Is Scientific Consensus a Threat to Democracy? 836
chance_encounter writes "President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus has published an article in the Financial Times in which he seems to equate the current global warming debate with totalitarian thought control: 'The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced ... The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.' At the end of the article he proposes several suggestions to improve the global climate debate, including this point: 'Let us resist the politicization of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus," which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority.'"
Threat to democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Threat to scientifically illiterate politicians? Maybe.
Re:Threat to democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps he is scientifically illiterate. But he's not illiterate in the language used by totalitarians. It seems that no one here is actually commenting on who Vaclav Klaus [wikipedia.org] is.
Klaus was chairman of Civic Forum, the Czech anti-totalitarian movement that was one of two leading groups during the 1989 Velvet Revolution against the Soviet Union's dominance over Czechoslovakia. He's a free market politician (predictably after decades of ruinous Soviet economic predominance) and quite naturally suspicious of totalitarian influence.
If Klaus sees a parallel between the way global warming alarmists and the Soviet totalitarians use language to browbeat their opponents, he at least merits a hearing-out rather than an out-of-hand dismissal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me extend that statement. A few weeks ago I saw him in news, where he basically expressed strong believe that "free market will solve it". He believes that environmentally unfriendly companies will not be successful in the market. And thus the problem will take care of itself.
Perhaps he knows a lot about economy - I don't argue that. But there are various schools in economy - with rather opposite opinions on some matters. And thus I'll prefer to believe climatologists r
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So I guess I should listen to my auto-mechanic about heart problems because he happens to have 30 years of experience dealing with carbuerators?
A scientific consesus is reached by peer-reviewed research, not because the scientist think "OOOO we have a new sugar daddy!".
In the political forum, I'm sure
Scientific totalitarians ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason anyone ever goes to the scientific consensus argument is because either (a) the person making the argument doesn't understand the science, or (b) the person being argued to doesn't understand the science. In the case of (a), that person typically is assuming that the scientific question is solved, and it's now time to address the complicated political questions. In the case of (b), how else do you try to convince someone incapable of (or unwilling to) understanding the science behind global warming? The strongest scientific critics you will find against global warming (Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen) argue that they're not sure if humans are the primary cause of global warming, but that they acknowledge that humans are a factor in global warming - and even these critics are a small minority of climate scientists.
There are lots of places that address the basic science behind global warming, but if you're unwilling to try to understand that basic science, then it makes more sense to accept the wisdom of the majority than the wisdom of the minority under the theory that sometimes the minority is right. (Sometimes they are, but that's the exception and not the rule.)
Heck, there's already been a shift in certain circles towards the next "stage" in avoiding responsibility for global warming. First, they denied the warming. Then, they denied that humans were responsible. Now, they've moved on to the coup de grâce: who's to say warmer won't be better?
(Oh, and this argument against scientific consensus could just as easily be made against evolution, general relativity, or even quantum mechanics. No, it's not a threat to democracy.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is NOT to say that the underlying stuff about climate change is not there, it's just that the "hype" has gotten SO big that it's actually hurting th
Science and hype (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree.
The beauty is that (as I'm sure you already realize), you don't have to agree with their politics. A lot of the things that we can do to help the environment will also hel
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately that is not always true. In the case of some environmental groups and animal rights activists for instance there is a tendency to implement solutions that are strikingly anti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yours are the ravings of a fanatic. The idea is to let the world determine your beliefs, not the other way around.
Re:Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Genesis
1) Maverick Scientist has an Idea.
2) Other scientists deride the Idea.
3) SF Writers use Idea as image of bleak future.
4) Academics debate Idea.
5) Politicians begins to discuss the Idea, but don't understand it.
6) General Public ignores the Idea.
Growth
7) Champion arrives to actively promote and publicize Idea.
8) Scientists form a consensus that agrees with Idea.
9) Academics teach Idea as fact.
10) Fast Adapters change lifestyle, ridicule General Public.
11)
Tuvalu, for one (Score:3, Informative)
There is more than one way to destroy Tuvalu (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There is more than one way to destroy Tuvalu (Score:5, Informative)
In any case,
a) living on a delta is a great way to see the sea rising relative to the land, but the sea-level has hardly changed while those deltas continue to sink. Ask the Mayor of New Orleans. If the deltas are not replenished then you get severe coastal erosion and deltaic islands sink into the water.
b) Tuvalu's problems are entirely caused not by rising sea-levels (because there isn't any) but by overpopulation and overextraction of water making the wells become brackish.
Here's what the scientists say [flinders.edu.au]:
"The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year." and
"The historical record (from Tuvalu) shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends."
So the sea-level rise is just barely measureable and shows no acceleration due to global warming, man-made or otherwise.
Re:Thank you for the source (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the best strategy is not trying to stabilize the unstabilizable, but on adaptation and lifting people out of poverty that makes them less susceptible to climate change one way or the other. But climate change will happen because we live on a dynamic world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDO60033/IDO60033.2004.
Re:There is more than one way to destroy Tuvalu (Score:4, Insightful)
b) Tuvalu's problems are entirely caused not by rising sea-levels (because there isn't any) but by overpopulation and overextraction of water making the wells become brackish.
"The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year." and
"The historical record (from Tuvalu) shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends."
So the sea-level rise is just barely measureable and shows no acceleration due to global warming, man-made or otherwise.
More importantly those historical stats sidestep the fact that the sea level rise that people worry about comes from land based ice caps (like the one on Greenland) sliding into the ocean. Something that hasn't really happened yet so there wouldn't be any reason for the sea levels to have already risen.
Your argument there is a bit like standing on the deck of the Titanic just before it hit the iceburg and arguing that everyone is safe as the hull is still completely intact.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Climatologists studying hurricanes. There is a direct correlation between the level of surface sea temperature near the equator and the intensity of hurricanes. Warmer sea water will mean more intense hurricanes.
Increase in Major Hurricanes Linked to Warmer Seas [livescience.com]
Severe Hurricanes Increasing, Study Finds [washingtonpost.com]
Small increases in sea temperature, he added, can "exponentially provide more and more fuel for the hurricanes."
Re:Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
You failed to bring up the other side (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree that AGW is real and I am (Score:3, Informative)
hurricanes (Score:3, Informative)
Or so this "they" guy says...read it on the intartubes
The deal with hurricanes isn't so much they are stronger or more of them as hundreds or thousands of years ago as much as we have much better news reporting and data keeping now and even moreso, hoo-mannz have been on a coastal area expensive building spree for the past few decades in the US, so when hurricanes *do* strike, it causes a lot more damage. Example, a litt
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
erm.... Climate Change isn't supposed to simply cause much higher temperatures. It's supposed to upset the climate balance and result in an overall higher temperature. But that doesn't mean you can no longer have below average winters/years.
Western Europe, for example, could very well be on course for a long term significant drop in temperatures, if the climate change upsets the North Atlantic Drift.
Further: Climate change didn't begin with Kyoto. Kyoto was a response (by politicians, so you know it was
Age? (Score:4, Informative)
Really? How old are you? I remember Rush Limbaugh, for one, making exactly those comments in the early 90's. To wit, he brought up these new satellite results that were able to measure the effect of the full moon on temperatures and then claimed that it was funny that with such sophisticated techniques they still weren't able to measure global warming. There were plenty of ditto-heads who took that statement and ran with it.
Why don't you do a little personal research on the Mann Hockey Stick? Try to go to sites that cover actual science and not just politics though, okay? Also avoid sites that admit to being junkscience.
Please provide the book title and such a quote. Also, don't confuse "a climatologist from the 1970s" with "the climatologists of the 1970s". A lot of people who bring up "global cooling" seem to do that. (I do see, however, that you were good enough to qualify that only "some" were claiming that.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? How old are you? I remember Rush Limbaugh, for one, making exactly those comments in the early 90's. To wit, he brought up these new satellite results that were able to measure the effect of the full moon on temperatures and then claimed that it was funny that with such sophisticated techniques they still weren't able to measure global warming. There were plenty of ditto-heads who took that statement and ran with it.
Rush Limbaugh is dead from the neck up. And he is not a scientist.
Neither are most other sceptics.
As far as warming is concerned, yes there is definitely warming. The Earth has (generally) warmed since the trough of the Little Ice Age in the early 17th Century.
Yes. But more in the last 30 years than in the 300 before.
If you're referring to modern warming, the satellite record shows warming from 1979, but only in the Northern Hemisphere. The SH has not warmed at all, which sort of makes a mockery of the notion of "Global Warming"
Nope. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphic s/nhshgl.jpg [ornl.gov]. The guy you got that from probably isn't a scientist either.
Why don't you do a little personal research on the Mann Hockey Stick? Try to go to sites that cover actual science and not just politics though, okay? Also avoid sites that admit to being junkscience.
I have. Check out Climate Audit and spend some time asking questions about it. Stay away from UnRealClimate because its viciously skewed and you never know when or what has been deleted.
IOW you refuse to do it. Instead you go to the site of a (former) mining executive who refuses to admit that the "hockey stick" also shows on all other reconstructions but his own - and the fact why it doesn't show up with him is also well known: he kept ignoring data-sets until he got
Re:Absolutely (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait... you're kidding, right?
(Step Two: Make a point)
You seriously somehow got the illusion that the 'billions' poured into computer simulations even begins to approach the scale of money involved modern industrial production?
(Step Three: Condescension, with implication of lack of real-world knowledge)
I'm afraid you simply have a lot to learn about how money works in the real world.
(Step Four: ???)
Irish line dancing is the single largest cause of global climate change, after everything else.
(Step Five: Profit!)
You, sir, are just plain dead wrong. There is no "real" money in science research... if they were doing it for Profit!, they wouldn't be spending their days being ridiculed by the likes of you - they'd be out shorting stock for flood insurance companies.
Two hands (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand, you have scientists paid to do research by the government and other public organizations, with no instructions on what they can and cannot publish. These scientists are not paid more if they find that global warming is anthropogenic than if they find that it's not. If you think otherwise, you're drinking the Crichton kool-aid, and are subscribing to the biggest conspiracy theory of them all.
On the other hand, you have scientists paid to do research (sometimes out of their field) by fossil-fuel companies who are not allowed to publish their data without first passing it through those doing the funding. Interestingly enough, these scientists don't find evidence that global warming is non-anthropogenic. No, they only seem to be able to show that it's not necessarily primarily anthropogenic. Two key terms there: "not necessarily" and "primarily". That is, they know that humans contribute to global warming, there's no way to interpret the science otherwise, even when being funded by fossil fuel companies. They also know that it's possible that humans are the primary contributors to global warming. However, if they do their research just right they find that there's not enough evidence to say that humans are definitely primary responsible. Of course, it's not to hard to find a lack of evidence.
Re:Two hands (Score:5, Interesting)
You obviously don't work in academia. Academia works off of grants. Grants are given to study specific things. Two huge sources of grants are AIDS and global warming. So, for instance, if you wanted to research herpes (not that well funded), the easiest way to get that money would be to go after an AIDS grant and research how herpes spread has been affected by AIDS. Similarly, if you want to study elephants in Africa, you would try to get a grant from a climate change group to study how global warming has affected the migration patterns of elephants in Africa. Those organizations that actually give the grants get THEIR funding based on the research that comes back. So if a research paper comes back and says "global warming is not much of a problem", the organization that gave the grant might not have as large a budget next year. It's essentially chopping off the branch you're standing on. Now, if you come back and say "global warming is a huge problem", you'll get more press, the organization that funded you gets more money, you get even more grants to do your research.
Now about your point that oil companies fund the anti-global warming research. The number I've heard on the money oil companies have contributed is in the tens of millions (this from an environmentalist group, I forget which). The actual global warming research being performed from grants in gov't agencies and whatnot? Billions. Now is it a surprise that the scientists on each side of the issue is proportionate to the amount of funding on each side? Let's just say I'm a little skeptical.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I very respectfully disagree. It seems to me that scientists who question global warming tend to lose th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's funny you mention this. I was just in a meeting yesterday, where one of the topics related to catastrophe insurance. Insurers who are affected by this kind of stuff are running scared, because they see the actual loss numbers. But they won't come out in public and say "we're screwed",
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is one physics-related field, however, when you can hear about the consensus. It is every now and then invoked by the proponents of nuclear energy, for example when they want to convince you that less than forty people died as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe.
Wow, I've never heard any rational pro-nuke power folks make that argument. Only an ignorant fool would argue that "nuke power is safe because Chernobyl was the worst accident and it wasn't all that bad". The proper argument is and has always been:
"Chernobyl doesn't prove nuke power is unsafe because only a bunch of fucktard Soviet blockheads would build a flammable graphite shielded reactor with a huge positive void coefficient and then run it with all the safety systems turned off. France generates 78%
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth.
He hit it precisely. That is exactly right.
Exploitative arrangements must be replaced with fair central planning.
The currently observed economic growth is the result of the wealth that is plentiful being converted to the poverty that is artifi
Re:Threat to democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, dimwit, the object of money isn't that I can wear it or take shelter under it. Money is a voucher I can exchange for things I can wear or take shelter under. It beats having lug around things I've produced to trade directly for things other people have produced.
Burn your money, invest your money, makes no fucking difference. Money doesn't do anything except keep count of these predatory arrangements that give men power over each other.
What it keeps track of is how many things I've produced that other people find valuable. That's why other people give me money. Because I've given them something they value.
You cordoned off resources that were floating around out there and put them in your pocket. My house. My factory. My land. My good idea.
Sure thing - there have been iPods and HD-TV's and factories and houses floating around since the Pleistocene Era. And I've done gone and cordoned them off! Good deal, that!
They're only yours to administer because of the cops and guns.
In other words, they're mine because a civilized society will recognize and defend property rights.
Here's a newsflash (Score:3, Insightful)
There are no climate scientists who take their cue from Al Gore. Just thought you should know. Al Gore is just reporting the science (and might occasionally get it wrong), he's not the one actually doing the science. It must be convenient to have an easy target now, though.
You know it's possible to accept the science behind global warming without having to like Al Gore. My father's done that, and I'm sure you can, too.
Mann Hockey Stick (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The debunkers (and I assume you're referring to McIntyre and McKitrick) have not been debunked. Every criticism of the Hockey Stick that they made has been upheld. Even the NRC Report (which bent over backwards to avoid throwing out the Hockey Stick altogether) upheld every single point made by Steve McIntyre. [climateaudit.org]
When the Hockey St
Re:Mann Hockey Stick (Score:4, Informative)
From what I can read it seems like the reverse is true. The only valid criticism M&M made was a methodological issue that, when corrected, had no effect on the outcome of the model.
There are more than a dozen climate reconstructions that uphold the original "Hockey Stick", and to my knowledge, M&M have offered no objections to any of them. For a "debunked model" it's been featured prominently in materials as recent as the IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers, so the scientific consensus clearly has not come down on the side of M&M's objections.
Because those fakers are still writing on RealClimate.
It's really easy to toss around ad hominem attacks like they mean something in science, but that seems to be all the climate change deniers really have to offer.
Re:Threat to democracy? (Score:4, Funny)
Stop Reading (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Rent solar power and fix your electric rate for up to 25 years: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A consensus of smart people who actually have a clue is still not a democracy. A consensus of all people is a democracy.
Historically, the people at the "low" end of the spectrum have never been fairly represented. Slaves have always been denied the right to vote. And slave-owners have kept the slaves deliberately ignorant to prevent them from both voting and learning that a democracy should include everyone. Jim Crow laws were a
Finally, someone said it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
--CEO Nwabudike Morgan,
"The Ethics of Greed"
Re:Finally, someone said it (Score:5, Interesting)
A physicist explains science to third graders [physicstoday.org]:
We take a vote. I ask how we decide who is right, and then I do the experiment... I emphasize that science is not a democracy, it is not the majority but the experiment that decides what is correct.
Sums it up pretty nicely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody's claiming that the scientists are correct without a doubt. Only that most scientists believe that the data shows that humans are having a significant impact on the rate of global climate change, and that we should do something about it. Granted that that's a difficult thing to accept for some people. It's not as easy to demonstrate as an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. With gravity we've done the experiment so when you jump off that 100 story building and say "I'm ok" as you pass the tenth floor we know that you're really in trouble.
With global warming its mo
Re:Finally, someone said it (Score:5, Insightful)
I despise how global warming discussions focus so much on whether or not someone "believes", and heralding or ridiculing people for being in the right or wrong camp, rather than simply being discussions about straightforward facts.
Negative externalities (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry if all that hurts your feelings. Science doesn't care about y
Watch this and then tell me there is concensus (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Watermelons (Score:4, Insightful)
Appeals to "human nature" fail when closely analyzed. We are all capable of acts of remarkable sacrifice and remarkable selfishness, and through various semantic games, we can interpret each through the lens of the other.
Also, describing a call for a worldwide regulatory system in response to climate change as "communism" is incorrect. "Capitalism" in modernity has, and has always had, an extensive governmental system to support it: to control borders (which keeps markets, especially labor markets, in place), to protect property, to print currency and enforce monetary and trade policy, and so forth. It is not as if there is currently a "Wild West"-like free market that policies against climate change is going to shut down: intelligent and responsive regulation is firmly established as a requirement for successful capitalism. (Just think what would happen if we didn't regulate, for example, the printing of currency.)
Re:Finally, someone said it (Score:5, Insightful)
Very true. A quick look at climate history [scotese.com] will show that the climate has been changing since the Earth had a climate to begin with, well before the SUV was invented and Bush was elected. It will also show that we are actually in a cool period and global warming will get us back to where we need to be!
Only in countries where there is a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo has the issue been politicized.
Right, and the countries that are interested in changing the status quo are NOT politicizing the issue? I get it, since they are on YOUR side, it's not political, but those with different views are politicizing the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? How do you know? Maybe we should bring in some other sources. Here is a few:
Here's one from NASA [nasa.gov], that goes back 800,000 years and shows that we are in a "Little Ice Age"
Here's one from SEED [slb.com] that goes back 140 years and shows that we are 0.4 degrees C above where we were in 1860 AD. SEED, btw, seems to be a biased source. Anyplace that is hawking a solar powered backback has
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can you provide a citation? Because this is what I see in the report:
Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. Best estimate
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you also referring to the smog of NYC when it was all horse and buggy? Perhaps you're talking about people that can't go outside on certain days in LA because the smog will trigger an asthma attack instantly?
I'm sorry, perhaps you can explain to me why 30 years ago the Green Mountains and the Adirondacks didn't have an acid rain problem? You're theory doesn't hold water as that is not the only region experiencing the long term effects of smog. The acid of upstate New York is from the Ohio Valley, do y
Re:Finally, someone said it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The measurements taken at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory showed CO2 levels had jumped 2.5 ppm from 2002 to 2003 to a level of 376 ppm. This increase went well past the annual increase that might have been ant
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sunspot activity peaked several years ago.
Reference: here [space.com]
I gues by citing my source I am engaging in consensus science too.
Wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
does that mean.... (Score:3, Interesting)
First off, we have to realize that global warming is a problem. Next step, reduce, reduce, reduce while scientists, engineers, and inventors come up with a more permanent solution to help rid ourselves of well....not so eco-friendly "things" (everything from transportation, energy, manufacturing, etc.)
and damn...it's hot today.
Re:does that mean.... (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, we have to allow scientists to determine whether global warming is a problem, without political interference.
Re:does that mean.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All evidence?? No other theories?? Really...
I have recently read a report that the energy output of the sun has risen recently and is the highest it has ever been. The source of that report is at least as credible to me as any that have put forth arguments for global warming. I have also ferreted out as many facts, numbers and theories denying global warming as I have seen thrust upon me by the media as are in favor of. Should I now just ignore the possibility that any delta in Earth's temperature is qui
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Notice how they always say "serious scientific organizations", then dismiss anyone who disagrees as being on the fringe. This is despite the fact that highly qualified scientists do disagree about the actual cause and level of global warming. The simple fact is, most of the hysteria is based on Gore's little movie, which is based on BAD science that can never pass peer review.
Re:does that mean.... (Score:5, Informative)
Really.
All of them.
Seriously, for real.
Yes.
All of them.
No, really.
It's true.
Did the message get through, yet? Look, here's a scientific study of the fact that all climate scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306
Believe it yet?
It's true.
Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists listen to data, not what politicians/economists etc want.
Ideally, you are correct. In practice, I've yet to see a field of scientific pursuit that wasn't tainted by the expectations and desires of those doing the research.
Right now, in the United States, if you publish a paper that is referenced in support of an anti-global-warming political statement (doesn't matter if your data was neutral), you have to worry about where your next meal is coming from, and might want to consider a career change. That's unacceptable encroachment of politics on science. Worse, sc
Politics in physics vs global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Because whether or not a cherished theory in physics gets confirmed or flames out doesn't involve trillions of dollars, the rise and fall of political dynasties and the great political question of our times. Yes physics depts have politics too, but in the end they are all physics geeks. Global warming got caught up in so much larger political movements that it is no longer possible to say ANYTHING on th
Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, some times I just have to say the hell with the mods. FUCK YOU. I don't go out and fucking belittle something you've dedicated your life to just beca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was tempted to copy/paste the whole of Fenyman's Cargo Cult Science essay, but I'll stick to the most relevant pieces:
Translation for those who don't speak Czech (Score:3, Insightful)
That is:
"You need to tell me if you have any political thoughts that I can turn into an ad hominem argument rather than discuss your data or your methods because I'm not a physicist and I can't follow the math."
Re:Translation for those who don't speak Czech (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people - including the vast majority on slashdot, who tend to be much better educated and intelligent than "the great unwashed" (myself included), don't have the specific knowledge or background to be able to properly weigh the data presented in the debate.
Knowing people's biases will make it easier for them - US - to properly weigh what they've said.
When an Oil company exec says something about global warming, you're going to take that into account when you look at any data he presents. Likewise, when the president of "People for the Full Eradication of Technology and Man" gives HIS views on the subject, you should also take THAT into account when looking at data he presents.
It's got exactly ZERO to do with ad hominem arguments, and everything to do with wanting full disclosure so that biases can be weeded out - on BOTH sides.
Sounds perfectly sensible to me.
Bottom line: Global warming is *intensely* political. And before we can make any rational decisions about what to do about it, we need to separate the politics from the science. Disclosing biases - on BOTH sides - will at least give us a CHANCE to do so.
Re:Translation for those who don't speak Czech (Score:4, Insightful)
If people are competent to understand the data, they can review the data and determine what is speaking. The objectivity of empirical facts and the repeatably of systematic testing of empirical hypotheses is rather the point of science.
Asking that scientists disclose their biases and a litany of how they affected their results isn't going to acheive that, for several reasons. First, people aren't going to claim they are biased, either because they don't believe they are biased, or if they are biased and working deliberately from that bias, because they won't want to reveal it. Second, any publication of scientific results is a claim that the scientific method was applied, i.e., that agenda did not influence the results. So that's exactly what anyone currently publishing would claim if they followed the prescription offered.
Of course, the politician making the recommendation knows this isn't going anywhere, he is just trying to sell the idea that the scientific consensus is both not real and entirely the product of bias by acting as if that is an established conclusion from the outset and railing for a correction.
I've never seen an Oil company exec present data about global warming. I've seen oil company execs make bald, conclusory statements without presenting the supporting data. There is an important difference between the two things.
Sure, if someone is presenting their views. Data != views.
Yes, arguing that someone's arguments should be evaluated based on personal affiliation is ad hominem argument, except where the argument is supported only by personal authority of the source and the challenge is to bias or credibility of that source. Where the argument is presented based on verifiable evidence, challenges of bias of the source remain ad hominem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, sorry, I was just channeling Chris Burke's bias-pandering populism for a second there.
Not exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
The point the writer of the article was trying to make is that environmentalists want us to spend billions of dollars doing things which may or may not have any impact on something which may or may not exist.
he is clearly delusional (Score:3, Informative)
Politics (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there strict control in science? Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
In a democratic society you are free to state that the world is flat. The people are free to elect someone who says the world is flat. In science you've actually got to prove that the world is flat. Does that mean you're "not free" in science to assert whatever you want as reality. Sure. Personally I like those restrictions. Without them we'd be back in the middle ages.
We don't elect reality. We discover it. Discovery requires that one thing is paramount: observation, and the unbiased interpretation of that observation. So, in essence you are restricted by reality because you want you perception (your model of reality) to conform with reality as much as possible. So you lose the freedom to say that reality is anything you damn well please.
I for one welcome our reality overlords.
I believed AGW until I heard totallitarian tone (Score:4, Insightful)
I was very worried about AGW, but statements like, "neuremberg style trials for denialists" made me think something's not right. Add in character assasination, the way any "contrarian evidence" is assumed to be funded by oil companies, and debating tactics that throw the principle of falsifiability out of the window, made me distrust the whole damnded thing.
The science needs to be free to operate carefully and efficiently, regardless of whether it's finding evidence for or against AGW. The business of science is to discover the truth of the matter, regardless of whether that truth happens to agree with our beliefs and values.
I suspect that the notion of what "good science" is has changed subtly. Good science is science that finds the truth. But scientists who want to be good people, may come to believe that being a good person means creating science that "does good things", such as save the planet. If you want to save the planet because saving the planet is a good thing to do, then there may be a bias towards only studying subjects that offer an opportunity to become an important scientist who makes discoveries about dangers and remedies for the planet.
Good science is purely about the truth. What you do with that knowledge is a different affair altogether. Good science is simply being dispassionately interested in facts. It's not the scientist's job to be a good person. Just give us the facts. We, the people, will worry about the rest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I assume you've been able to experimentally reproduce the affects of greenhouse gases on climate change? When and on what planet did these experiments occur? Admit it, you cannot perform these kinds of experiments and have to rely on hypothesis, intuition and faith in potentially flawed computer model projections.
The critical difference (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm speaking here as a scientist of several years experience (most of which I should state has been in the 'oh fuck I am never going to prove my hypothesis' catagory).
Scientists and politicians caan never see eye to eye. The simple reason for this, which I will explain over a couple of sentances, is that science requires evidence with is proveable by the current state of the art, in the full and contented knowledge that the state of the art can be disproved/advanced at any point. Politians do not live in the same world. Their opinions can and must change to reflect the mean (or is it modal?) view of that sector of the population which is most likely to votw for them.
This may sound as if I think they are not as good as scientists, but this is an erronious view. The role of the politician has evolved for over 2000 yeras, starting when the citizens of Athens firs decided that a singler point of faliure what a bit shit, and moving forward to the most mobile of all democracies, that of the United States. In all that time (in my opinion) the scientist has been following a different path to that of the scientist.
A scientist, with what may perhaps be superior knowledge in his domain may cry foul regarding some aspect of current policy. In response, the politician, who lacks the domain knowledge, but has superior knowledge of the political climate, and, one assumes in the general case, is subject to an external optimisation system (voting) that removes the candidates which differ by too much from the required state, either agrees or seeks to discredit the findings of the scientist.
This does, on the face of it, seem to be an insane system, but it has advantages.
Could scientists run the world? Fuck no, I know many, am one myself, and frankly I would run screaming from any mob that claimed this.
Fancy a ruler that would happily spend years persuing a single aspect of a problem? Cos I don't
The principle point is that the world can only work if the extremists, be they political, religious or scientific are not allowed to be in charge. I'm biased, I think that scientific extremism (which is more or less the default state, since specialisation is required), is not that bad, but my own logic requirs that I exclude myself from the set of people allowed to rule.
Science: Is it just another narrative? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the postmodernist claim anyway - science is just another narrative that is the result of it's context (male, western, capitalist, etc.) and it is no more valid than any other such narrative. Science is just an expression of the culture that spawned it.
Other belief systems (alternative medicine, for example) embrace this viewpoint. Science after all is based on inductive reasoning rather than rigorous proof of truth.
The concept of this article is that science must be relative to political necessity. This is in line with the view of science as just another narrative. The problem is that this has been a miserable failure whenever attempted - Lysenkoism, Creationism, etc. are sad examples of this, and it is fair to say that the correctness of a scientific theory can only be influenced by politics for a short period of time before the error is revealed.
Global warming seems to be a fact out to a ridiculous level of statistical certainty. Some effects are predictable to a high degree of certainty. The impact of human endeavors is less ceertain, BUT the potential consequences of ignoring that impact are astronomical. Any prudent person would act to avoid of those consequences.
When government leaders are resisting that action you know that these leaders are not serving their people, but rather other interests.
Hrm, similarity? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a religious crusader to me. It's the exact same thing: "the majority must be right, nevermind that the experts who have spent years studying the subject specifically say the majority is wrong!"
Threat to democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
What does scientific consensus mean? (Score:3, Interesting)
The kicker on global warming is that we seem to have the majority of scientists saying one thing, while the majority of politicians say something else.
The scientists have nothing to gain/lose other than their reputations / employability. It won't look good to doggedly predict the climate will change year after year as it doesn't, or predict it won't as it does. Scientists don't work in a vacuum though. The researchers for tobacco repeatedly found no serious problems from smoking, so merely being a scientist doesn't give you a halo.
Politicians don't need to be right to keep being employed. Oftentimes, being on the right team is enough. (Republican vs Democrat, while the country swings, many regions do not.) All a politician needs to do is to keep their bosses happy. The bosses are the people who pay the politician on a per issue basis.
Scientists and politicians can both be bought. It could be argued that many scientists are willing to be bought because of trouble finding employment. It could be argued that politicians solicit being bought. That said, why would you buy a scientist or a politician for this issue?
First, if you were an individual, you wouldn't. You could try, but you (unless you were quite rich) wouldn't have the money to throw at buying a large number of people.
Buy a scientist / politician to tell the world global warming is real:
You would do this if your company would profit from increased environmental regulations. Companies that produce alternative fuels might do this. Also, if your business is inherently polluting, but you have much better emissions control than your competition, this would be a short-term advantage over them. How many companies are in one of these two positions? Did I miss situations here? How many startup alternative fuel companies can out lobby established fuel companies raking in obscene profits? Perhaps there's a secret lobby of corn farmers... even if so I doubt they could compete with oil's lobbying power.
Buy a scientist / politician to tell the world global warming is wrong:
Your business is inherently polluting, cleaning equipment and changing production methods is expensive. If you convince people there is no problem, there's no need to change.
Why would you buy a scientist?
If unbiased scientific data pointed one way, you almost have to buy a handful of scientists to disagree so you can claim that you didn't "know" the truth. Think cigarette companies. Once you have a handful of reports, you're good.
Why would you buy a politician?
Politicians make laws, which could force expensive changes. Paying off a few scientists isn't going to change the views of many people, especially if most scientists disagree. Buying a politician guarentees favorable results no matter what the public thinks. Consider how many people hate out-sourcing. Consider that both parties support it, despite the public's obvious hatred of the idea. (Also consider how few people actually make the effort to buy American)
An additional benefit to buying politicians. People are pack animals with a gang mentality. Once you choose your gangs (Yankees / Braves! Democrats / Republicans! Toilet seat up / down!) you tend to blindly follow them, no matter how divorced from reality they may get. (Will the Cubs do well? They finally did, but the loyalty well before that point was amazing) No matter how many scientists say X is bad, if Bush says X is good a disturbing number of people will follow Bush because they take politics as us vs them. If Bush is on one side, the other side is wrong. The same was true with Clinton. People selectively (and I'm convinced, unconciously) filter their perceptions to fit the view of the world they want to have. Political lines are sad
insert revenue at one end and propaganda comes out (Score:3, Interesting)
People like you are a threat to science & demo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)