Scientists study the scientific standing of pro and con global warmists and find:

[shira]

I find this humorous.

We start with the premise that there are far more scientists supporting MMGW than those who don't.

We then need a study to determine which group, the large one or the small one, is going to have their papers quoted by each other the most. Do we really need a "study" to figure that out, isn't it obvious that the larger group is going have the most?

Upon coming to the 'surprising' conclusion that larger group has more quotes of each other, they then conclude that proves the larger group is correct? And because they quote each other the most that means they have more "expertise and prominence in climate research".

I thought it pretty well understood that just because something is repeated often doesn't necessarily make it so. There are far better metrics to prove something.

What a circle jerk.

This 'study' is pure fail.

Fern

Except that this is EXACTLY how science ALWAYS proceeds. Want to know the current state of knowledge about, say, the origins of the universe? Then determine which theories are getting the most papers on the subject published, and which papers are being quoted most often, and track that information over time. And when a strong consensus emerges among those QUALIFIED to have a scientific opinion on the issue at hand, THAT is considered the current "state of knowledge" on the subject.

If you think that method is worthless, then your view is that all science is worthless, and you should just stick to voodoo chants and tea leaves.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I vehemently disagree, however, that abstinence only education and embryonic stem cell research are moral as opposed to scientific questions. The scientists on both questions seem to line up on one side of the issue.

"vehemently disagree" all you want...but what does it matter what scientists think about moral/religious issues? Science is one thing and morality is quite another.

 

[shira]

Perhaps in your mind that's what "climate denial amounts to"...and that somehow appears to be the root of the problem here in trying to communicate with you. Am I a 'climate denier' shira? Is that how you perceive me?

BTW...you never answered my question in my previous post.

I sure did.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I sure did.

Oh my...I don't know whether to laugh or cry for you.

 

[Daedalus685]

Science is one thing and morality is quite another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences

 

[shira]

Oh my...I don't know whether to laugh or cry for you.

Ah, you're confused. This explains your views on MMCC.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences

Point?

 

[Throckmorton]

Stem cell research is a scientific and moral issue but not how most people think of it. If you happen to believe that an embryo is a human being, then you must believe that killing one for research is immoral.

The science part is in determining whether the embryo is a human being, and biologically it clearly is. It has its own DNA and is simply a very young human, 9 months younger than a baby.

But the morality is complicated by the fact that a LOT of embryos are created and destroyed in the process of in vitro fertilization, and stem cell research would mean using those embryos before they are destroyed.

 

[shira]

Point?

No. Five points. Your score is still 0.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Ah, you're confused. This explains your views on MMCC.

Sorry shira...I thought you were capable of intelligent discourse...my bad.

 

[Daedalus685]

Point?

You claim that morality and science are separate entities... they are VERY intertwined in many disciplines. Including evolutionary biology, behavioural science, sociology, psychology, and obviously philosophy (which might be stretching the modern view of science).

Morality is very well understood why it exists and what it is for.. though whether it is absolute and transcends certain aspects of the universe is up for debate.

Philosophy is not so distant from a scientists mind..

 

[Fern]

Except that this is EXACTLY how science ALWAYS proceeds. Want to know the current state of knowledge about, say, the origins of the universe? Then determine which theories are getting the most papers on the subject published, and which papers are being quoted most often, and track that information over time. And when a strong consensus emerges among those QUALIFIED to have a scientific opinion on the issue at hand, THAT is considered the current "state of knowledge" on the subject.

If you think that method is worthless, then your view is that all science is worthless, and you should just stick to voodoo chants and tea leaves.

No it isn't, and you're mis-stating my point.

I still contend it's unnecessary to perform a study of which group, the larger or smaller, is going to quote itself more. The answer is painfully obvious.

To then announce that 'surprising' finding and try to extrapolate it to mean that because you are quoting each other more means you have more expertise is anything but scientific. Being quoted more means being quoted more. Expertise is better judged by other metrics such education, qualification and experience (which they didn't consider). FFS, they don't even bother to find out if the quote was for purposes of support or refutation.

Your above description has nothing to do with this study or it's conclusions.

Useless study is useless study. We all already know more secientists are on board with MMGW, and no study is needed to know that the larger group is going to share more quotes among themselves than the smaller group.

This study, which is nothing more than a fancy attempt to restate the obvious that more scientist support MMGW than don't, is just a 'sideways' attempt to prove MMGW. I prefer they don't waste money and resouces on such drivel, instead focus the effort on more direct studies.

Fern

 

[Daedalus685]

Stem cell research is a scientific and moral issue but not how most people think of it. If you happen to believe that an embryo is a human being, then you must believe that killing one for research is immoral.

The science part is in determining whether the embryo is a human being, and biologically it clearly is. It has its own DNA and is simply a very young human, 9 months younger than a baby.

But the morality is complicated by the fact that a LOT of embryos are created and destroyed in the process of in vitro fertilization, and stem cell research would mean using those embryos before they are destroyed.

I don't think DNA is enough to claim something is human. Perhaps the ability to become human at one point in time but a lab prepared zygote woudl not have this characteristic unless it were implanted in a womb.

Whether it is right or wrong can certainly be scientifically determined greater good and all that. It is only when morality is defined as a strict set of rules (often passed down through religion) that it has an aura of unscientific around it. That is not to say that what may be good for collective is not constant, I don't think we could answer that question at this moment.

 

[bfdd]

Except that this is EXACTLY how science ALWAYS proceeds. Want to know the current state of knowledge about, say, the origins of the universe? Then determine which theories are getting the most papers on the subject published, and which papers are being quoted most often, and track that information over time. And when a strong consensus emerges among those QUALIFIED to have a scientific opinion on the issue at hand, THAT is considered the current "state of knowledge" on the subject.

If you think that method is worthless, then your view is that all science is worthless, and you should just stick to voodoo chants and tea leaves.

So that's what science is? Parroting people you agree with? Makes a lot of sense now. It's never like there has never been scientific consensus before that was you know wrong.

 

[boomerang]

Funny thread is getting funnier.

What's really funny is that it reads like all the others that crop up on a regular basis. Lots of angst. Like somehow if the deniers can just be convinced it will be more soothing than Rosebud.

I just want to know who to make the check out to so climate change will stop occurring. Should I make a check out now, or should I wait for Cap and Trade legislation to materialize? I'm led to believe we can control the climate through taxation.

 

[shira]

Sorry shira...I thought you were capable of intelligent discourse...my bad.

Well, perhaps this will make the "points" more explicit:

Your contention is that morality and science are unrelated. I believe otherwise. I believe that morality - and that includes specific moral attitudes - is an evolutionary adaptation, just as the human faculty for language is. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality#Sexuality_and_morality

Sexuality and morality

Human sexuality is intricately linked with notions of virtue and modesty. In particular, females tend to be under more intense social scrutiny regarding virtuous behavior. Sociobiologists believe this genderizing of morality is an evolutionary adaptation related to parental investment. Because women invest more resources into rearing children, such as a nine month gestation, it is argued that they must select a mate who is willing to participate in rearing children. Consequently, women have evolved more choosy preferences for mates than men. Women have a stronger preference for long term partners, whereas men have preferences for both long and short term partners. The theory supposes that men are more open to dropping their standards for short term partners as there is no paternal investment. In this regard, promiscuous behavior by women would be maladaptive, as they would have to raise children with no or little paternal support. In most societies, female adultery is taken much more seriously than male adultery.

That is, morality doesn't come from God or from any other "supernatural" place. It's completely explainable by entirely scientific principles.

 

[Daedalus685]

Being quoted more does not in and of itself mean that one is an expert.. I could quote anyone I want in a paper. I think the point is that reputable journals are carrying papers that have quoted such and such individuals. To be quoted means that your peers (in this case other experts) find your work worthy. We are not talking about quotes on a random blog, all of those doing the quoting are supposedly unbiased scientists. Obviously there are many biases involved in something as polarizing as this.. but times one's work is cited is a very tried and true method of determining how well it is received by the community.

It is certainly obvious that most scientists support the ideas about global warming already and the study seems strange... but to be cited is about the greatest honour ones work can receive, and if the work citing it were simple opinion pieces on "see I agree with this guy" they would not be published.

 

[bfdd]

Being quoted more does not in and of itself mean that one is an expert.. I could quote anyone I want in a paper. I think the point is that reputable journals are carrying papers that have quoted such and such individuals. To be quoted means that your peers (in this case other experts) find your work worthy. We are not talking about quotes on a random blog, all of those doing the quoting are supposedly unbiased scientists. Obviously there are many biases involved in something as polarizing as this.. but times one's work is cited is a very tried and true method of determining how well it is received by the community.

It is certainly obvious that most scientists support the ideas about global warming already and the study seems strange... but to be cited is about the greatest honour ones work can receive, and if the work citing it were simple opinion pieces on "see I agree with this guy" they would not be published.

The same peers who peer review each others papers and try to squash any dissenting papers/research? Those peers?

 

[monovillage]

You don't seem to have any real idea of how scientific peer review works. Either that or you just posted a lazy troll.

Peer review is rigorous and FACT based. There is no cronyism, you have to back up everything with amazing rigor.

Your analogy to corporate board tit for tat cronyism FAILS at the most basic of levels, the facts on the ground.

The study cited in the OP article was NOT peer reviewed. Read up about it.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/do-climate-blacklists-matter.html

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/frustration-with-climate-deniers.html

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...ity-in-climate-change-by-anderegg-et-al-2010/

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Envi...mings-Stephen-Schneider-The-Light-That-Failed

 

[shira]

Funny thread is getting funnier.

What's really funny is that it reads like all the others that crop up on a regular basis. Lots of angst. Like somehow if the deniers can just be convinced it will be more soothing than Rosebud.

I just want to know who to make the check out to so climate change will stop occurring. Should I make a check out now, or should I wait for Cap and Trade legislation to materialize? I'm led to believe we can control the climate through taxation.

But you see, this attitude of yours completely explains WHY you believe that climate change is bogus. You are opposed to "big government." You think smaller government is better. Yet dealing with MMCC requires vast coordination among governments, and vast expense. So of course you choose to disbelieve. If you didn't disbelieve, you'd be forced to second-guess your ideology about big government, and you (apparently) don't have the intellectual courage to engage in such an endeavor.

 

[shira]

The same peers who peer review each others papers and try to squash any dissenting papers/research? Those peers?

Well, you must be one of those deniers who deny the science because it's carried out by scientists. But you will happily believe any science performed by scientists if that science happens to disagrees with what the science actually states. So for you, science is valid only if it holds a particular view that you already magically know is true. That kind of denier.

 

[Daedalus685]

The same peers who peer review each others papers and try to squash any dissenting papers/research? Those peers?

I don't understand where the idea that these people are so catty comes from...

If a paper is well constructed and based in reality it will be published by a reputable journal. If scientists like it they will cite it in their own works on the topic.. If they don't they will ignore it or disprove it as the case may be. Nothing will be 'squashed' from publication unless they are determined to be wrong...

If an editor is asking Al gore to peer review a paper there are problems.. Any worth their salt will understand the distinction with professional disagreement and legitimate inconsistency in the paper.

I'm quite certain it is not a perfect system, but if a paper is valid it will be published.. how well it is received is very well mapped by how often it is cited in related works.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You claim that morality and science are separate entities... they are VERY intertwined in many disciplines. Including evolutionary biology, behavioural science, sociology, psychology, and obviously philosophy (which might be stretching the modern view of science).

Morality is very well understood why it exists and what it is for.. though whether it is absolute and transcends certain aspects of the universe is up for debate.

Philosophy is not so distant from a scientists mind..

I agree with you that morality and science are intertwined in many ways...but how does science answer the question of whether or not it is 'moral' for humans to have sex with animals or whether or not it is 'moral' to abort babies in the process of being born. Science cannot define what is 'moral'...humans must do this. They are very separate concepts.

 

[Moonbeam]

I find this humorous.

We start with the premise that there are far more scientists supporting MMGW than those who don't.

We then need a study to determine which group, the large one or the small one, is going to have their papers quoted by each other the most. Do we really need a "study" to figure that out, isn't it obvious that the larger group is going have the most?

Upon coming to the 'surprising' conclusion that larger group has more quotes of each other, they then conclude that proves the larger group is correct? And because they quote each other the most that means they have more "expertise and prominence in climate research".

I thought it pretty well understood that just because something is repeated often doesn't necessarily make it so. There are far better metrics to prove something.

What a circle jerk.

This 'study' is pure fail.

Fern

I guess you can't figure out this circle jerk is the best and brightest and most informed. Too bad you can't figure out that science is a consensus opinion of experimenters and data takers, experts in the field, or what is true in that field. If you weren't a member of a circle jerk of idiots, you might see that.

Every asshole has an opinion. The opinion of the top people in a study discipline define the truth for that field. In short, the opinion of the smartest, most informed, and most respected minds, the experts, is the circle jerks who radiate to other intelligent minds what scientific fact is for the thinking masses. Apparently you are a member of some other group.

 

[tk149]

Follow the money.

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2010/pr-climate-change-doubters-062510.html

The research was funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Stanford University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_and_Flora_Hewlett_Foundation

In 2001, the foundation gave $400 million to Stanford University for humanities, sciences, and undergraduate education. At the time, the gift was the largest on record to a university

The Environment Program makes grants to support conservation in the North American West, reduce global warming and conventional pollution resulting from the use of fossil fuels, and promote environmental protection efforts in California. The Program supports domestic and international policies aimed at more efficient, lower-polluting cars and trucks, and by helping large developing nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming. For example, the Foundation’s U.S. grantees have developed data to inform the United States Congress’s consideration of a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, and in China grantees have provided technical assistance to mayors and other officials on bus rapid transit and urban planning.

Just saying...