Science! Science? Science...

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Aldin

You're treating right and wrong in climatology as obvious polar opposites which are demonstrably clear and subject to no interpretation whatsoever of the underlying data. Further, you're taking the stand that someone choosing demonstrably correctly and differently would be quickly recognized as having done so to the loud acclaim of those who would reward them with fame and fortune. I can't reconcile either of those to reality.

~Aldin, shades of gray-ly

You keep coloring my positions as black and white. They are not, except that I claim your unsubstantiated and needless attack against the professional integrity of an entire industry is an absolute to which you are mysteriously attached.

You are also, as I understand this post, taking the position that there is conflicting hard science out there on the issue of global warming, which is fine. Have that opinion. But then I would like, as Rich10 said, to see some of it shared in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Which is unlikely, if the actual hard science you seek cannot be found.

[The_X_Marker]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Scientists that promote man-made global warming are popular right now. People are willing to do quite a bit to be popular, we're just wired that way.

I would think that it's hard to be popular when something could be disproved and ruin the whole narrative. Climate Change has been pretty popular since the 70's, we just have better access to the information and the science behind it now.

Originally Posted by Aldin

I'm certainly not convinced we are headed to near-term environmental disaster.

I'll agree with this point, as you saw I did. We very well could be trading an ice age for an overheated planet. It could also mean that the next ice age comes way too suddenly and hits us hard. There are less deaths in warmer weather, but the people near the equator and coastal areas are going to have a tough time. We could grow even more food, since plants use that CO2 to carry out photosynthesis, the process will be more efficient and they will use less water. However, plants may be damaged by the heat and previous farm land will become unusable because they wont see rain anymore.

Short term, it isn't good for anyone that we're pumping so much garbage into our air and water. Long term, who knows?

Originally Posted by Aldin

I'm disappointed. Now I'm an anti-vaxxer, moon denier ...

Since the title is Science! Science? Science..., I figured that it would be alright to go to another few areas of science.
I'm curious why you've taken these stances, as well. The research on vaccines causing autism is completely discredited, and has been refuted quite easily. There was no sound science there, but it probably works with your narrative that a very, very small minority of scientists do it for money and fame, rather than progress of humankind. If you think that it could overwhelm a baby's immune system, there is also no credible science behind that. There is also no evidence that any ingredients in a vaccine are dangerous. Certainly, if you or I were to follow the meme and put "mercury, viruses, and aluminum phosphat(e) into a syringe," someone would die. But we are not able to properly mix them, we don't have the credentials for it.

The moon landing is another big accomplishment that we as a species made. With 6% of the US population denying this event, I'll let NatGeo take over on the scientific part.
As for the social part of the whole thing, the Soviet Union did not deny that we made it to the Moon first. We have lunar samples. There is a series of mirrors on the Moon that we shine a pretty laser at. I'm not terribly sure where you'd be coming from on denying the moon landing, when the space race has given us so many advancements here (mylar, titanium, Rocket Man by Elton John, etc).

Originally Posted by Aldin

I'm pretty sure I can't get a fair hearing in here.

Unfortunately, for you, this would seem correct. I just want you to know that I respect the work you do on the site, and you as a person, but these are ideas that I don't have a respect for, simply because of how unfounded they are. I would easily have to put these ideas on par with the latest string of apocalypse predictions, due to the lack of simple science behind them, and we know how that turned out.

While I agree that there is some uncertainty in science, it is manageable and even avoidable by proper testing of a hypothesis, and the future advancements in methods and technology will most likely remove that doubt from an experiment.

It would also appear that you've created a beast that has grown beyond your control with this thread. I enjoy that you ask the big questions, just be certain that you're prepared for the answers, and prepared to defend your position.

[wriggz]

@The_X_Marker I think @Aldin was sarcastically responding to my comments on vaccines and the moon landing.

Your comments on the uncertainty of our climate future actually support Aldin, in that things are changing but we are not 100% how. 1, 2, 4 degrees in 10, 20, 50 years? Tough to say. I supose the best answer is to try to curb our atmospheric impact as much as possible and hope things do change faster than we can adapt.

Though it mat be for not if we don't come up with a good plan to stop an asteroid from wiping us out. That Mars base idea is looking more attractive.

[The_X_Marker]

Originally Posted by wriggz

@The_X_Marker I think @Aldin was sarcastically responding to my comments on vaccines and the moon landing.

Well, it appears that I have been found duped! My comments will stand, not as a response to Aldin, but as a response to people of those thoughts.

Originally Posted by wriggz

Your comments on the uncertainty of our climate future actually support Aldin, in that things are changing but we are not 100% how. 1, 2, 4 degrees in 10, 20, 50 years? Tough to say. I supose the best answer is to try to curb our atmospheric impact as much as possible and hope things do change faster than we can adapt.

I know that I am supporting Aldin's point in regards to the uncertainty of our future, but I also reject the position that we are not changing the environment in one way or another. The best thing to do is, infact, (as you and I have said prior) to limit our output so we don't have to be uncertain of what the future brings.

[Dysole]

Kind of related.

~Dysole, nudging things

[Aldin]

@wriggz & @The_X_Marker No worries - and thanks for clearing that up without my needing to take part

@Dad_Scaper I have no idea where you get the idea that I'm attacking the integrity of anyone, unless you believe that human beings acting like human beings are incapable of integrity. Which, I suppose, may indeed be your stand.

As for "conflicting hard science", I'm not sure I find the term credible. I think there is evidence that is discovered and interpreted differently by different people. The conflict is in the data collection, interpretation and projection. The evidence never changes, and there are indeed people in conflict over the data collection, interpretation and projection of that evidence.

@Dysole More good and on point stuff, thanks!

~Aldin, wondering why both he and DS think the other one is the one taking an absolutist stance

[Dad_Scaper]

I don't think I have anything to add. Readers can decide for themselves.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Aldin

@Dad_Scaper I have no idea where you get the idea that I'm attacking the integrity of anyone, unless you believe that human beings acting like human beings are incapable of integrity. Which, I suppose, may indeed be your stand.

I think the complaint is more that you are not really describing the social pressures scientists face in a remotely realistic way.

Who, exactly, are these climate scientists getting feted and given accolades? Sure, some politicians use this on the stump, but literally nobody, and I mean nobody, is famous because of their support of the consensus on climate change.

I actually read these papers and read the blogs of climate scientists, and I can only name three prominent climate scientists off the top of my head:

• Michael Mann - a very prominent climatologist, but mostly famous for "the hockey stick controversy" and the "climategate" e-mail leak.
• Richard Muller - a physicist who largely looked down on all climate research, then founded the Berkeley Earth research group and reproduced everything from the ground up, and got basically all the same conclusions as everyone else.
• Judith Curry - Phaethon's favorite climatologist (I knew of her before I read his stuff) - she agrees on all the basic physics but is a sort of soft denier who says there's more uncertainty and we don't really know what the trend is. Was part of the Berkeley Earth project but left when she didn't like the conclusions.

So... that's all I got. A denier, a former denier who was famous for being a denier, and the scientist who is most hated and vilified by the deniers. That is the entire list of climate scientists I can name. Do you have a longer list than that? Does this list actually suggest that pushing the consensus is the path to fame, fortune, and glory?

The reality is that anyone who could actually create an explanation for why global warming is a nonissue that withstood scrutiny would be a super-rock star. THAT is the path. Another true thing is that being a climate scientist who agrees with the consensus is neither an amazing trick for career advancement, nor a path to glory and praise.

I continue to be utterly amazed that people seriously think it's the climate scientists who have an overwhelming incentive to dissemble, and not the people representing the most profitable industry in human history. But as Dysole alluded to earlier, the human capacity to fit our observations into a narrative that comports with our worldview is almost without limit.

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Dysole

@Phaethon , what would it take for you to accept global warming is a danger that we need to take care of right now?

~Dysole, who honestly isn't even sure what Phaethon's position is outside of "Science isn't as foolproof as you think it is."

Dysole,

Since you asked, no, I do not rank it as the most important problem we face, and in no way do i believe we need to remake our economy to solve what I see as a low priority problem. I feel our most important problems are inner city related - economics/education/infrastructure. That's where the money needs to be spent.

And your second point, especially in this topic, is right on! Science is not at all infallible, and press releases are problematic because they're distorting the confidence of the results. Rich earlier said that publicity is good because scientists know to disprove it, but the public doesn't know that these studies were retracted. They only know they were announced. The press treats science press releases (the ones they choose to print) as infallible and that's a serious problem.

As for energy production, I also believe that we will eventually have to move off of fossil fuels, not due to CO2, but due to availability. It's better to slowly make such a transition than rapidly, not only for disruption to our current society, but it also avails cheap energy to the poor nations in an effort to help them improve their life. Note, there's also a strong inverse correlation between birthrate and GDP, so rising GDP will also help in any overpopulation fears.

I also believe that the future is in solar, not nuclear or wind. Solar panels are so inefficient that there's a great opportunity to improve them. And given enough improvement, the area needed to power the world becomes quite small (on the order of a couple hundred square miles worldwide). build a smart grid to shuttle the power to where it's needed, and we're set.

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

It seems to me, as I've said before in this thread's predecessor, that the beating heart of your argument (and Phaethon's, and - more explicitly - Owlman's) is an ad hominem attack. In which case, there's really nothing to discuss on the merits, because you're not even talking about the merits.

Exactly what ad-hominem attack have I made? Please let me know so I can either retract it or show reasons why I made it.

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

You are suggesting that scientist might be doing what they're doing because they're "popular" right now, as if they are participating in a passing fad or are doing what they're doing because it's better for them professionally. If you don't think that, and are presenting someone else's argument, then I misunderstood you.

Well, Nobel Prizes do amount to money and prestige...

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

If either of those sound like what you think, though, then you are saying that they are sacrificing their professional integrity on the altar of an imagined ambition. Softening that presentation to claim that they are well-intended but still misguided remains an ad hominem attack, in which their integrity remains compromised, perhaps by foolishness. I remain attached to the basic premise that people will try to do their jobs, which I think is a good place to start.

I disagree - you imply that the only way an incorrect result can be published is through sacrificing their integrity. That's not at all what I've shown in this thread. The articles I've posted show that scientists are subject to biases that they may not even recognize they're even subject to. These biases do not mean the scientists are not trying to do their jobs, it just shows why so many studies are currently being refuted (60-80%). These errors are not "ethical" issues at all, but they're still biases.

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Dysole

Kind of related.

~Dysole, nudging things

I saw this on slashdot this morning - what an interesting article!