Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2009 - 09:52pm PT
|
Yep.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2009 - 12:01am PT
|
we don't need real scientists, just the right ones.....
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 10:11am PT
|
we don't need real scientists, just the right ones.....
And there, in a nutshell, is the Republican war on science.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 11:35am PT
|
I was being sarcastic, Chiloe...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 11:36am PT
|
OK, then I was too!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 12:03pm PT
|
Sketch, do you really believe that whiney-assed shee-it?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 12:42pm PT
|
Sketch - science is a complicated issue which the public has a lot of trouble understanding and following on any topic. If the particular topic is "politicized" then the discussion becomes even more complex.
Science, at its roots, is anti-authoritarian. That is to say, scientists are skeptics, they want to be shown the data, and they want a logical, quantitative explanation of the phenomena the data is measured from... without both it is anyone's guess as to what is happening.
Now in the process of untangling the phenomena, claims and counter claims are made in the scientific community, scientists offer quantitative explanations that are tested, other scientists go out and make the measurements, general confusion reins but slowly the "conversation with nature" starts to be understood. Nature is the only authority. Could be the greatest scientists have it wrong and the young graduate student figures it out... so much for the authority of titles, etc...
When this process becomes politicized, it can become very ugly. I just spent a couple of days composing a response to the 60 Minutes two Sundays ago regarding the 20th Anniversary of Cold Fusion. While the majority of scientists believe that there is no such thing as cold fusion, as proposed by the proponents of this particular observation, 60 Minutes portrayed the topic as a "debate" with a couple of authorities on each side of the "debate" giving their arguments pro and con.
This is not how science is done... the story line is quiet compelling though: a couple of poor scientists make an observation in the lab, have a press release, many people try to reproduce the experiment and fail bringing scorn down around the original observers who are hounded out of science into retirement. Recent observations are pointed to as an affirmation of the phenomena and the closing scene of the piece is 60 Minutes sitting with the literally bent-by-age scientist holding one of his apparatuses bemoaning the horrors he has suffered the last 20 years.
Given the American propensity to pull for the underdog, one might really wonder if some terrible injustice has been done at the hands of a cruel "orthodox scientific dogma" supported by the mainstream who are out to punish heretics by taking their professional lives.
In fact, there is no physical mechanism for cold fusion that has been proposed for which the products of have not been searched for. The only enduring measure is "excess heat" but even that is difficult to detect, it is not reliably reproduced in the lab, and is a very difficult measurement to make, being the subtraction of two large, noisy numbers, the energy in and the energy out... over the last 20 years no one has produced a convincing set of data.
Further, neither chemical nor nuclear phenomena, as we know them, can provide even a hint as to how this energy could be produced. We understand a lot about both, and that understanding has even gotten better over these last two decades. It's not like we aren't surprised by novel experimental results, however, when those results are really telling us about nature, they tend to get better with time benefiting from the discussion. Results that are incorrect tend to get worse or, at best, no better.
But all along the Cold Fusion story, you can make the same sort of comments people make about climate change science. This science is changing rapidly from all the discussion surrounding it. The data changes, with many experiments being done to test the hypothesis of the quantitative understanding. This understanding is certainly tied up in the climate models, and a large part of the story is understanding the limits of the models, just how far they can be pushed, just how good they are. This is done in comparison with observational data, and with comparisons with different models where the base assumptions are understood and can be compared.
Scientists who get up and make broad pronouncements must back those up with data and with the quantitative explanation. It does little good to say "I don't believe that they can do that," an authoritarian explanation, more listened too is: "I believe this particular piece of science is wrong, and that would imply..." This later statement can be checked, we can know whether or not that criticism is pertinent. Either way that kind of a statement is helpful for understanding this issue of climate change... the former kind of statement, the authoritarian kind, might be good for the evening news, but has little to do with science.
All good scientists are skeptics... but in a positive sense, that skepticism is used to firm up our understanding. Political skepticism is of a generally negative tone, "I don't believe those scientists are being honest," not much you can do with that... except see if the science is correct.
Because of the perceived importance, economically and politically, of climate change (or of cold fusion for that matter), these scientific debates take place on a very large stage.
It is unfortunate that the sarcastic sentiment expressed by bluering is actually the summation of the former administration's view of science as it applies to policy. Hopefully this will change in this and future administrations.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 02:11pm PT
|
"Science, at its roots, is anti-authoritarian. That is to say, scientists are skeptics"
ed, how do you feel about "scientists" who claim
"the evidence is indisputable" or "the debate is over"? or who compare "skeptics" (according to you, all scientists) are equivalent holocaust deniers or should have their credentials taken away?
it seems to me the global warming movement is absolutely authoritarian...dare i say "fascist"?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 02:51pm PT
|
bookworm -
nope, I don't see it that way...
you put your science career on the line by making pronouncements with no scientific content... you can talk all you want, but you have to back it up with solid science...
it is possible that many of the "questions" which continue to be brought up have been addressed by research, the research results are coming in at a rather rapid rate...
Many of the "it isn't warming" and "it doesn't matter" camp use objections that have long since been investigated. For example, the discrepancy of the satellite temperature data and the surface data... which was resolved... but it took a long time for everyone to come up to speed on that (I believe there is at least one holdout scientist, whoa be on him).
bookworm, a question for you: what is the motive do you think that scientists have for being "fascist"? The way it works, you might be able to force a point of view position... this has happened in the past, but most famously under state auspices to institute a particular need of the state, that is Lysenko's program in the Soviet Union to accelerate the production of plants bred specifically to increase agricultural productivity. Any idea was acceptable, even when they ran counter to scientific understanding... it didn't matter, the coercive force of government policy essentially stifled Soviet science throughout the Stalin period. All this because the state needed something and the scientists who objected because the proposed solutions had no basis in science were not "the right ones."
This put the Soviet union behind in a large area of biology, which in the 50s and 60s was of concern for national security (theirs). It takes around 10 to 15 years to fill the pipeline with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) workforce where there is a deficiency (e.g. the "space race").
In the end the science was right, Lysenko was wrong, and it cost the Soviet Union.
There are no known examples of scientific societies doing the same thing that I am aware of, unless you are British and consider the French Academy to be in that camp (the metric system is, you know, a Napoleonic plot).
Your thoughts?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 05:01pm PT
|
their motive is the oldest one: money
the global warming industry is worth BILLIONS...from research funding (which allows scientists to hire new researchers and buy new equipment and travel to conferences, which justifies increased budgets, which...) to various CORPORATE entities CAPITALIZING on the movement to new bureaucracies (see research funding above) to ...well, you get the point
anytime a scientist claims the debate is over or the evidence is indisputable completely refutes your claim that scientists are skeptics...according to you, all scientists should remain skeptical all the time and should welcome any and all challenges to their conclusions
i'm curious why it's only the global warming skeptics i hear calling for open debate and the global warming faithful refusing
why, for example, is al gore suddenly so quiet?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 05:39pm PT
|
Bookworm, you're not a "skeptic" in any honest sense of the term, as someone who weighs (or tries to learn about) the best evidence. You're a True Believer, one of two or three most ideologically-driven posters on ST.
i'm curious why it's only the global warming skeptics i hear calling for open debate and the global warming faithful refusing
Apparently, you only hear what your ideology permits. Which is not the reality.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 05:46pm PT
|
no scientist is in it for the money, there just isn't that much in it... your claim that there is billions in it is seriously miss informed.
When a scientist asks a scientific question, that is heard from the community. When questions are asked that do not address the scientific issues, well, there just isn't time to spend debating what has been debated and resolved. Would you like to debate whether or not General Relativity is the theory of gravity? many would, but it would be considered a waste of time to engage in such a conversation unless important new ideas were presented.
In this way scientists, or at least physicists, appear to be rather dogmatic and intolerant. I've said it before, science is not a democracy, ideas that help forward our understanding are accepted, ideas and opinions that are considered a waste of time, are dealt with severely, sorry about that...
why? because the correctness of our understanding is premium, and there is not a lot of time or resources to waste on erroneous paths. You'd better produce science, or face having your resources redirected to someone else who can.
In science, ideas matter, if you have a foolish one, you are treated as a fool. What else would you expect?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 06:26pm PT
|
In this way scientists, or at least physicists, appear to be rather dogmatic and intolerant. I've said it before, science is not a democracy, ideas that help forward our understanding are accepted, ideas and opinions that are considered a waste of time, are dealt with severely, sorry about that...
But at the same time, in areas where the science is not settled and there exist several competing, scientifically defensible ideas -- the energetic, open discussion at science meetings can be one of their best parts. Like for instance, why did that Arctic ice minimum occur in 2007?
|
|
UncleDoug
climber
No. Lake Tahoe, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 06:29pm PT
|
"why, for example, is al gore suddenly so quiet? "
Because the MSM has allot more on it's plate right now.....
|
|
That Darn French Guy
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 07:21pm PT
|
In france the glaciers have receeded in chamonix.
The few of those not receeding are in Chile.
The ice shelves are breaking off in antartica.
There's more cyclones, more powerful.
The sea water is getting warmer.
Deserts are greening, fertile lands droughting, and other parts are changing. Clean water is disappearing. Rainfall patterns change.
Here's some nice photos of NASA projects showing some of the effects.
http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10000756-6.html?tag=mncol
The question is weather man is responsible or not, not weahter or not it's happening. Now the other question is is it normal and could it revert or stabiolize? If we made it can we reverse it now?
We had that argument with Ozone. CFCs got banned, ozone hole is receeding slowly. Can humanity afford to debate and risk being wrong and do nothing while going to doom?
Carbon capture principle is interesting: all the carbon has been dug up to generate power: fossil fuels burned release co2 that was othrwise underground (coal, oil, gas). Recapturing resolves the imbalance.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2009 - 07:27pm PT
|
Even the fossil fuel industry leaders are now admitting to manmade climate change. - Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, on 60 minutes last night.
He just wants the govMINT to pay for their external costs (by paying for "Clean Coal.") They expect that in about 4 decades, they will figure out if it is feasible to inject all coal plant CO2 exhaust underground.
In the meantime they continue to build new coal powered electricity plants.
The cost might be on the order of $1 trillion dollars (in today's dollars) if it worked and the CO2 doesn't slowly leak back out. That money is just for the USA. The cost of solar and wind starts to look a little more liveable. Arguing that we can't afford to do anything about it is a non-argument. What is the cost of not doing anything? What is the cost just in the USA of a 1m ocean level rise? Or just a .5m rise? the cost of the reduction in snowpack for water storage? the cost of the additional air conditioning load due to to warmer climate? the environmental cost of continuing giant coal mines? the reduced value of rivers that dry up faster each year? the value of the numerous species that will go extinct?
For comparison, what is the total cost of the financial bailout?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/23/60minutes/main4964301.shtml
Duke Energy [is] the nation's third largest electric utility. His stacks pump 100 million tons of carbon dioxide every year, which makes what comes out of Rogers' mouth so surprising.
"Controlling carbon emissions in the near future is inevitable in your view. This is going to happen," Pelley remarked.
"It’s inevitable in my judgment," Rogers agreed.
"You're one of the biggest polluters in the world when it comes to carbon emissions," Pelley pointed out.
"We're one of the largest emitters. And it tells you how daunting the challenge is that we have in front of us," Rogers replied.
"You know, there are a lot of people many of them in your industry may who you probably know who say that global warming is not a big problem," Pelley said.
"It's my judgment it is a problem," Rogers said. "We need to go to work on it now. And it's critical that we start to act in this country."
Like a reformed tobacco executive, Rogers says we can't survive the emissions his industry creates. He showed 60 Minutes what he means at a North Carolina power station that can light up one and a half million homes.
Rogers told Pelley that particular plant burns roughly 19,000 tons of coal. "That's two train loads. And each train has about 100 cars," he explained.
The fact is, America runs on coal and here's one of the reasons why: the Powder River Basin that stretches across Wyoming and Montana may be the largest coal reserve on Earth. We've got 200 years worth of reserves - cheap, and right under our feet. No wonder coal generates half of our electricity.
But here's the brutal part: coal is twice as dirty as natural gas and puts more carbon dioxide in the air than all of our cars and trucks. In short, we're caught between a rock and a hot place.
...
continued - see link above
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2009 - 07:49am PT
|
"no scientist is in it for the money, there just isn't that much in it"
this is laughable...scientists need money to conduct their research and, in many cases, justify their research...there are plenty of scientists living large on the global warming circuit...and your claim completely ignores the opportunities created by governmental promotion of "alternative energy"...guess what, exxon-mobil and every other energy corporation (yes, even the "alternatives") employ scientists
ok, here's the pdf: http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22352.pdf
but to keep this simple, i'll break it down for you one point at a time and invite you to respond with science rather than attacks on the source or my so-called "ideology"
you may want to download the pdf to look at his various charts and graphs
"Smoking Gun #1: Al Gore’s own chart doesn’t support his conclusion.
One of the most basic principles of science is cause and effect. You change the cause and measure what
effect it has. For instance, you have identical mice twins; one you exercise on a tread mill, the other sits
on a couch watching an exercise show. Both are given equal calories of food. From this experiment you
can determine the weight loss per hour of tread mill exercise ceteris paribus (all else held equal). The
most basic concept of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is that an increase in atmospheric
CO2 causes atmospheric temperature to increase through the greenhouse effect. Therefore, when Al
Gore gets on the fork lift to show that atmospheric CO2 is at an all time high, you would expect
temperature to be at or at least near an all time high as well. Problem is, AL Gore’s chart shows that
CO2 is almost 30% higher than any time before in the last 650,000 years, and yet temperatures aren’t
even at a peak of the last 1,000 years, and all major peaks are well above today’s temperature as well."
your turn.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2009 - 08:11am PT
|
Bookworm, you've got no idea what the climate scientists are doing. If you wanted to learn,
it's out there, often written in plain enough English. But not on the sites you consult for quotes
that support your prejudices.
The arguments you quote above have been refuted many times, even in sources cited on ST.
You didn't read or understand them before, and aren't about to learn now.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2009 - 08:20am PT
|
Chiloe, you've got no idea what the climate scientists are doing. If you wanted to learn, it's out there (actually right here), often written in plain enough English, but thanks for proving my point.
i'm simply responding to the op...and waiting for someone to refute the claims above with science
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!