View Story | 70 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
"You know as well as I do that scientists are like lawyers," Harris said.
Unfortunately, far too many Americans would agree. And that is not based on the behavior of scientists, but on the mockery of the pundits and a degraded and debased popular culture, where the crazy lady on The View can assert that the earth is flat and somehow not be laughed off the stage. After all, her opinion is as valid as anyone else's. More so, because she's famous.
This has to be fixed first.
What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?
by melvin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:28:30 AM PDT
Which is good. But sometimes being wrong is just being wrong. Somehow wrongness is now passed off as a difference in opinion.
by AngryZealot on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:35:11 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
unless it's a Democrat who says it.
The insinuation that the feces of John McCain, a former prisoner of war, would stink, is outrageous!
by AdmiralNaismith on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:41:17 AM PDT
valid. If an idea is factually false, however, it has no place in public debate. Would you respect a pupil's opinion if he said that he ''doesn't believe'' that there exists any world outside the United States?
Omne malum nascens facile opprimitur, inveteratum fit plerumque robustius. - Cicero
by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:56:47 AM PDT
The scientific method does so by formulating hypotheses to test predictions of an idea. That has been done for the predictions of AGW. The predictions made by AGW have consistently been proven wrong by observation.
by MJBrutus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM PDT
If you cannot disprove it, it's still viable. But if you demonstrably can, then it has no place in public discourse. A prime example would be the theory that the Earth is flat.
But there is no central bureau that can determine the falsity of ideas. That is up to the people, and if they are stupid and gullible enough not to listen to rational arguments, well, then they and perhaps their children, as yet unborn, will suffer for it. Personal responsibility, no?
by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:02:57 PM PDT
AGW predicted that we would observe a heating of the earth's troposphere in advance of ground surface temperature increases. Yet satellite observations have shown no significant rise in tropospheric temperatures over the time frame that CO2 was supposedly causing the surface to heat up.
AGW predicted that the increase of man-made CO2 would result in an increase of the global mean surface temperature, but observation has shown that while we have continued to emit increasing amounts of CO2, surface temperatures have not increased for over a decade.
There are other instances of the failure of AGW theory to match observation, but these 2 are enough to discuss in limited space.
by MJBrutus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM PDT
We have noticed an increase in median temperature as a constant trend during past decades, beyond reasonable doubt in relation to greenhouse gas emissions.
More specific calculations, however, are very difficult to make. Why? On a most abstract level, it's because you're using inductive logic, which always carries the risk of mistakes (unlike deductive logic, where correct premises necessitate a correct synthesis).
The Earth is a complex meteorological system, with a nearly infinite number of variables, and, while we can predict general trends easily enough, we cannot account for every fluctuation, every nuance, which Your examples clearly demonstrate. It does not mean that the underlying theory is false, merely that predictions made because of it are. The two should not be conflated: If I attempt to predict the evolution of a species and I'm wrong, it doesn't mean that the theory of evolution itself is false.
by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM PDT
You are arguing from your conclusion. When one looks at the data, such as presented in Al Gore's movie what we see is that temperature changes have historically preceded elevated CO2 on the order of 800 centuries! Just looking at the data in shorter and more recent time scales, we see epochs such as the medieval warming period when temps were much above today's prior to man-made CO2 emissions. The AGW theorists are unable to account for such large-scale trends in their work.
he Earth is a complex meteorological system, with a nearly infinite number of variables, and, while we can predict general trends easily enough, we cannot account for every fluctuation, every nuance, which Your examples clearly demonstrate. It does not mean that the underlying theory is false, merely that predictions made because of it are.
The earth is highly complex and our understanding of it is in its infancy. In fact, the factors that are most responsible for temperature change are the least understood! CO2 concentrations are a small part of the puzzle. We know that CO2 does trap some heat, but the conclusions of the IPCC are based on highly speculative science based on this theoretical consequences of this effect. The heating directly from increased CO2 is not something that any of us would worry about. The theoretical danger lies from the feedback effects (speculation about how CO2-caused heating causes other climactic events which form a self-reinforcing cycle). This is where the AGW scientists go astray. While many of them are aware of the limitations of their understanding of the validity of these feedback models, the more responsible among them recognize the very speculative nature of their work. The fact that observation contradicts their conclusions certainly does tell us that the models are wrong. Especially when the more fundamental phenomena are contradicted, such as the troposphere's temperature stability when the theory tells us that it should precede surface temperature increases.
by MJBrutus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:34:13 PM PDT
You do understand that the time lapse argument has already been refuted countless times, right.
The premise that there is not enough known about climate forcings (or "feedback effects" as you call them) so that we are in doubt about the strong correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and the rising global mean temperature is not accepted by the scientific community.
I always wonder when people try to use the argument that correlation doesn't imply causation (which is true, generally speaking) to cast doubt upon the nature of the relationship between carbon dioxide and global mean temperature if they have thought the matter through.
For, once having agreed that there is a strong correlation (which is simply undeniable), then the conclusion would be:
You are welcome to your logical conclusions.
by math4barack on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:19:02 PM PDT
I say that SINCE temperature rises have historically preceded CO2 concentration increases the causal relation is almost certainly the reverse of what AGW alarmists would have us believe. That is to say increased surface temps cause more atmospheric CO2.
The causes of increased surface temps are still well beyond our ability to understand. We understand some parts of the puzzle but have shown no proficiency at predicting what our climate will do next.
by MJBrutus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:31:11 AM PDT
the true face of evil.
It is not "OK" to arrange conferences to prop up a fundamentally wrong take on the survival of an entire species. Among other reasons, those legitimate scientists doing polar bear research are quick to point out that the effect on the food chain is, as yet, unknown.
They've fished out the oceans, killed the coral, created miles wide floating island of discarded plastic bags, and now we are to stand by while they find pseudo-scientists to prop up their greed?
Disgraceful.
Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way before it is understood.
by Granny Doc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM PDT
and melting Greenland icepack and to the nations who are trying to assert claims of ownership of oil resources under the melting Arctic and shipping lanes through where the polar ice cap will soon be disappearing.
BTW, this actually isn't according to predictions, it's considerably worse than "worst-case" predictions would indicate.
How does astroturfing for ExxonMobil pay these days?
Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.
by alizard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:07:30 PM PDT
It's baaaack
by MJBrutus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:11:41 PM PDT
Apparently I'm not allowed to link the actual image, but this is from the site your site mentions as its source of information.
hemispheric anomaly
You would do well to spend a few hours learning some statistics before making a complete fool of yourself.
by JMcDonald on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:01 PM PDT
... instead of ethnic cleansing. Kind of saying: If you are too stupid to know that We need fresh air and water and healthy soil -- then we are gonna let you die to purify the race of your 17 brain cells.
But not this time!
by FundaMental Transformation on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:10:19 PM PDT
following site might be of interest to You:
www.darwinawards.com
by Dauphin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:20:30 PM PDT
... on the health and safety of others... in this case ALL OTHERS
by FundaMental Transformation on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:07:38 PM PDT
trumps Darwin! In the venue of a public "debate"!
(I always put quotes on that word, my small protest)
Aloha .. .. ..
dolphin777
by dolphin777 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:36:39 AM PDT
Here's the relevant part of his rant on "How to ruin innovation and competitiveness in America".
http://www.forbes.com/...
Destroy the knowledge base on which all of mankind's scientific progress has been built by guaranteeing that such learning is confined to only a few, and spread ignorance and complacency among the many. Watch America lose its scientific and competitive edge to other nations that make a comprehensive knowledge base a rule of the society.
Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism--and be sure to exclude educated, hardworking men and women--to an equal status with technology in the public mind. Make sure that... in America, you act as if science were on an equal footing with voodoo and history with ethnic fable.
I mean, it's a good thing that Stein and his fellow conservative Republicans would never support anything that might lead to THAT.
by AdmiralNaismith on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:40:35 AM PDT
And I have this bridge for sale...
Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight. John McCain = Old Boat Anchor
by JeffW on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:18:09 PM PDT
The mishandling of scientific information by the overabundant talking heads makes me cringe.
As a scientist I can understand all too well how such a statement can be made. Ideally, grant money is provided to allow adequate investigation of a particular question or problem. The resulting data is meant to debated and scrutinized, ensuring that the best information is put forth. However therein lies the problem, the grant money. Most grant money is attached with instructions, some more specific than others. If the granting agency is looking for a specific answer, and if the scientist wants the money then they will do their best to find the answers the agency is looking for. After all, they will want to ensure continual future funding (job security). Fortunately, the vast majority of grants and granting agency are unbiased and request varied views and experimental approaches. This is why science is always advancing. It is situations such as this, which manipulate the system to better serve their selfish needs, that permit such a negative view of science.
by Wavingsuzy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:58:28 AM PDT
Scientists are nothing like lawyers - defense is obliged to defend a client whether they believe the client is guilty or not. Prosecution must prosecute. Scientists are held to specific testing methodology that - unless they are unethical - determines whether or not their hypothesis is right or wrong. Then the results are vetted by their peers.
Never let "scientists are like lawyers" go unchallenged, if anything they're direct opposites.
(-4.88, -3.74) Treat everyone as they deserve - and who doesn't deserve a whipping?! -Hamlet 2:2
by pakaal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:57:05 PM PDT
replaces a "Fairness Doctrine".
It appears that our Fortune 1000 CEOs and the Richistani have wandered into the delusional world the Soviet nomenklatura lived in where scientific "fact" is "whatever The Party says it is" and scientists who want to live in the regime repeat The Party Line of the day, or else.
How'd this turn out for the Soviets?
by alizard on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:03:02 PM PDT
Animal Farm
Finding your own Voice -- The personal is political!
by In her own Voice on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:51:41 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 70 comments