The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How can we usefully make judgements about science? Part 2 > Comments

How can we usefully make judgements about science? Part 2 : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 22/8/2014

There is an almost infinite number of brilliant ideas that need public money to show their true value, and governments need a filtering system.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Jardine – some food for your wandering mind:

1.Svante Arrhenius showed in 1896 that doubling atmospheric CO2 would raise worlds surface temperature by 4C. And Wikipedia is not a government construction – owned and populated by the people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

2.NOAA showing increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_growth

3. NASA CO2 concentration graph showing current CO2 levels to be much higher than it has been for at least 400,000 years (now at 400ppm, whereas it had not exceeded 295ppm for 800,000 years)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

4. Increasing mean temperatures for Australia between 1910 and 2013
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries

5. Satellite measurement show that less heat is leaving the earth than is incoming from the sun, resulting in the earth warming. Warming is about 1 watt per square metre. Equivalent to a 1,000 watt radiator on 24 hours a day in every 30x30metre area over the entire surface of our planet earth. No wonder the world continues to set higher record temperatures.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php

6. “Global warming” just refers to the thin layer of atmosphere that touches the land and sea surface of our planet. It is still increasing, but not as fast as a few years ago. However, oceans continue to warm – overy 90% of heat coming from the sun goes into the oceans. 3627 Argo floats measure ocean temperatures
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

QUESTION: what data or facts do you have that counter the data from the technology referenced above – from satellites, to land recordings and deep ocean measuring instruments?

And what about Nobel prize winning Svante Arrhenius mentioned above? Are you going to pillory his achievements?

And another question for you – what would happen to our planet if there were no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Of course you do not know. Our home would be a giant snowball, or like the moon. Believe it or not, carbon dioxide is the prime blanket keeping the world warm. And for a century, we all have been adding layers to that blanket every second. Of course we are getting hotter.

Playing your word games may be fun: from my perspective it is tragic.
Posted by Tony153, Tuesday, 26 August 2014 10:14:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re Don's original article:

"Research" and "Development" are separate activities.

The value of breakthrough research is often only realised in the "D" phase.

Much breakthrough research originates from a researcher saying "hey - that is interesting - I have no idea what is causing that disease to propagate, but perhaps it may be gut bacteria in faeces", and they go and investigate in that direction.

The ability to relatively easily change direction in science is the essence of good science - following your nose. This is not amenable to some spreadsheet formulae.

The value of the research is only realisable at the end of research. It can only be valued then.

As well, there must be pyramids of researchers who do not make substantial breakthroughs. However, such pyramids provide essential discourse between different groups and individual scientist upon which the breakthroughs sit atop of.

Such research cannot, in general, be done in private enterprise. In that environment,research must be amenable to spreadsheet analyses before it is begun. That is why large pharmaceuticals generally only research particular drugs because of predictable profits. If a disease affects relatively few, the drug companies will not devote any research dollars. That is why substantial medical research is still performed in government funded facilities.

Don is attempting to find a method for measuring science value before the results are achieved. But, in his article, he is groping for reasons to put limits on climate research.

The real question is: why?
Posted by Tony153, Tuesday, 26 August 2014 10:45:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony

You answer my prior questions first. If I can show that what you’re saying is fallacious, and you can’t disprove it, then trying to squirm out of it by reciting your premises won’t save you.

How have you taken into account
1. the ecological variables of the whole world, and
2. human subjective evaluations in:
a) the status quo you don’t want, and
b) your preferred policy counter-factual?

Your unthought-through assumptions about government funding of science are easily disproved.
3. By what rational criterion do you know whether the funding is too little, too much, or just the right amount?

“Such research cannot, in general, be done in private enterprise.”

Why not?

“In that environment, research must be amenable to spreadsheet analyses before it is begun.”

You are demonstrating a complete failure to understand what you’re talking about. It’s not “spreadsheet analysis” that’s the limiting factor. The limiting factor is *losses*. If this were not the case, it could be funded *voluntarily*, which is what you’re arguing against, remember? Government doesn’t magically supply a benefit relative to costs, and that’s what you need to establish – however you define the ultimate welfare criterion. All government supplies which would not otherwise be available is the coercive means to raise the finance without the consent of the contributors.

“Don is attempting to find a method for measuring science value before the results are achieved. But, in his article, he is groping for reasons to put limits on climate research. The real question is: why?”

Because you don’t have any rational criterion for funding it or demonstrating it’s worth being funded, that’s why!

But if you do, what’re the answers to my questions above?

Show us by what rational criterion you know what the amount of funding should be, and whether the money would have been better spent on something else? Go ahead.

Poirot, thank you for proving that you're wrong.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 28 August 2014 7:47:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taking a broad view, I think it is very unfortunate that the potential of AGW has not been seen more clearly as a prime 'opportunity' to innovate in the very, very-long-term global interest.

Certainly 'Climate' is complex; and perhaps many resources have been misdirected, or potentially wasted, in attempts to isolate a magical formula by which to predict or preempt climate manifestations.
Time to bail, or to take a punt on the economic, environmental, human and biosphere potentials?

Don Aitkin addresses the question "How can we usefully make judgements about science?", but on economic or 'scientific' potentials, Don appears to favour the study of 'gravitational waves' as potentially more productive (or at least interesting) than the study (or consideration) of global 'climate'.
Such 'waves', 'string theory', and the 'tricky movement' of electrons may explain microchips, space-time, or 'The Law of Everything', but I'm not sure how they will address the elimination of poverty or disease or conflict, let alone the feeding of the seething masses in the next millennium.

Andrew Leigh in his separate article "Carbon price boosted Fair Go" identified some practical benefits arising from the carbon tax, and appears to favour an ETS. I do not support the latter - paying someone else to cover our butt; and I see the fault of the carbon tax scheme (and possibly the RET) being in not preventing emitters from simply passing the cost on to consumers.

In the broad, oil and gas are finite, land and fertilisers are finite, and biodiversity is arguably 'on the brink'.
Continuing growth will eventually require multi-layer, solar and optic-fibre-supported mass hydroponics, and probably nuclear power, and most certainly total 'recycling' of garbage and of all human, animal and agricultural waste.
When to act? When the last barrel of oil or megalitre of gas is harvested? Or, while the 'opportunity' is still within easy grasp?

Take a long view now, or bet the farm on 'distant' technological innovation whereby all can survive on 'thin air'?
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 28 August 2014 10:04:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Taking a broad view, I think it is very unfortunate that the potential of AGW has not been seen more clearly as a prime 'opportunity' to innovate in the very, very-long-term global interest.”

It’s all a question of risk management.

Imagine you have a farm, and there’s a risk of flooding. The risk is small but a flood would be devastating. Suppose the insurance premium is 50 percent of everything you produce. The question is: is it worth it? Do you want to go without everything that money could buy, to protect against that particular risk, when there are lots of other risks to consider – including viability - and lots of other opportunities for welfare and satisfaction with the money?

That’s what the warmists’ never answer. They think that by pointing to a wodge of temperature statistics, they’ve proved their case.

Their argument would only make sense if there was only one risk in the whole world, and no scarcity of resources to combat it with, or if we could assume that the scarcity of resources could be magically solved by government. They don’t understand that, even if government does supply the resources, and enact the policies they want, it still won’t solve the problem. It won't mean that all relevant human satisfactions are maximised or optimised by replacing voluntary action with coerced; which is all their argument amounts to.

The least of their problem is in the climatology (although they ignore the partisan and dishonest manipulations of the data they cite).

They don’t seem to understand that they are involved in assertions that pre-suppose compliance with the requirements of logical thought, that they can’t just add a quantity on one side of the equation without accounting for it on the other. They don’t understand that they are asserting the more economical way to do things, and what human beings value; while having no rational basis for their assertions. Emotive basis, yes. Arbitrary, yes. Rational, no.

All state funding of science is liable to the same problem for the same reasons: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 29 August 2014 11:02:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony153

Can you see that, even if I conceded all the points you have made - which I don't because you ignore all the major issues - you still would not have established your argument or refuted mine, because you wouldn’t have established that the results of AGW would be worse rather than better, nor that any policy would be worth the downside?

On the other hand, I have established my argument and refuted yours - the climatology is necessary but not sufficient - and you have nothing to answer but just go quiet.

So? Do you concede and admit that you and all warmists are illogical and wrong; or not?

To eliminate the possibility of intellectual dishonesty on your part, would you please explicitly answer these questions:

How have you taken into account:
1. the ecological variables of the whole world, and
2. human subjective evaluations in:
a) the status quo you don’t want, and
b) your preferred policy counter-factual?
Show your calculations.

3. By what rational criterion do you know whether the funding is too little, too much, or just the right amount?

(Notice btw I'm actively trying to falsify my argument - giving you the ammo to shoot me down - whereas yours is unfalsifiable, circular, and you're trying only to confirm it? = religious methodology)

I say you can’t prove yours or disprove mine, but if you can, go ahead: show us that your and all warmists’ belief system is not morally and intellectually bankrupt as I have just proved it is.

No assuming you’re right, no personal argument, no appeal to absent authority, thanks. Please just answer the questions or admit you can't.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 30 August 2014 10:35:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy