[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jul 3 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 3 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 3 2009, 04:38 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 3 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

probably because of the philosophical differences between people tho believe in big gov't and those who don't

About as productive (and mature) of a statement as "There are major philosophical differences on gun control between those who want thousands of innocent people to be shot and killed every year and those who don't."

fine josh, you attempt an answer

I thought we had established this long ago in god 'debates'. A major difference between us is when I don't know an answer I don't feel the need to assume I know, say something stupid, or make something up. I just accept that I don't know.

Dance around it all you want. Your comment was really childish and stupid.

[Winstonm]

Quote

since you have no biases maybe you can tell me why you accept one 'evidence' over another

I don't accept one "evidence" over another. I don't believe there can be "two or more types of evidence" that conflict. Evidence is simply fact. It is only the conclusions about what the evidence means that can be in conflict.

Goes exactly back to what I wrote that there appears in our media only two types of "facts", i.e., the facts as promoted by the Republicans and the facts as promoted by the Democrats and truth is therefore a choice based on faith.

Quote

the subject was thought experiments

No, the subject matter was identifying truth and how the journalistic media has failed in its role as antagonist by becoming stenographers rather than reporters.

[luke warm]

Quote

Quote

since you have no biases maybe you can tell me why you accept one 'evidence' over another

I don't accept one "evidence" over another. I don't believe there can be "two or more types of evidence" that conflict. Evidence is simply fact. It is only the conclusions about what the evidence means that can be in conflict.

Goes exactly back to what I wrote that there appears in our media only two types of "facts", i.e., the facts as promoted by the Republicans and the facts as promoted by the Democrats and truth is therefore a choice based on faith.

you said "What is beyond me is disregarding evidence because it conflicts with my political views." now you say "I don't accept one "evidence" over another." presumably you believe something on this issue... on what basis?

Quote

Quote

the subject was thought experiments

No, the subject matter was identifying truth and how the journalistic media has failed in its role as antagonist by becoming stenographers rather than reporters.

even though i agree with your last remark, this is the post in question and your reply

luke warm, on Jul 2 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Jul 1 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

And, of course, there are always the delusional...

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

Winstonm, on Jul 3 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

Quote

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

It is noteworthy I believe to point out the frequency of your use of "thought exercises" in an attempt to create an aura of validity to the point for which you argue.

[helene_t]

Since this anti-science movement is a largely US phenomena, maybe I shouldn't speculate about the reasons for the strong emotions involved in this debate. Neverthess I will give it try.

That the pro-scientists have strong feelings against the anti-scientists is easy to understand. After all, evidence-based decision making is a sacred principle.

That the anti-scientists have strong emotions against the pro-scientists could be because they think that scientists make up evidence on the basis of a political convenience criterion. Man-made global warming is a pet theory of those who want scientific advicers to have more say on politics, and politics to have more say on the economy (because it indirectly gives more power to the academic elite).

Personally, I am somewhat concerned that there is some truth in the latter. I suppose the theory of man-made global warming is largely correct but I am concerned that the political implications of it are being exaggerated by radical anti-capitalists.

[cherdanno]

helene_t, on Jul 3 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

Abortion is a discussion about values. Apart from the fact that most people actually have mixed feelings about abortion, I can accept when people come to a different value judgment on this issue.
The debate about global warming is in part a debate about facts. It is much harder to accept when the other side manages to completely ignore established facts ("The earth isn't actually warming.") or scientific consensus ("Global warming is only due to increased sun activity."). Or, as Jimmy would say, the other side is completely living in their own spin and creating their own reality of spin and bias.
Abortion is, in parts, a debate of religious versus other values. Global warming is a debate of rationality versus irrationality, about general distrust against science. The age of enlightenment settled this debate in Europe for good (and those who still disagreed with its principles emigrated to America).

Now, the cap-and-trade-bill combines this issue with TAXES, the most toxic word in US politics.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Jul 4 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

Since this anti-science movement is a largely US phenomena, maybe I shouldn't speculate about the reasons for the strong emotions involved in this debate.

What you call the "anti-science movement" is a lot more widespread that you seem to assume. There's a very strong link between religious fundamentalism and hostility towards science. (The rapid spread of creationism in Islamic countries is one of the obvious supporting points).

It shouldn't be at all surprising that the most vocal religious fundamentalists on this board are also the strongest climate change skeptics.

[Winstonm]

Quote

you said "What is beyond me is disregarding evidence because it conflicts with my political views." now you say "I don't accept one "evidence" over another." presumably you believe something on this issue... on what basis?

What basis...I don't know....rational thought, maybe....

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Jul 4 2009, 07:46 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 4 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

Since this anti-science movement is a largely US phenomena, maybe I shouldn't speculate about the reasons for the strong emotions involved in this debate.

What you call the "anti-science movement" is a lot more widespread that you seem to assume. There's a very strong link between religious fundamentalism and hostility towards science. (The rapid spread of creationism in Islamic countries is one of the obvious supporting points).

It shouldn't be at all surprising that the most vocal religious fundamentalists on this board are also the strongest climate change skeptics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/200...tar-harun-yahya

You might also want to Google "Atlas of Creation".

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 4 2009, 10:09 AM, said:

Quote

you said "What is beyond me is disregarding evidence because it conflicts with my political views." now you say "I don't accept one "evidence" over another." presumably you believe something on this issue... on what basis?

What basis...I don't know....rational thought, maybe....

ok, fine... your rational thought leads you to believe that gw, to the extent it exists, is mainly attributable to man... those who disagree (for example, here), regardless of their qualifications, must disagree irrationally... this explains why you alone have no presuppositions, no biases

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 5 2009, 12:13 AM, said:

ok, fine... your rational thought leads you to believe that gw, to the extent it exists, is mainly attributable to man... those who disagree, regardless of their qualifications, must disagree irrationally... this explains why you alone have no presuppositions, no biases

For all intents and purposes, there is scientific consensus about global warming.

Yes, there isolated skeptics. This isn't at all surprising. The world is a diverse place. It's easy enough to find idiots who will agree on most anything. You can even find isolated scientists who will support most any conjecture.

However, the scientific debate about global warming has been settled.

There's a reason why those articles that you were posting earlier don't pass peer review and don't get published in first tier journals. They aren't credible sources.

For what its worth, I don't think that Wilson ever claimed that he had no presuppositions or biases. I do think that he (and I) can make a very credible claim that the over whelming majority of climate scientists believe in man made C02 emissions are causing global warming.

[luke warm]

i don't deny there is a scientific consensus... neither do i deny the many and notable examples of erroneous scientific consensus in the past... perhaps the paper by Drs. Gerlich and Tscheuschner hasn't "passed" peer review, and perhaps they are an example of two idiots who agree on "most anything" (since you appear singularly qualified to sniff out idiots)... what does "pass peer review" mean, in the context you're using it? was their paper shown to be wrong? all that really matters, i'm sure you'll agree, is the truth

winston said he believes man-made gw is true on the basis of rational thought, not bias or presuppositions

[Winstonm]

Let me point out why I won't allow myself to be drawn into debates with you. Here is what you said:

Quote

ok, fine... your rational thought leads you to believe that gw, to the extent it exists, is mainly attributable to man...

And this:

Quote

winston said he believes man-made gw is true on the basis of rational thought, not bias or presuppositions

This is total fabrication on your part. This is what I said and the question that led to the response:

Your question:

Quote

presumably you believe something on this issue... on what basis?

My response:

Quote

What basis...I don't know....rational thought, maybe....

Where in that answer is there any statement of what I believe about man-made global warming? Yet you nonchalantly claim, "winston said he believes man-made gw is true..."

I could have meant that I didn't accept man-made global warming based on rational thought. Regardless, it is really irrelevant, as I was actually answering the question you posed of "how do you chose which evidence to believe?".

My answer to that is still the same - by rational thought. Bit it does seem by your response that you believe rational thought must lead to the conclusion that man-made global warming is occurring, and I won't disagree with your conclusions.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 5 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

i don't deny there is a scientific consensus... neither do i deny the many and notable examples of erroneous scientific consensus in the past... perhaps the paper by Drs. Gerlich and Tscheuschner hasn't "passed" peer review, and perhaps they are an example of two idiots who agree on "most anything" (since you appear singularly qualified to sniff out idiots)... what does "pass peer review" mean, in the context you're using it? was their paper shown to be wrong? all that really matters, i'm sure you'll agree, is the truth

The following wiki page has a series of web pages devoted to Gerlich and Tsceuschner's work. Many of these links deal with an earlier (unpublished) version of G+T's screed. However, there's also some discussion of the article that was published in the "International Journal of Modern Physics B"

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?...D._Tscheuschner

Please note: I don't claim that I am uniquely qualified to sniff out idiots. As you can see, quite a few folks have invested quite a lot of time pointing out the myriad flaws in G+T's work. One this that I do claim is that I bother to do some background research before posting.

Regarding the "pass peer review" comment

The following posting covers the basic ground much more effectively than I could

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/04/die-fac...ow-is-elis.html

[luke warm]

i'm not asking you to research and comment on the many skeptic papers, i doubt you have any more inclination or time to do so than i would... but if you have looked at the Stephen Schwartz paper, “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System” what are your thoughts?

[jdonn]

This whole "scientific consensus has been wrong many times in the past" reminds me of all the people with terrible ideas who say things like "everyone thought Einstein was crazy too." Depending on my mood I either laugh, or shake my head and sigh.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 5 2009, 05:17 AM, said:

i'm not asking you to research and comment on the many skeptic papers, i doubt you have any more inclination or time to do so than i would... but if you have looked at the Stephen Schwartz paper, “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System” what are your thoughts?

My thoughts on the paper haven't changed significantly since that last time you brought it up.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...180&hl=schwartz

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Jul 5 2009, 03:47 AM, said:

This whole "scientific consensus has been wrong many times in the past" reminds me of all the people with terrible ideas who say things like "everyone thought Einstein was crazy too." Depending on my mood I either laugh, or shake my head and sigh.

I can think of very few instances where the scientific consensus on major issues has changed. The abandonment of the flogiston theory comes to mind. I think it was some 150 years ago.

The revolution in physics between the world wars, when relativity theory and quantum mechanics became accepted, was mainly new things added to existing theories rather than old theories thrown in the bin. Newton's theories of mechanics still stand , the fact that they are only approximations is only relevant to extreme cases such as black holes and microscopic particles, and I think Newton as well as most other pre-Einstein/Bohr scientists were well aware that they didn't have a deep understanding of what is going on at the microscopic level.

When I compare modern biology books to those I read in the early 70s, there is lots of added knowledge. Some details have changed (how closely related fruit bats are to bats has been a subject of changing consensus, as has the relation of the puma to specific other felines) and the appearance of the first single-celled organisms was estimated to 700 mio years ago in a 1960 book(admitting that the knowledge about very early evolution was very uncertain) while today I think the consensus is between 2.5 mia and 3.5 mia.

In fields like psychology, economics and nutriation, the advices from scientists appear to be less stable, but I suspect much of what is cited as "scientific concensus" about nutriation and psychology in the magazines I read at the hairdresser's are cases of scientists first saying "we don't have a clue", and when pressed saying "well if you want a guess, mine is ....." and that something similar is going on when economists are under pressure to comment on issues with political implications. When I studied GDBA in the late 80s, we had two light-weight books on economic politics, one dated early 80s saying that income policies is a miracle cure and the other dated late 80s saying that income policies sucks. Our main text book asked the question "why do economists disagree?" in the preface, giving a dozen of reasons but emphasizing "the market's demand for disagreement".

I like that. No matter for whom a scientific idea is inconvenient, there will always be someone who is happy to sponsor it. So I wouldn't worry too much about the worldwide scientific community filtering out certain ideas for political reasons.

[luke warm]

2 degree cap agreed on @ G8 summit by 2020 - but not how to do it... no statement (yet) on 50-80% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050 (except for china, india, et al, who seem against putting a number on this)

[cherdanno]

hrothgar, on Jul 5 2009, 06:39 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 5 2009, 05:17 AM, said:

i'm not asking you to research and comment on the many skeptic papers, i doubt you have any more inclination or time to do so than i would... but if you have looked at the Stephen Schwartz paper, “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System” what are your thoughts?

My thoughts on the paper haven't changed significantly since that last time you brought it up.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...180&hl=schwartz

pwned

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2009, 01:14 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jun 30 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

that's an interesting point... i wonder if there are any stats on the educational level of those who support one party over another

The two most power predictors of voting behaviour in the US are

1. Religious intensity (Positively correlated with voting Republican)
2. Population density (Positively correlated with voting Democrat)

Education is a tricky one.

Income level is correlated with voting Republican.
Income is also highly correlated with education level.

As I recall, if you adjust for income level, education is correlated with voting Democrat. Moreover, this trend has intensified in recent elections (The Republicans are hemorrhaging members of the professional classes)

The Pew Research Center just release a fairly interesting survey regarding the publics view of scientists as well as scientists views about a bunch of different stuff. This isn't the same as Education versus Political Identification, however, it is related.

the politics section is located on page 4

http://people-press....rt/?pageid=1549

81 percent of scientists identify themselves as Democrats (or lean Democrat)
12 percent of scientists identify themselves as Republics (or lean Republican)