory controversial?" and Dr. Oreskes research indicates that it is not. Or rather, that it is not controversial among scientists who do research in the field.
It is a theory which is quite clearly controversial among the general public.
So if a survey of the scientific literature does not support the idea that there is a major scientific controversy raging, where does the idea come from.
I think that Mr Peisers rebuttal on the subject is highly revealing. The first abstract he quotes which support his position comes from a a petroleum geologist.
The author of the first abstract Dr. Lee C. Gerhard is petroleum geologist with expertise in petroleum exploration, reservoir geology, research management and environment and resources public policy. He operated an independent petroleum exploration company. He has no credentials in climate or atmospheric sciences. In fact that abstract is not the report of a scientific study, but a report from a committee of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
I have heard many many people claim that proponents of human caused Global Climate Change, have a hidden agenda. That they are enviromental nuts and anti-technology wackos. But I have yet to have anyone point to a key scientist who supports the theory, who is a green peace member or whose research was funded by the Sierra Club. I have yet to here anyone clearly define what this hiden agenda might be.
On the other hand, the agenda and biases of those who vocally oppose the theory are notorious and fall into two major categories.
1. People who are being paid by oil, gas and coal.
2. People who believe that the earth is less that 10,000 years old and so find all science that talks about global climates change over time periods of hundreds of thousands of years to be utter nonsense.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mr. Raven, I think you're overlooking the fact that scientists are politicians (spin doctors) as well. I once read a fascinating article that was all about how scientist mislead the public,
Can you give us any idea what kind of article this was and where you read it? I've read numerous such articles, typically from creationists, whose criticism of science is itself biased.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the other hand, the agenda and biases of those who vocally oppose the theory are notorious and fall into two major categories.
1. People who are being paid by oil, gas and coal.
2. People who believe that the earth is less that 10,000 years old and so find all science that talks about global climates change over time periods of hundreds of thousands of years to be utter nonsense.
Actually Rabbit, where DO you get your funding since you are in a science related field? Is it from the government? Does your paycheck rest on finding something to panic about?
If you turned up research that showed that Global Warming was much ado about nothing, would you still have a job?
How many in your "concensus" fit that bill?
btw, where's my check from the oil companies? because I'm certainly not the religious type.
I don't buy the panic monger crowd because you're all out for more cash from the goverment. You're sucking us dry and killing people with absurd environmental regulations (We haven't built a power plant in 30 years in CA thanks to you lot and summer comes and people die because they can't afford to cool their home.)
We can't afford you people. We can't afford your sky-is-falling mentality.
Go sell shoes or something for your living you televangelists of science!
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If scientists announced tomorrow that for certain, global warming wasn't true, do you really think they'd all be jobless? There's still plenty to study, and they can do more than just look for global warming.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: That claim begs the question, "Is the scientific theory controversial?" and Dr. Oreskes research indicates that it is not. Or rather, that it is not controversial among scientists who do research in the field.
It is a theory which is quite clearly controversial among the general public.
So if a survey of the scientific literature does not support the idea that there is a major scientific controversy raging, where does the idea come from.
You've hit on something interesting, here. In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore referenced a study that might well have been the one you're talking about -- a study of something like 900 scientific articles published in peer-reviewed science journals, with every single one supporting the prevailing wisdom (stated more specifically). In contrast, he showed the results of a comparable study of media articles -- newspapers, magazines, et cetera -- and 53% of them disputed the scientific consensus.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly if global warming fell on its face you would not be able to find just as prestigious assignments for all the researchers very quickly. There would certainly be time required to reassign everyone.
That being said I do see the logic behind distrusting panic mongering scientists who are looking to get funding. Often the squeaky wheel gets the grease. However I am certainly open to the idea that many scientists genuinely see the data as supporting global warming, and they have every desire to inform their fellow man of the perceived dangers.
To those I suggest they keep studying until they can in no uncertain terms prove the problems of global warming, not simply postulate on what is causing it, and what will happen if it is indeed taking place.
It all sounds like a hilarious monty python sketch where billions of dollars are spent to get the world greenhouse gas compliant only to have a meteor strike antarctica ushering in hundreds of years of cold.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, I absolutely believe that global warming is a problem, and that it is largely if not entirely caused by people.
But the thing is, I do not understand why whether that is true or not is such a hot topic. Honestly, in many ways it simply doesn't matter! If we assume that it is true for a moment, what should we be doing about it? Reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses.
If it is not true, what should we be doing? Reducing emissions of most of those same gases, because they are pollutants which are making many of us sick!
Pixiest, do I not recall correctly that you are an asthmatic? Shouldn't you be FOR something that would reduce the levels of airborne pollutants?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka: My asthma is allergy triggered. I'm allergic to grass, mildew and trees. But not smog.
My allergies are much better here in smog-filled San Jose than they were back in the clean-air of Arkansas and unbelievably better than in the redwood forests of the Santa Cruz mountains.
This is just one of the reasons I can never go home for more than a visit.
posted
The majority of people, if not all, I don't have exact numbers, who live in high smog cities have a much higher risk of lung cancer and other health problems than those living in clean air cities.
There have been several studies done on that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
There is no way that global warming is some vast conspiracy cooked up to keep the scientists in work. That's just not the way science or the vast bureaucracy that funds science in the US works.
First, for anybody who knows anything about the government, it's not as if the right hand actually knows what the left hand is doing. "Funding" doesn't come from some central office with a central agenda. Environmental scientists are funded through so many different state, federal, and local departments (sometimes all on the same project) that it would be impossible to keep up a conspiracy for very long. Each agency has its own agenda and reason for funding the scientists.
Besides, it's not as if the only people who work in bureaucracies are liberals, or scientists. The people signing the funding orders won't lose their jobs, benefits, or pensions if the issue of global warming goes away. So why don't they just stop funding the scientists if they don't believe in global warming?
Second, science is inherently competitive--for glory and funding. Scientists thrive on one-upping each other. That's the way to get published. All it would take to debunk a vast conspiracy --if there was one-- would be one scientist with good, valid, reproducible data. A scientist who wants to make a name for him/herself would rather do groundbreaking research rather than just go along with some conspiracy to collect a paycheck. What better way to make a name for yourself (and get tenure) than debunking a popular theory?
Besides, global warming isn't the only thing to panic about. If we stopped funding environmental scientists who work on global warming issues, I'm sure the people would just find something else (that the scientists could study) to replace it. People like to have something to panic about, it's like a national hobby (avian flu, gay marriage, breakdown of society, flag burning, abortion, WWIII, kids these days...).
Edited for spelling.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moving is not an option for me. Anyway, I am ALSO allergic to pollen and various other open-spaces irritants, so it wouldn't help much.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka: Ouch =( There's no escaping huh? I useda think about Alaska... but I wouldn't be able to stand the cold.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, unfortunately the "Panic for Profit Scientists" theory falls short in several ways.
It is a theory offering a motive for fudging the numbers, but it is not proof that such fudging was ever done, nor is it an explanation of why such fudging was not done on the more profitable "Anti-Global Warming" side which, under current federal administration thinking, would guarantee more than adequate funding.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, thanks for responding to my post, but you really only responded to the first part of it. What about the second thing I was talking about, the "what do we do about it" factor?
quote:Many people, including top policy makers in the US, have claimed that it is premature to make any changes based on the Greenhouse theory, because the theory is highly controversial.
That claim begs the question, "Is the scientific theory controversial?" and Dr. Oreskes research indicates that it is not. Or rather, that it is not controversial among scientists who do research in the field.
I agree that way too many people are refusing to consider the evidence that humans caused global warming, but even if we accept that, that doesn't really help us in any practical way, because beyond that point, there really isn't any agreement. The science seems to be good enough to say "this is why this happened," but whenever scientists start talking about what's going to happen, that's where everybody says something different. I've heard opinions of pro-global warming scientists that say it's too late now, we've already pumped too much CO2 into the atmosphere and billions will die in the next century from its effects; and I've heard other scientists say that we just don't know what will happen because the models we have aren't good enough.
So if we look at it through that lens, there is more of a controversy than there might appear to be. And that's why it continues to be politicized; because politicians are expected to do something about it, and yet we don't know exactly what will be effective. I'm all for reducing emissions and finding alternate fuel sources, but I'm not all for dismantling our economy and strangling economic growth in developing countries to do it.
So Rabbit, I'm curious, what do you think should be done about the global warming problem? I apologize if you've already discussed this in previous threads, but that's the one thing nobody seems to be talking about in this thread. What do we need to do to stop global warming, what is the cost, and is it worth it?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Rabbit, have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? If so, what did you think of it? The data presented in it was simplified, of course, but did you spot any inaccuracies in it?, either in terms of the facts cited or the conclusions drawn?
I'm sorry Noemon but I haven't seen an inconvient truth so I can't comment. I do plan to see the film but I've been in Münster Germany since early June and it isn't showing here.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, for anybody who knows anything about the government, it's not as if the right hand actually knows what the left hand is doing. "Funding" doesn't come from some central office with a central agenda. Environmental scientists are funded through so many different state, federal, and local departments (sometimes all on the same project) that it would be impossible to keep up a conspiracy for very long. Each agency has its own agenda and reason for funding the scientists.
It should also be mentioned that Climate Change Science is truly international. Researchers in this area come from virtually every nation in the world and funding comes governments and NGOs with every possible political and philosophical bent.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually Rabbit, where DO you get your funding since you are in a science related field? Is it from the government? Does your paycheck rest on finding something to panic about?
If you turned up research that showed that Global Warming was much ado about nothing, would you still have a job?
How many in your "concensus" fit that bill?
Funding for the air pollution research I have done has come from the US National Science Foundation and a very small part from the National Park Service. The funding is not contingent on the results I get. I can not be fired from my job because of the conclusions of my research although I could be fired for falsifying my data or engaging in other practices that are considered unethical in the scientific community (i.e. politically biased analysis).
If my research turned up evidence that Global Warming was much ado about nothing, I'm pretty confident that I could get the work published in the peer reviewed literature and that a large number of groups would be willing to continue funding my work. In fact, funding for air pollution research and Climate Change Research has become far more scarce in the US during the past 6 years. US government funding in these areas has been cut significantly and there is no significant private of NGO funding for this work in the US.
In recent years, my colleagues whose results were more interesting to the oil, gas and coal industries have been far more successful in getting funding. Their funding typically comes through DOE as well as the oil and gas consortiums but some of my colleagues have also gotten pork barrel money (i.e. line item appropriations from congress) to do oil and coal research.
I can't give you exact number for what fraction of climate change researchers are in my situation. A brief scan of authors in recent publications shows that most of the researchers at a Universities, which means there situation is very similar to mine. They get their research funding from grants generally for government agencies and their jobs and salaries are protect by tenure system which protects them from being fired for reporting unpopular results. . The remainder are generally associated with National Laboratories (NCAR, NREL, NOAA etc.) these scientists are more vulnerable to loosing their positions for taking politically unpopular positions.
If you are genuinely interested in this question, most papers published in the peer reviewed scientific literature acknowledge the source of funding for their work.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Rabbit, I'm curious, what do you think should be done about the global warming problem? I apologize if you've already discussed this in previous threads, but that's the one thing nobody seems to be talking about in this thread. What do we need to do to stop global warming, what is the cost, and is it worth it?
I didn't answer this question before because it is really highjacks the thread into different territory. First off let me say that these question are indeed highly controversial. They are not wholly, or even primarily scientific questions they involve values and ethics.
The scientific questions are questions which take an enormous level of specialization to understand. Most people simply do not have the expertise to make a intelligent critic of the science, which is why it is most prudent for non-scientist to accept the consensus positions which have been made by several international scientific consortia. It is very frustrating to me when people who have no expertise throw out their criticism of studies by the world's leading scientists. They as ridiculous as it would be to critique C code as English literature, yet the critiques persist. What's worse, its almost impossible to explain why their comments are non-sensical without first explaining several years of basic science.
On the other hand the values questions, the questions of ethics, the choices about which paths to take are not questions it takes special training or expertise to understand. This is the space in which the public debate should be happening.
The whole debate over the scientific controversy is a distraction from the real issues. I think there are a group of people who keep stearing the public debate back to the science because they know that once the debate moves to the issues of ethics and values they will loose.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:We haven't built a power plant in 30 years in CA thanks to you lot and summer comes and people die because they can't afford to cool their home.
Although no powerplant have been built in CA for 30 years, many powerplants that supply power to CA have been built during that same time period. Those power plants dot the small towns of the western states that surround CA and typically sell 100% of the power they generate to CA. Most operate with very minimal air pollution control despite the environmentalist you criticize.
70,000 people die every year in the United States due to air pollution. Not greenhouse gasses, but well established criteria pollutants. That's not a panic inducing prediction. That is documentable right now and the number dwarves the handful who might die in CA because they can't afford the cost of air conditioning.
Amaizingly, the electricity brown outs and outrageous electricity costs were unheard of before the industry was deregulated. It seems more logical to blaim Libertarian policies than environmentalists for your air conditioning costs.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with being on the other side of the pond and therefore on a different clock, is that you people post during the middle of my night and wonder why I don't respond to you. Then I end up responding to people in a long series of uninterupted posts that make it look like I'm talking to myself while the rest of your are sleeping.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Rabbit, have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? If so, what did you think of it? The data presented in it was simplified, of course, but did you spot any inaccuracies in it?, either in terms of the facts cited or the conclusions drawn?
I'm sorry Noemon but I haven't seen an inconvient truth so I can't comment. I do plan to see the film but I've been in Münster Germany since early June and it isn't showing here.
When you do get a chance to see it, I'd be interested to know how solid you find it. It seemed solid to me when I saw it last weekend, but I could see myself not picking up on certain inaccuracies, were they there.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
One thing I do know about these studies involving global warming is that they are inherently NOT experimental. When studying global warming (and the change of the temperature of the earth over a long period of time), any study is inherently observational.
Now, a common mantra of statistics is "correlation does not imply causation". What this means is that NO amount of observational data allows you to definitely assert that humans are the cause of global warming. Note that this is in a strict, mathematical sense. A rational person may still conclude humans cause global warming, he/she simply cannot say "it's not possible that I'm wrong."
The other thing I know about warming (and weather in general) is that it's a mathematically choatic system. Most chaotic systems that we know ANYTHING about depend on 1 or 2 variables. How many variables does the weather depend on? Literally trillions and more. From that perspective alone, the notion that ANYONE can predict what kind of effect global warming will have in the long term is borderline laughable.
As far as the whole idea of "academic consensus", effecting what gets considered, I have found it to be a real thing. In mathematics before Cantor, no one thought that the notion of "infinity" could be handled in any sort of meaningful way. Cantor came up with a way (a way that seems "obvious" by today's standards), but he was ostracized from the mathematical community at the time.
Moving to a more scientific base, Eric Lerner attempted to publish a paper in which he replaces big bang cosmology (which is driven by gravitational forces) by a "big bang" driven by electromagnetic forces. The result? He's ostracized from the community.
Granted, I know NOTHING of the field of global warming, but I'd be VERY suprised if you could somehow demonstrate to me that it doens't have issues with "academic bias".
Finally, I just want to remark that there really is no such thing as "evidence for X", or "evidence for Y". There is data and there are theories X and Y. If Y can't figure out how to fit the data into it's scheme, we discard it in favor of X.
This sort of thing is most easitly seen in the creationism vs. evolution debates. A bone is discovered and creationists hail it as the end of evolution while the evolutionists hail it as the end of creation.
My point? No matter what, evidence is open to interpretation. (This is wonderful if you're side is in the minority, and terrible if it isn't)
Wow, what a rant
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: We haven't built a power plant in 30 years in CA thanks to you lot and summer comes and people die because they can't afford to cool their home.
When the California power system deregulated on the basis of lobbyist promises that doing so would cut power costs by 20%, energy brokers proceeded to manipulate the market and create artificial shortages, causing triple and higher rates and the merchants in question to make tremendous profits.
One could blame environmentalists for the deaths of people who couldn't afford power to cool their homes, but it would be somewhat akin to blaming a stationary company for a suicide note.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling: the only ones calling it a deregulation were the politicians. The economists were all calling it a shift from one mishmash of regulations to another and predicting nothing good.
edit: and the lack of plant building has little do with environmental regulations and a lot to do with perverse incentives due to pricing regulations.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: Mr. Raven, I think you're overlooking the fact that scientists are politicians (spin doctors) as well. I once read a fascinating article that was all about how scientist mislead the public.
Scientists are not liars. By making that connection, you are being untrue to the facts. PEOPLE are liars, and every group of people is contained in the larger group, the whole race. If humans can lie, then members of any group can lie too. The fact that there are scientists who are political, and who do lie does not signify in any argument, because it is equally true of any group. I mean any group. If a group of people are interested in (as in, "invested") in something, then there will be a lying face attached to that subject. It may be unintentional, it may be impossible to avoid, but all people lie in some ways, and no-one can be truthfull all of the time.
Lying is in a way, being true to your own motivations. If you really believe in something, for instance if you believe that Global Warming is going to kill the planet, then your interest is going to be in convincing people of this. If you are TRULY interested in convincing people, then you might lie, or allow the facts, or situations, or interpretations to do the lying for you, for the "greater good," or whatever you want.
Why else are we always talking about "lesser of two evils" and "turning the corner," in politics and in public policy? We are willing to lie to each other and to ourselves in order to get what we want, or have what we want to happen, happen. Maybe this is why scientists can be labeled as "political," but this is also why anyone bothers interpreting the scientists interpretations as poltics. The pointing out of the manipulation is a further manipulation, and the explanation I just gave is another little spin.
Do you see why this is a useless endeavor? There is only a matter of degree-- some lies are big ones, some are understandable, some unavoidable (why has the solar system never been drawn to scale in any book or starchart, ever? Is this a lie on the part of scientists, who can't practically present the solar system in the correct scale?), so there is, IMO, a HUGE difference between the lying of the Oil Companies, and the "lying" of scientists who want to prove something which is not a lie, by allowing us to believe half-truths.
Edit: It occurs to me, that like in my Solar System analogy, we allow a little evidence to prove a large point. The solar system is presented in the incorrect scale in all books, for reasons of clarity: it is impossible to practically view a to-scale version (either the planets are too small to discern, or the orbits are too wide to see with the eyes). In the same way, scientists allow small bits of evidence in a news article or a report to connect themselves to a larger issue. "We found x to be true, so we would suggest that it may be further proof of y." X doesn't prove Y, maybe nothing can prove Y, but its perfectly reasonable to make that suggestion, even if it can't be 100% verified, USDA-Choice Fact.
How can scientists ever make any useful assertions if they have to be 100% correct and complete in all the details? There are enough variables in any observation, and WAY more than enough in an observation of the Earth, to set a scientists to calculating away till the end of time, all the knowable possibilities and variables to any event. This would be useless, because 99.99 percent of all the possible variables are not going to be responsible for an anomylous finding. You can know right away what that .01 percent factor is, and focus on that. Its simply diligence on the part of the researcher to FOCUS on the needs to know.
This, of course, makes everything open to the wildest second guessing. It is the main reason IMO, that global warming is at all political. There will always be that little bit left untested, which someone will say makes the rest of the research "useless" or "questionable" or whatever. In reality, we know alot more than some would like to admit. We also know a little less than some would claim in order to be more convincing.
quote: Making Money by Feeding Confusion Over Global Warming Electric Utility Pays $100,000 to Global Warming Naysayer By CLAYTON SANDELL and BILL BLAKEMORE
July 27, 2006 — - Ever wonder why so many people still seem confused about global warming?
The answer appears to be that confusion leads to profit -- especially if you're in some parts of the energy business.
One Colorado electric cooperative has openly admitted that it has paid $100,000 to a university academic who prides himself on being a global warming skeptic.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I didn't answer this question before because it is really highjacks the thread into different territory. First off let me say that these question are indeed highly controversial. They are not wholly, or even primarily scientific questions they involve values and ethics.
Okay, I see where you're coming from. But in that case it changes this discussion as well. Because in your first post you lamented that politicians in the media are making global warming out to be controversial when it's not. But from my experience, whenever I've seen a politician or pundit discuss whether or not global warming is happening, they almost never limit it to just that. They invariably go right into discussions of those value judgements and ethics, bringing in those other arguments from the really controversial areas. So, that being the case, why wouldn't there be claims that its controversial? There definitely is a lot of sensationalism inthe headlines and sound bites that say global warming is a fraud or something, but looking at it that way, the global warming debate is far from being a dead horse.
quote:The scientific questions are questions which take an enormous level of specialization to understand. Most people simply do not have the expertise to make a intelligent critic of the science, which is why it is most prudent for non-scientist to accept the consensus positions which have been made by several international scientific consortia. It is very frustrating to me when people who have no expertise throw out their criticism of studies by the world's leading scientists. They as ridiculous as it would be to critique C code as English literature, yet the critiques persist. What's worse, its almost impossible to explain why their comments are non-sensical without first explaining several years of basic science.
While I'm sure you have experienced many instances of this personally, I think it's unfair to bring that up in this particular thread. You started this thread about a review of the literature on global warming, based on the abstracts from those articles. The study was only analyzing the abstracts on a basic level, to see whether the studies agreed or disagreed with human-caused global warming. Now, unless climate change scientists are really horrible writers, it shouldn't take a lot of background to accurately analyze an abstract in such a simple way.
quote:On the other hand the values questions, the questions of ethics, the choices about which paths to take are not questions it takes special training or expertise to understand. This is the space in which the public debate should be happening.
Could you clarify this a little bit? Because in my mind there are a lot of issues that require both value judgements and scientific knowledge to make decisions on. For example, when considering which alternative fuel path to give the most funding to, we need to consider both the scientific knowledge of what each fuel will give us in terms of efficiency and pollution reduction, and also the value judgements of how much we are willing to spend on it, how much we want to tax to pay for it, etc.
quote:The whole debate over the scientific controversy is a distraction from the real issues. I think there are a group of people who keep stearing the public debate back to the science because they know that once the debate moves to the issues of ethics and values they will loose.
But what group of people is that? I've seen people try to steer debate to the science from both sides of the political spectrum. An Inconvenient Truth is a prime example from the left, and that Wall Street Journal article the relevant example from the right. Note that I'm not commenting on the scientific accuracy of either of those two pieces, just giving examples of them bringing science into the debate.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
