You're trying to equate what you would consider a 'scientist' in 300BC with what we would consider a scientist today. They have very little in common.
You're trying to equate what you would consider a 'scientist' in 300BC with what we would consider a scientist today. They have very little in common.
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,555
- 13,229
- 136
you have to ask yourself what it means to be a scientist, then? arguably, it is the pursuit of knowledge of the world around us through experimentation and observation.
therefore, while a scientist in 300BC certainly wouldn't have the tools available to him as a scientist today would, he nonetheless utilizes technology to his greatest ability in order to advance his understanding of the universe around him.
the scientific consensus was indeed that the earth was flat at one point. through observation, this theory was proved incorrect by another scientist.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,844
- 6,381
- 126
Was it a Consensus? The Greeks really didn't have what we call "Science". They had Intellectuals and Philosophers who Individually brought about many Ideas/Concepts, but there was no Scientific Method and others didn't as much Test the Ideas/Concepts of some, they might come out with a differing Idea/Concept, but it wasn't the same as how things are done in this Age.
Greeks had put a lot of weight into certain peoples Ideas/Concepts and often accepted them based on their reputation. OTOH, in Egypt the Idea/Concept that the Earth was Round existed and it was used for practical purposes(coordinating events over vast differences). So there was no "Consensus" really, even if one wants to try and equate Ancient scientific exercise with Modern Science.
AnitaPeterson
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 6,043
- 614
- 126
PJABBER and Moonbeam:
I followed your exchange with great interest and enjoyment... and wanted to thank you for it. Kudos.
Also, thanks for the article(s).
Cheers!
I followed your exchange with great interest and enjoyment... and wanted to thank you for it. Kudos.
Also, thanks for the article(s).
Cheers!
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
At the moment, I generally am of the view that climate change is 90% naturally occurring, 10% human-derived.
I've been reading Mr. Lomborg for a couple of years as he writes for my morning paper, and while he makes a number of good points, I've never felt his agenda was as much to offer honest constructive criticism as it is to defeat the general consensus on climate change for somewhat less scrupulous reasons. Take this:
Is the U.S. not allocating the money spent on credits to a green energy investment fund? It's been a while since I saw any articles about the issue, but that was Canada's plan.
And who put together the Copenhagen Consensus? Bjorn Lomborg. Wonder why he explains as much many paragraphs later and not off the bat?
Copenhagen Consensus - SourceWatch
I guess what I'm trying to say is that don't necessarily view Mr. Lomborg as the purveyor of truth - I'd bet that he's got an agenda, just like his opponents do.
I've been reading Mr. Lomborg for a couple of years as he writes for my morning paper, and while he makes a number of good points, I've never felt his agenda was as much to offer honest constructive criticism as it is to defeat the general consensus on climate change for somewhat less scrupulous reasons. Take this:
Is the U.S. not allocating the money spent on credits to a green energy investment fund? It's been a while since I saw any articles about the issue, but that was Canada's plan.
And who put together the Copenhagen Consensus? Bjorn Lomborg. Wonder why he explains as much many paragraphs later and not off the bat?
Copenhagen Consensus - SourceWatch
I guess what I'm trying to say is that don't necessarily view Mr. Lomborg as the purveyor of truth - I'd bet that he's got an agenda, just like his opponents do.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Again, rather than wade through an entire thread full of mainly inept post, I would rather cut to the chase and say what is relevant.
The point being, the dangers of global warming are very real and now are totally undeniable. But any responsible climate scientist knows for a fact, that AL Gore is acting irresponsibly in overstating his case way beyond what the scientific evidence now is.
Which is not to say that responsible climate scientists per say dislike AL Gore or that AL Gore does not deserve a share of the Nobel prize, because in the grand scheme of things, Al Gore has almost single handedly raised the issue. secured the funding for serious public funded research onto the subject of climate change. And as we bring total science understaio up.
The point being, the dangers of global warming are very real and now are totally undeniable. But any responsible climate scientist knows for a fact, that AL Gore is acting irresponsibly in overstating his case way beyond what the scientific evidence now is.
Which is not to say that responsible climate scientists per say dislike AL Gore or that AL Gore does not deserve a share of the Nobel prize, because in the grand scheme of things, Al Gore has almost single handedly raised the issue. secured the funding for serious public funded research onto the subject of climate change. And as we bring total science understaio up.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
There is existing and credible science that indicates that Global Warming in not an issue and, conversely, that it is... Gore is somewhere in the extreme of credible science that indicates it is an issue. Since the actual situation can't be both ways which way ought the focus and money and etc go? I think that is the real issue before us... Industry that increases warming wants it their way and the Goreites want it their's but I don't think we the citizens care cuz it seemingly has not bit us in the butt yet... we'll see... I sure do hope Gore is wrong.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Thanks for your comments, yllus. I believe everyone has some kind of agenda, but I also think there are any number of responsible people who try to get to the truth as best they can.
Using SourceWatch as a reference, however, is not going to further any case you make as it is put together as a leftish advocate site used to counter any and all challenges to "progressive" agendas.
SourceWatch is a product of the far left Center for Media and Democracy -
Center for Media and Democracy - PRWatch.org
"Truth" is not absolute and it often depends on where you stand as to what it is, like the blind men describing an elephant. The blind men were all right, but did they know the truth? Which is why there is so much fighting and name calling going on here.
Science has gotten to the point where specialization makes careers and grants are written only for narrowly defined research. If you are a scientist not on someone's payroll and you want to make a living, you look for research that someone is looking to fund, right? Sort of a built in bias, right? In most cases, counter-funded projects balance the whole thing out and some kind of "truth" emerges when all of the research is synthesized at some point.
Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus appears to be a synthesis project, something like a think tank. Get some bright people together (and they ALL have big egos) every four years and see if they can figure out the best solutions to 10 widely varied global problems. The Consensus of 2008 came out with position papers on nine topics (everything except terrorism,) so in the end they thought they could figure out approaches with some level of confidence. I haven't had a chance to read the papers yet as I am on vacation but maybe someone can and post a comment on that.
I know of a number of bodies of bright people but I know very few that have synthesis as a directive. The National Academy of Science has a three year project in motion now, I'd like to review their results upon publication -
America's Climate Choices
From reading Lomberg's piece I gather he is an optimist and someone who believes that problems that can be solved, be solved in advance of those that are much harder and less likely to be successfully addressed. And he is approaching problems in a creative way. Personally I don't agree with some of the stuff he is advocating, but then I am not as optimistic as he is either.
I will bluntly say that I really like his approach to do rigorous cost-benefit analysis. This is absolutely fundamental in my view, but not in the view of so many of the true believers out there or the politicians that make decisions based on factors which are only rational from the perspective of power grabbing and power consolidation .
Lots of people on this board are true believers rather than skeptics, so they push the party line they have invested their emotions into (ie love Obama, hate Bush, the earth is warming due to humans/cows/plants/plankton/bacteria (pick one or all life form, yikes!) and are not ready to step back a bit and consider any countervailing evidence. The world stopped turning back in _______ (fill in the blank yourself!)
I may have opinions but I keep my eyes and ears open all the time and do my best to be open minded so that I can keep on learning. To do otherwise just doesn't make any sense to me. For a lot of people here that is heresy.
"Truth" is not absolute and it often depends on where you stand as to what it is is, like the blind men describing an elephant. The blind men were all right, but did they know the truth? Which is why there is so much fighting and name calling going on here.
I think you missed the point of the blind men and the elephant story. It is an argument not for the subjective nature of truth, but for truth in the absolute, the elephant, that is subjectivised by the lesser capacity of limited touch, but seen in its true and absolute glory by the holistic properties of sight.
The blind men reason by association from the limited to the absurd exactly because they are blind. For the blind learning is adding associations like the fact that an elephant may appear like a column buy as I felt more I decided that really it is the trunk of a tree.
I think you missed the point of the blind men and the elephant story. It is an argument not for the subjective nature of truth, but for truth in the absolute, the elephant, that is subjectivised by the lesser capacity of limited touch, but seen in its true and absolute glory by the holistic properties of sight.
The blind men reason by association from the limited to the absurd exactly because they are blind. For the blind learning is adding associations like the fact that an elephant may appear like a column buy as I felt more I decided that really it is the trunk of a tree.
The blind can have any opinion of others regarding sight they may please.
Those who can see KNOW who is blind and who is not.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Except that these two camps are in no way equal. The overwhelming consensus leans one way. It was less than 10 years ago that tobacco companies admitted cigarettes cause cancer and other diseases, after a 60+ year lobbying and media battle buttressed by scientists they paid to foster the "controversy over the health effects of tobacco." There was of course no real controversy, merely the tobacco companies with their hired guns of lawyers, lobbyists, scientists and PR specialists on one side, and the entire civilized world on the other. Yet they persisted for decades while influenced idiots would point to an 80 year old and say "look, this person smoked for 60 years and they're fit as a fiddle, clearly tobacco doesn't cause cancer." You can see echoes of this illogic in those who say, "hmm, it's cold this month, so much for global warming!" The "controversy" over global warming did exist at one time, but that time has been over for years.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I suppose there are more advocates for one aspect in this equation than the other, however, the problem as I see it is not in the numbers but, rather, in the science that seems plausible for both sides. The extreme, of course, is on the Gore side of the chart given the other side argues there is nothing to worry about. I'm not a scientist but some friends at UCSD are and when two tenured Profs sit on opposite sides of the same issue the only conclusion I can come to is that although Gore's argument and side makes sense so does the other side.. I'd have assumed that by now the one side could have proven the fallacy of the other... but no.. not as yet, I don't believe... As I said, I hope we can get the physics sorted out before the oxygen runs out.
I have a different opinion. To me the numbers are what matter. In everything there are plausibilities and the way you decide is by the numbers. It's why scientific consensus matters. A bunch of objective observers average out their biases and plausibilities and go with the greater numbers. It's like a wire that 10 scientists say is hot and two say is not. You don't grab it because you like the opinion of the two better. You say it is more likely hot than not and that it would be rather foolish, given the numbers, to chance it.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
But Moonster, numbers don't make Truth... Fact does. IF we don't have the physics that defines the condition then we don't. We can't know what we don't know and perhaps in that the more who sit on the one side than the other tend to sway the balance but still... IF there is credible scientific opinion... then there is.
I think it's the numbers that define credibility in scientific opinion. it is a numbers game. Science is all about peer review and data that other scientist can duplicate. Science is all about consensus, what the most scientists think is the most likely interpretation of the data. It is not about truth. Consensus can change. But it's what it is now that matters.
There is nothing holy or religious about it, nothing rooted in stone. Science is the uncovering of fact and interpreting what has so far been uncovered. We are not at the position of having all the facts, just some of them. And those we have are only fact by consensus opinion. Fact is a temporal fiction.
I don't say you dismiss the odd ball thinkers. They could turn out to be right, but when you have to act on knowledge you go with consensus information, in my opinion. Otherwise, what is the point of science as related to policy. And when you face what could potentially lead to your extinction you man not have the luxury of waiting until you have all the information. You may die before you can gather it.
In short, the urgency of a situation plays a part in how much you credit the minority opinion no matter how credible it may seem to some. Cost benefit analysis has no place in the equation when the threat is extinction and the warnings are loud I would say.
Beg to differ, but the 'controversy' is bigger than ever. No one disputes that Earth's climate has undergone rapid changes the past 100 years. The dispute has now shifted to how much human industrialization is contributing to it.
I've seen many climatologists in the Al Gore camp confronted with the following scenario: 'let's assume a hypothetical situation in which a major disaster wipes out 95% of the human race (perhaps virus out-break) reducing CO2 emissions to practically nothing for the next 1000years. What will then be the result of this on global warming?'
*No* climatologist I'm aware of will offer an answer to the above, but why then are they SO insistant that C02 from fossil fuels is going to make the earth fall into the sun? I thought the Intelligent Design guys were nuts.
The really detailed models I've seen show that atmospheric pressure on Earth simply isn't sufficient enough to continue the greenhouse effect, and at some point will have to level off. What's important though is we make a lot of millionares and support a lot of lobbyists for the emerging Carbon Credit market.
Christ...get off the Sci-Fi channel buddy. In the f_cking 70's I remember watching TV specials about how glaciers were going to wipe out North America.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Moonbeam,
I can't argue against your position on what makes science but I think I can say that interpretation of data in this case at least is, I assume, biased by predetermined positions otherwise why would there be two sides. Ergo, in the face of two sides polar opposite in their opinions some other force MUST be in play...
And to me that means go to the side that has the least political support.... :+)
I can't argue against your position on what makes science but I think I can say that interpretation of data in this case at least is, I assume, biased by predetermined positions otherwise why would there be two sides. Ergo, in the face of two sides polar opposite in their opinions some other force MUST be in play...
And to me that means go to the side that has the least political support.... :+)
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
What an idiotic thing to say Lunar Ray, "And to me that means go to the side that has the least political support.... :+)"
Political support or political correctness is no currency here, granted all the facts are not in yet, but we still must rely on the facts maam, nothing but the facts.
As for me, I will trust the opinions of unbiased scientists more than biased bought and paid for oil company scientists or GWB&co liars.
Its maybe wonderful to have the totally settled science to rely on, but when we are playing Russian roulette with our climate, we have to act on the preponderance of the evidence
Political support or political correctness is no currency here, granted all the facts are not in yet, but we still must rely on the facts maam, nothing but the facts.
As for me, I will trust the opinions of unbiased scientists more than biased bought and paid for oil company scientists or GWB&co liars.
Its maybe wonderful to have the totally settled science to rely on, but when we are playing Russian roulette with our climate, we have to act on the preponderance of the evidence
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Usually the side with the facts has the least politial support given the industry pays for the support and I'd doubt they'd want strict law enactment to save the air and etc.. Least ways that is what seems to have motivated Bush's folks even when his chief of that stuff said Global warming is real and upon us... so... Yes.. I go to the side with the least Political support when I'm not convinced one way or the other.. I don't care if all but 20 skyentists argue one way... and 100 the other... That 20 matters...
As I said.. I like to breathe and would like to do so at least for awhile longer... But I can't just tag on to the group with the most climate people supporting it... cuz I'm too uneducated in that field..
EDIT: I should add.. It is sorta like believing in God... IF there is a God.. and you ain't on that side... eternity is a long time...
This, in my opinion, opens an enormous can of worms which takes us outside science and into such things as political temperament, psychological attitudes, and insights and intuitions as to how people systems function. I don't really have very good works, probably, to really say what I would like to convey.
Your inclination to go to the side that has the least political support is a point of view, a rule or something like that which you, for reasons I don't know, feel makes sense. There are lots of problems that I can see with it, however.
It seems to imply that if politicians support something it must be bad or wrong. That is an assumption I myself don't make. Well, I maybe I always make that assumption but I don't believe in my assumptions as being anything other than assumptions, or at least this one.
There is also the question of least support among which politicians. I am far more likely to assume that if it is popular among Republicans it''s total bunk and less so the other way.
But I think I see a rule that is more important to me than this one. Go to the side that has the least to lose financially because if it's your ox that's getting gored you are going to come down on the side of your money.
So when we ask ourselves what factor it is that divides scientists into two camps, in my opinion it is this, how do you earn your money. Do you work for big oil. It's amazing how little danger CO2 poses a risk to those people.
At any rate, there can be bias anywhere and I tend to think you will find the least of it on the issue of global warming in the consensus of scientists. It is the notion that on average most scientists don't have a dog in the race and judge based purely on how they see the science. If that happens to be the side most politicians come down on, that's OK with me.
There are doubtless many examples where your formula would work just fine. I think the politicians that are dragging their feet on global warming are in the pocket of money that is made producing CO2, or would have to spend to cure the problem.
I find that position to be totally rational and fair. It is how you see it and you are as important a part of the mix as any other person.
I myself go the other way because the numbers ARE important to me. As a Democracy we will probably wind up going with whatever the consensus on the matter turns out to be among the voters. I would not want to personally dictate what will be. I would also assume myself to be too uneducated for that.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Well.... Moonster,
I said Political support.. meaning who controls the purse to invest in remedy or drag their feet for what ever reason.. not the individual folks in Congress but the power brokers in there.
That we've not done much in Bushy's years must mean that there is no Global Warming issue in his mind.. and he must know cuz he has all the brains in the country advising him.
So... How can Government sit on its butt while all about are about beating the drumb of Global Warming.. makes no sense.
IF that, however, is the case then one must ask how can so few control so many... as they have done for so long.
Edit: Dingle dang... forgot to include this... omg..
It is the political folks who create law... and law is what remedies Global Warming regardless of what Science says.. but the all mighty dollar creates political folks for the most part... That should be the message given that the voices of science seem to echo only in the halls of university... not in Detroit or LA... or China..
I said Political support.. meaning who controls the purse to invest in remedy or drag their feet for what ever reason.. not the individual folks in Congress but the power brokers in there.
That we've not done much in Bushy's years must mean that there is no Global Warming issue in his mind.. and he must know cuz he has all the brains in the country advising him.
So... How can Government sit on its butt while all about are about beating the drumb of Global Warming.. makes no sense.
IF that, however, is the case then one must ask how can so few control so many... as they have done for so long.
Edit: Dingle dang... forgot to include this... omg..
It is the political folks who create law... and law is what remedies Global Warming regardless of what Science says.. but the all mighty dollar creates political folks for the most part... That should be the message given that the voices of science seem to echo only in the halls of university... not in Detroit or LA... or China..
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Chuck Colson had a cartoon on his wall in Nixon's Whitehouse... the caption read "when you got em by the balls their hearts and minds are sure to follow"....
So Moonbeam... Global Warming only exists - for all practical purposes - when Science can grab the Power brokers by the balls.
So Moonbeam... Global Warming only exists - for all practical purposes - when Science can grab the Power brokers by the balls.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter