DanG 1
Scientists offically dont know what the hell they are talking about.(global warming)
By
Anvilbrother, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
DanGQuoteHappy?
For me this is not something that is emotional
I know you cant say the same
Lame. You know what I meant.
You asked me what would make me happy.
You did
Now, had you asked how close the models and predictions had to be to convince me or make me re-evlauate my opinion, I would have given you a different answer
But you didnt
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
GeorgiaDon 380
Re: politics
You seem to have a big problem with scientists calling for political action to mitigate what most believe will probably be a major ecological disaster. What alternative course of action would you find more palatable? Is there any non-political mechanism for achieving any goal that requires the participation of a large fraction of society? Especially when there are up front costs, and the risk/benefit is a generation or two downstream.
Lets take CFCs for example. Evidence was developed that CFCs in the atmosphere reacted with and depleted ozone, which prevents a lot of UV radiation from reaching the surface. Models were developed, observations made, and it turned out that ozone depletion was happening faster than expected. Clearly the scientists were "wrong" in that observations didn't fit the model. Cities in the Southern Hemisphere began experiencing dangerous levels of UV, and people were warned to cover up or stay indoors. A political response resulted in the replacement of CFCs despite strong opposition from CFC manufacturers and industries that used CFCs. Subsequently the rate of ozone depletion has slowed markedly.
In the face of potential environmental disaster, with loss of the ozone layer and extremely damaging amounts of UV reaching the surface, what (in your opinion) would have been the appropriate course of action for scientists to take? Continue to refine their models until prediction and observation were in agreement to 1 part in 100 million, so they could confidently claim they understood exactly every nuance of what was happening? Publish annual updates of ever-more-dire measurements of ozone depletion in obscure journals no-one except atmospheric scientists ever read? Go to conferences and lament to other scientists that UV alerts and massive crop failures could have been anticipated had "someone in a position to do something" only read and understood their paper they published five years ago?
What do you think is the appropriate thing for a scientist to do when their research indicates an impending disaster?
Don
You seem to have a big problem with scientists calling for political action to mitigate what most believe will probably be a major ecological disaster. What alternative course of action would you find more palatable? Is there any non-political mechanism for achieving any goal that requires the participation of a large fraction of society? Especially when there are up front costs, and the risk/benefit is a generation or two downstream.
Lets take CFCs for example. Evidence was developed that CFCs in the atmosphere reacted with and depleted ozone, which prevents a lot of UV radiation from reaching the surface. Models were developed, observations made, and it turned out that ozone depletion was happening faster than expected. Clearly the scientists were "wrong" in that observations didn't fit the model. Cities in the Southern Hemisphere began experiencing dangerous levels of UV, and people were warned to cover up or stay indoors. A political response resulted in the replacement of CFCs despite strong opposition from CFC manufacturers and industries that used CFCs. Subsequently the rate of ozone depletion has slowed markedly.
In the face of potential environmental disaster, with loss of the ozone layer and extremely damaging amounts of UV reaching the surface, what (in your opinion) would have been the appropriate course of action for scientists to take? Continue to refine their models until prediction and observation were in agreement to 1 part in 100 million, so they could confidently claim they understood exactly every nuance of what was happening? Publish annual updates of ever-more-dire measurements of ozone depletion in obscure journals no-one except atmospheric scientists ever read? Go to conferences and lament to other scientists that UV alerts and massive crop failures could have been anticipated had "someone in a position to do something" only read and understood their paper they published five years ago?
What do you think is the appropriate thing for a scientist to do when their research indicates an impending disaster?
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
GeorgiaDonRe: politics
You seem to have a big problem with scientists calling for political action to mitigate what most believe will probably be a major ecological disaster. What alternative course of action would you find more palatable?
Here's my proposal is: scientists stick to science and only call science "science." When the scientist is giving opinions on policy, call it "policy." Thus, if a scientist says, "We should to put $20 billion into development of cleaner coal technologies" then it is called "politics." When a scientist says, "if we don't cut carbon pollution to 1990 levels then 150 million people in North America will have to relocate by 2100" that is called "alarmism."
I have no problem with scientists participating in politics. I DO have a problem with scientists deliberately calling "political position" "science." They are separate things. And if they are going to argue that oil should be taxed at $2 per barrel, that is not science.
Here's how to tell: if a "scientist" says what should be done (affecting the actions of people/organizations) then it is policy. If a scientist says something "may/can" happen, then that's public relations and a hedged bet.
[Reply]Is there any non-political mechanism for achieving any goal that requires the participation of a large fraction of society?
Nope. Is there any scientific method of doing it? Nope. That's my point. Disagreement with policy is entirely different from being "anti-science."
[Reply]Especially when there are up front costs, and the risk/benefit is a generation or two downstream.
Politics always pushes the costs downstream. See "Medicare"
[Reply]Lets take CFCs for example.
Right. Predictions were made. The predictions were proven. Action was taken. Replacement products were available. An easy transition was made. Third-world countries and the poor didn't have all the costs put on them.
[Reply]In the face of potential environmental disaster, with loss of the ozone layer and extremely damaging amounts of UV reaching the surface, what (in your opinion) would have been the appropriate course of action for scientists to take?
Research it. Publish the results. Put it in the hands of politicians. Notice how different CFCs were handled from AGW. They made predictions and the evidence was right in line. They also didn't propose anything that meant changing ways of life for billions.
[Reply]Publish annual updates of ever-more-dire measurements of ozone depletion in obscure journals no-one except atmospheric scientists ever read?
Climate scientists really can't do that. They kicked it off with fire and brimstone.
[Reply]What do you think is the appropriate thing for a scientist to do when their research indicates an impending disaster?
Either continue to research it until they can show that, yes, disaster is impending. Or, go on a PR blitz about the impending disaster.
If the latter, the scientist better be correct. Or face a skeptical public next time a dire warning is given. Which is what is happening.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Lame. You know what I meant.
- Dan G
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites