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 > Make a stand for good science > Comments

Make a stand for good science : Comments

By Barry Brook, published 8/5/2008

Scientists must work harder at making the public aware of the stark difference between good science and denialist spin.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Tosh! More and more scientists are coming out as 'deniers'.
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 8 May 2008 10:12:09 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
What a pathetic attempt to silence those who question the obvious. Evolution is a fraud and can't be proved beyond a flawless theory. The good Professor has more 'faith' than many. What is needed in science is more honesty. Evolution has been shown as a fraud. We need a few more honest scientist who are not afraid to test this failed theory which continues to delude so many. Thankfully we have a new breed arising who don't just follow spin. The know a number of geologist who are first to admit that evolution is crap.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 8 May 2008 11:12:38 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
Your are incorrect, Mr Right Wing. Until the mid 1990s most scientists were unpersuaded, and a good proportion were climate sceptics - at least to the point that the proof on climate change had yet to be delivered. There are now few sceptics left in the serious scientific community.

But the author is correct insofar as most scientists may be good at their science, but they are reluctant communicators. Most scientists have no desire to advocate. That is not their job. They are absorbed by science alone. (And more often than not, their focus on hard information makes them bad public communicators at the best of times. ) So it is left to decision makers to act on the information that hard science provides.

The one problem with that is a few oddball quasi-scientists then steal the media show. Preying on the natural cynicism and denial there is in the broader community, and the lack of scientific acumen in the lay community, the sceptical minority has a much greater influence than their numbers would suggest.

If serious scientists are concerned about where the world is going and don't want to see their work abused, then they have no choice but to override their shyness about public advocacy.

Meanwhile, the media like to manufacture a tussle between opposites. They too have a moral obligation not to allow that entertainment sideshow to get in the way of informative media presentation. To some extent scientists are at the mercy of media.
Posted by gecko, Thursday, 8 May 2008 11:14:08 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
The question posed by Professor Brook is this.

Is the theory of anthropogenic global warming good (AGW) science or not? Or is AGW a quasi religion?

Brook argues by analogy and with no supporting evidence that to question the credentials of AGW theory is identical to the evolution/creationism or anti-smoking/ pro-tobacco spokesmen debates.

I suggest to the professor that each issue has to be treated on its merits. The argument that because ‘proposition A’ is correct science, therefore ‘propositions B etc.’ must be good science is manifestly absurd.

Good science or otherwise the implication of AGW on the economy, such as the imposition of a carbon tax or carbon trading, is of interest to all - scientists and non scientists alike. To describe doubters of AGW theory in terms formerly applied to heretics by the theologians of past centuries, (sceptics, denialists, contrarians, delayers or delusionists), suggests Brooks is defending a quasi religious orthodoxy.

It is a democratic right to question the AGW theorists. It is a reciprocal right for the AGW defenders to respond; hopefully, with useful and intelligent discussion.
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 8 May 2008 11:47:34 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
Anti-green - of course people have a democratic right to think whatever they like about AGW. But that's not a scientific debate, that's just people flapping their jaws at each other (democratically, of course).

You can also think the world is any shape if you like too. And if a democratic majority agreed with you, you could even win a vote about it. But that doesn't change the shape of the world, and it's still not science.

So yeah, I guess a lot of climate scientists have a 'right of reply' to the denialists if they wish to use it. But they often don't bother, because they're more interested in science than opinions, no matter how democratic.

As for runner who thinks 'evolution is crap' - care to explain how bacteria acquire genetic resistance to antibiotics?
Posted by Mercurius, Thursday, 8 May 2008 12:00:31 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
Mercurius,
Not good enough. You know as well as I, that there are a plethora of scientific arguments freely available on the internet that throw considerable doubt on AGW theory.

When a scientific argument is advanced you dismiss it as “denialism,” else to use your somewhat derogatory term it is “jaw flap.”
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 8 May 2008 12:29:48 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
anti-green you're missing the point of the article. brook is not making a scientific argument about AGW, he's making a political plea about how to respond to the perversion of public debates on science. for this purpose here, he is simply assuming that such perversion exists in the debates over evolution and AGW. he's not pretending to provide here evidence of such perversion.

you apparently don't agree that this is occurring in the debate over AGW. but do you believe it occurs in other scientific debates? if so, it is perhaps interesting to ask why some debates are prone to such perversion and others are not.

it is also worth noting that brook is not in any way attacking people's democratic rights. he is only appealing to scientists to actively respond, with scientific argument, to others exercising those rights.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 8 May 2008 1:07:26 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
History also teaches us to be cautious of deductive processes like relying on a particular starting point and only pursuing an outcome ends based approach. Very often this deductive mindset tries to impatiently solve but makes things worse because it doesn’t comprehend that it's creating problems, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates.

Isn't honest science all about ..... discovery and the HOW as we comprehend everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole, that is undivided, unbroken and without border. AND isn't this the way to discover what is NOT expected to be seen?
e.g. Rather than mind over matter it needs to be mind out of matter.

For this reason I've never regarded myself as a "denialist" on climate and feel I need to make this point quite clearly. The true denialists are the alarmist AGWers who, just for starters, ignore the bigger picture selectively DENYING ....
(1) the full solar/cosmic connection that drives earth's climate
(2) CO2 as essential to life describing it as a dangerous pollutant and likening it with the Ebola virus.
(3) just about everything outside the earth's troposphere
(4) convection as the dominant way heat is exchanged
(5) importantly all manner of experienced historic knowledge and our place in the universe.
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 8 May 2008 1:12:43 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
Mercurius,

'As for runner who thinks 'evolution is crap' - care to explain how bacteria acquire genetic resistance to antibiotics?

Read for yourself and try not to be so dogmatic. Open your mind as this Doctor in Biology has done and see there are other ways to interpret data. Stop doing what Creationist are accused of by building your story and then fitting the data around it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

http:www.apologeticspress.org/articles/439
Posted by runner, Thursday, 8 May 2008 1:13:28 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
You say that those who question the IPCC line "are all cut of the same anti-intellectual cloth.

"Their business is the dissemination of disinformation, doubt and unscientific nonsense. One of their most regular ploys is to leverage the widespread lack of public appreciation of how science operates. The scientific process of theoretical postulates, hypothesis testing, critical evaluation (and re-evaluation) of ever accumulating empirical evidence, model validation and peer review is inherently complex and often technical."

This is nonsense. The sceptics I know or whose work I have read are intellectuals who fully comprehend the scientific process. The validity of the IPCC's econometric modelling (the climate change scenarios are all based on models of economic growth and assumed relationships with emissions) were discredited by two world leaders in this field, former Australian Statistician Ian Castles and former OECD chief economist David Henderson. Any reading of their correspondence with and meetings with the IPCC will show that the denial comes from the AGW camp. While some IPCC researchers welcomed the C-H critique as helping them to get to the truth, the hierarchy refused to budge from their discredited models. It appeared to me that if the IPCC's most likely scenario was corrected in the light of the C-H work, that the figure for warming by 2100 would not be significantly different from zero. This would be a very "inconvenient truth" indeed for those on the AGW bandwagon.

I was originally briefed on this 18-19 years ago by the then head of the IPCC's scientific research, a genuine seeker of truth like those I know in the sceptical camp. Would that all were in that mould.
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 8 May 2008 1:17:44 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
I agree with Mr Right, observing:

“Global Warming” (if it does exist) has an holistic origin and consequence, not simply a scientific origin and consequence.

Industrialisation and economic development are claimed as contributory causes, neither is ‘scientific’ in origin.

“Anthropogenic warming” (if it is a cause) is not caused, controlled or regulated exclusively by scientists.

Scientists cannot demand exclusive right to debate matters which are supposedly an effect all humanity, the rest of humanity, beyond the cloistered environs of professional scientists, are equal stake-holders in the debate and in determining the solutions.

Castigating those who some retarded souls label as “trolls” reflects on the intolerance and arrogance of so called “scientists” and is no different to any other ad hominine attack.

I see Gecko has started with miss addressing “Mr Right” as “Mr Right Wing”. A blatant ad hominine attack, intended to discourage and denigrate Mr Rights eligibility to comment. Another example of calling someone a troll? I will leave you to decide.

The role of “real science” is to determine the truth and nothing but the truth.

So called “climate science” seems to have substituted “theoretical opinion”, supported by ad hominine attack and dubious climate models for “truth”.

That is a poor substitution.

It is the product of those more interested in ego, self promotion, government grants and aggrandisement than in "true science".

William McBride was lauded as a “scientist” but his attention to “the truth” was found wanting.

When we get some “truth” into the so called “science”, the other stake-holders in the debate (the rest of us) will no longer fear being called a “Troll” for speaking out. The so called “troll’s” view will be easily proved false, by the strength of the scientific evidence. I am still awaiting for that day, yet fear it is a long way off.

In the mean time anti-greens question “Is the theory of anthropogenic global warming good (AGW) science or not? Or is AGW a quasi religion?”

I suspect is going to find the answer lies more in the dogma which underpins religious power than in the truth of science.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 8 May 2008 1:26:40 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
The natural biosphere has an infinite capacity to absorb all the pollutants we put into it.

We can keep on pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without constraint for as long as we wish, and this will have no ill effects on atmospheric weather patterns.

Simple-minded people who say that fossil fuel emissions are harmful to the atmosphere are just like those alarmist scientists who try to persuade us that smoking causes cancer. They have a vested interest in making such outrageous claims. In time they will be disproved.

The human body has an infinite capacity to absorb pollutants, just as the planet we live on does.

So, there!
Posted by gecko, Thursday, 8 May 2008 1:54:42 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
Isnt Runner "living" proof that evolution doesnt exist?

Anyone who points to the laughable "answers" in genesis website for "proof" of anything is still "living" in the 1800's and/or in childish Sunday school fantasy world, surrounded by the Parental Diety.

And besides which to point to the "evidence" (or lack of) in natural processes, either in human cells or geological processes, as "proof" of God's existence, is ALREADY to have accepted the reductionist mortal meat-body paradigm.

It is to be infinitely GODLESS.

There are also quite literally hundreds of "creation" stories from every known culture, past and present. In a time of global inter-connectedness (especially via the internet) they are ALL our common inheritance.

And to thus insist that only one story is binding on everyone (which both Runner and Boaz do) is just an exercise in dim-witted "religious" and cultural provincialism.

The evolutionists who dismiss all religion are just as "guilty" of the same dim-witted provincialism.

It is also interesting to note that many (but not all) of those on the "right" who are "skeptics" re human activity caused climate change, are also either anti-evolution and/or advocates of dim-witted reductionist religiosity.

They tend to prattle on about the "green religion" having replaced the "religion" based on the "crucifix". Such arguments are just exercises in intellectual sloppiness and ignorance.

Such people can be found at the IPA. They even sponsor university chairs to promote the "skeptical" cause.

Dim-witted polemics.

Meanwhile this essay provide a completely different and very sophisticated understanding of the nature and purpose of "creation" stories.

1. http://www.dabase.org/creamyth.htm
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 8 May 2008 1:54:54 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
Why is it assumed that 'spin' comes only from the AGW-doubting camp? I see a good deal of spin in the pro-IPCC camp, in particular the indifference to perfectly good scientific papers which appear to cast doubt on the AGW thesis. I accept that there are spinners among the sceptics, too, but I think that we are seeing is a furious debate over who has 'authority'. The key issues in AGW are quite straightforward, but some within the IPCC camp seem to feel that only scientists should be listened to. Alas, there are many scientists who don't agree, and they are consequently labelled as 'sceptics', 'contrarians', 'deniers' and the like.

If the science were absolutely clearcut, we wouldn't be having these unending debates, and governments would already have acted. But the science seems to me to be full of uncertainty, and governments seem to be aware of this. An end to this tedious labelling and an acceptance that there is uncertainty would be a great start to a real debate.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 8 May 2008 2:04:00 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
Minister Ms Nicola Roxon advocates more than just spin, by taking the time to listen to good practical-Science in her governments new HEALTH REFORMS.

I hear a renewal on "CIVIC WELLBEING" . A government helping us to uplift our nations pathway, toward better community health.

I hear Alma Ata (Health for ALL) through Preventive Health underlying these new Health reform strategies.

Cooperation between Health staff (breaking down dead-locks-and-silo cultures) through the community inclusive policies, that will assist ALL scientific to knowledge share.

I hear Community finally is to be included in the reforms.

Today's suggestion that in Health Provisions, and "social inclusive" issues of wider "community engagement" are going to be realised by the Federal Government while Hospitals care general structures are to be delivered between the States, will go a long way to help administrations problem solve. This will help further to integrate other federal policies that at present are misunderstood between various departments.

Yahoo - What a "break-through". Something real to work with. A great first start.

Ms Anna Bligh's agreement is a total relief to hear.

Politics is part of every-day life, and while I understand and feel frustrated when good evidence or researched information is suppressed or denied, I wish to remind us everywhere that (good) politics is important in discussing and emancipating the things we need to see, hear, understand and action in our everyday life.

What is good in the recent Health debate is that there is some well earned acceptance of a the need for a cross-over between science and the practical economic sustainable issues. Engaging individuals within community through policies that are inclusive of the social-economic-cultural environment will integrate long-term saving that are more sustainable, contributing to better health.

One only needs to think more about the impact of youth homelessness, Aging... Disabilities and Mental Health to understand Roxon's intent.

Australian got to speak loudly last night on Australia Talks (link below)

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/stories/2008/2235668.htm

It is rewarding to hear the common sense can work with science and that an attempt for balance addressed.

http://www.miacat.com/
.
Posted by miacat, Thursday, 8 May 2008 2:19:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've said this elsewhere as a follow-up to this opinion piece, but it is worth repeating here for completeness.

The issue I have with many "sceptics" is not at all that they are sceptical (that is a healthy part of science). It is that they use their qualifications or position, or cherry-picked information, as the primary or sole justification for refuting evidence. The most notorious choose to take what I have seen colourfully referred to as the "la la la la, we can't hear you" approach to serious scientific rebuttals. To argue [as a previous poster, Don Aitken, did recently] that the atmosphere is simply too large a domain for us to ever understand, is tantamount to anti-intellectualism (though in a quite different vein to the deliberate spreading of disinformation or incomplete explanations), because it flippantly ignores over a century of scientific progress, hard-won accumulation of empirical evidence, and model-based evaluation on this very issue. This includes predictions of warming made decades before it happened (that is, validation), and multiple strands of constantly updated theory and data that point clearly in the direction of global warming and the mechanisms for it. In some senses, the standard contrarian approach strikes me as an attempt to use Platonic inductive logic to trump evidence-based science and scientific hypothesis testing (sensu lato).

continued next post...
Posted by Barry Brook, Thursday, 8 May 2008 2:26:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In my Opinion Piece printed above, I deliberately didn't mention consensus or "settled science" in my opinion article because it is certainly not the point. Consensus is simply an emergent property of strong, consistent evidence and lack of credible or verifiable contradictory evidence or theory. It cannot be shattered, but neither is it immobile. It shifts its bulk as the evidence accumulates. I acknowledge that it is slow to change. New ideas, sometimes radical ideas, that are backed up by new evidence are actually the grist of good science, and are readily debated in all fields of scientific endeavour (I would refer you to Fred Pearce's "With Speed and Violence" book for an excellent overview of many of these, especially with respect to paleo evidence for abrupt climate change due, in all likelihood, to very strong positive feedbacks). Uncertainty about processes, mechanisms and deterministic versus stochastic and chaotic influences are a constant source of debate (that is the debate going on every day in scientific journals and conferences).

As such, I do not consider many 'sceptical' scientists who argue over relative values of radiative forcing of solar, clouds, and long lived greenhouses gases, or strengths of feedbacks, as deniers or anti-intellectual. People such as John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Christopher Landsea, Henrik Svensmark, Bjorn Lomborg, etc. unduly (in my view) play down the importance of climate change or the importance of long-lived greenhouse gas forcing and amplifying feedbacks, but at least they publish on climatology or related disciplines and are willing to engage on academic terms, which was exactly my point - this is what they should be doing - subjecting their ideas to rigorous scrutiny and scientific debate. There are many in the field of conservation biology who consider climate change impacts to be a distraction given other pressing threats to biodiversity. Again, I choose to differ strongly in my interpretation of the threats, but that is a matter of scientific interpretation. Not spin.

continued in another post when the forum next allows...
Posted by Barry Brook, Thursday, 8 May 2008 2:27:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Attention all denialists and alarmists. Please read the following quote.

"The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."

What is the source; a rabid climate alarmist blogger? No, a US Weather Bureau report written in 1922! What goes around comes around.

Remember, when we are all paying more for our energy and food, and once again widespread famines are common as more and more food crops are turned into biofuels (much more profitable for the agricorps), is it possible that the alarmists might just concede an inch that perhaps they should have taken a more objective look at the incomplete climate models and those who proffer them. Then we might be able to deal with our environmental problems by considering how to reduce our ecological footprint.
Posted by Raredog, Thursday, 8 May 2008 2:34:05 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
Barry Brook wrote:

"Scientists should beware of feeding trolls by engaging them on their terms. Instead be strong, well-informed advocates for good science! Don’t think that it is enough to be merely passive bystanders. Good science alone invariably wins these silly debates, but usually not before denialist spin does much damage."

Good science does not invariably win if winning means convincing the audience. One can be good scientist advancing one's thesis with rigour but not be as skilled in debating techniques as the denialist.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 8 May 2008 2:43:08 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
don aitkin, you write:

"If the science were absolutely clearcut, we wouldn't be having these unending debates, and governments would already have acted."

i think this is exactly the point of the article. sometimes the science IS exactly clearcut but still it doesn't end public debate. such is unarguably the case with evolution. there is no serious debate amongst practising scientists over the fundamental fact of evolution. nonetheless, religiously inspired obfuscation ensures that we continue to have a public evolution/creation debate. (i hope everyone will forgive me for ensuring we get a couple more thrilling posts from runner).

of course that does not mean the existence of public debate should simply be ignored, or proscribed (col rouge, who even suggested this?). it does not mean the same disconnect exists with the debate over AGW. the case has to be made.

what i think it means is that the existence and the nature of the public debate does not necessarily reflect the nature or the depth or the seriousness of the debate amongst practising scientists. and, people confuse the one for the other.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 8 May 2008 2:49:47 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
My problem is that as a non-scientist, I have difficulty knowing who is credible and who is not in the global warming debate. Some 'trolls' are easy to spot, but I suspect the good ones are less evident. Any advice? Perhaps the OLO moderator could flag the credible posts for me. ;)
Posted by Candide, Thursday, 8 May 2008 4:01:22 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
Article is an expansive ad hom attack, hence illogical.

Agreement does not a fact make. The apparent expertise/authority of an offering confers nothing upon intellectual merit. Appeal to authority/expertise is another logical fallacy, ergo anti-intellectual.

Logic and reason are integral to good science. The article fails its advocated standards.

True science doesnt hold fast to a theoretical view, nor advocacy, its about being intellectually open to exploration, until PROOF is established, asking questions and never resting until it has PROOF. It questions the theories, all of them, all the time. It requires rigourous, un-emotional inquiry without psychological/personal attachment to lines of inquiry or outcomes. In fact questioniong a theory is integral to a rigourous testing and development of that theory. That a scientist has a problem with this is odd.

Dismissing so-called anti-intellectuals without regard to logically correct rationale (cornerstone of science) is not intellectual. Together with the fact that the article takes a contrary position to the contrarians (as opposed to their message), makes for fantastic irony.

Rational and intellectual appraoch would be to drop the thinly veiled diatribes, emotive projections and personal characterisations, speaking exclusively to the INTELLECTUAL substance of a position. In short, play the ball.

'Good' science arises from continuously challenging theories, eventually yielding correct understanding. The latter is a miniscule proportion of the former. The vast majority of theoretical offerings dont pan out and are essentially marginal, at best. The trial and error approach is integral to inquiry. Science history is replete with contrary camps. Its also underscored by contrarian trail blazers who conceptualise the new paradigms required to calrify, discover and invent.

Of course, they thought Columbus and Galileo were contrarian fools.

Leveling veiled insults of people with different views, like 'denialist', with its thinly veiled and plausibly deniable allusions to a gratuitous historical event is not intellectual rigour, quite the contrary. Its cowardice. Its emotionally and psychologically manipulative, irrational and betrays any pretension to 'good' scientific method.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 8 May 2008 4:26:48 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
There is no proof gravity exists. Ergo: it's a big fib.

In any normal society people would laugh at such an assumption, but not on OLO!
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 8 May 2008 6:17:19 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
Trade215 wrote:

"True science doesnt hold fast to a theoretical view, nor advocacy, its about being intellectually open to exploration, until PROOF is established, asking questions and never resting until it has PROOF. It questions the theories, all of them, all the time. It requires rigourous, un-emotional inquiry without psychological/personal attachment to lines of inquiry or outcomes. In fact questioniong a theory is integral to a rigourous testing and development of that theory. That a scientist has a problem with this is odd."

In science proof is never established we merely have plausible explanations which can be overthrown by new evidence or new insights. Newton's laws of motion were unchallenged until the twentieth century when they proved to be a special case of relativity where the velocity of moving bodies was much less than the velocity of light, and the warp in space-time was too small to be detected.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 8 May 2008 6:44:28 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
david f wrote;

"In science proof is never established we merely have plausible explanations which can be overthrown by new evidence or new insights."

Thusly you have defined proof.

If you are saying there is no objectivity, thus no inherent proofs, then l agree. All things are causal and conditional.

"Newton's laws of motion were unchallenged until the twentieth century when they proved to be a special case of..."

Hence, that which was plausably explained was subsumed by new knowledge. This l would call proof or if you prefer... proved.

l would suggest that proof is subject to the conditions of the environment in which it arises, namely consciousness. Consciousness may be possibly defined as subjective (the subject who possesses it), propelled by experience (the basis of knowing and knowledge). As experience and knowledge (consciousness) operate on a coninuous feedback loop, its 'proofs' are in a persistent state of flux or evolution.

Still they are established, the just dont last, like everything.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 8 May 2008 9:17:15 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
Thanks runner for the link to 'answers in Genesis'. I read it with an open mind as you suggested and noted the writer's interpretation of the data. The data shows that superbugs mutate to become antibiotic resistant, but the same mutations also cause a decrease in the superbugs' metabolic efficiency. That is the data on which we agree.

The writer believes this data demolishes evolutionary theory because the adaptations to the hospital environment are maladaptive in other ways. This view is based on the radical misunderstanding or misrepresentation that evolutionary theory requires organisms to adapt perfectly. It does no such thing. When a scientists misrepresents a theory and then use it to misinterpret data, it is a good example of the 'perversion of scientific debate' that Professor Brooks referred to.

Using the writer's logic, polar bears are also "proof" that evolutionary theory fails, since their adaptations to the arctic environment are hopeless for living at the equator. Well, polar bears don't live at the equator, and superbugs don't live outside hospitals.

Because the data shows organisms adapting, albeit imperfectly, to their environment, it supports the predictions of evolutionary theory. The superbugs do better in the antibiotic-saturated hospital environment. Outside the hospitals, regular bugs do better because of their more efficient metabolism that doesn't have antibiotic resistance.

Evolutionary theory entails that mutations are hit-and-miss affairs which may or may not result in benefits. The only reason we get the incredibly complex organisms we see is because so many mutations are churned out, and they are "saved up" down the generations. We have seen that long-dormant genes can 'switch on' again in response to environmental changes - even within a single generation. All part and parcel of the happenstance of mutation and natural selection, which are two things that the writer supports and affirms in the article.

In fact, the data raises more problems for proponents of intelligent design, since it's hardly intelligent design to give one feature while decreasing the efficiency of another essential one.
Posted by Mercurius, Friday, 9 May 2008 2:09:53 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
Barry Brook has misquoted me. I have not said that we will never understand climate. My exact words were these: 'it seems to me that we barely understand ‘climate’. It is too vast a domain. Satellites have given us a real sense of the movement of weather systems around the planet, and they are portrayed every night on the TV news, but we still know very little about the oceans, one of the crucial elements in climate processes, not much more about the atmosphere, another such element, a little about solar energy and the effect of the sun’s magnetic field on earth, and only a little about the land. The earth is a big place. We have only just begun to put these huge elements together, and have yet to develop a ‘science’ that does so satisfactorily.... as I see it, ‘climate science’ is most usefully seen as a developing area, with a great deal still to be done before it is agreed that we know what we are talking about.' I stick by those words.

And I give only two cheers for 'peer review', because it is a domain I know very well. It supports orthodoxy, other things being equal, and AGW is current orthodoxy. It seems, put simply, hard for anti-AGW scientists to get their work published in most journals, but quite easy for cofnirming articles to get published. That is par for the course in every displine: orthodoxy wins most times.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Friday, 9 May 2008 7:54:30 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
Trolls exist on both sides of the global warming argument. On one side are those who deny it. On the other are those who say "the argument is over, the science is settled". Flip sides of the same coin.

Barry Brooks, implicitly if not explicitly, argues for the latter.

There are many different factors to be considered, what is dangerous are the trolls on both sides. Algorians demand that we accept a whole package, and brand us as trolls if we don't. Science demands that we continue to debate each issue, not just the "whole package" as demanded by politicians and troll "scientists".

Good science surely requires vigorous continuing investigation and debate of the multitude of factors involved, and in this context Brook's article is of little value.
Posted by Anamele, Friday, 9 May 2008 9:59:55 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
Trade215 “Article is an expansive ad hom attack, hence illogical.”

Well said, I agree with trade215.

David f “In science proof is never established we merely have plausible explanations which can be overthrown by new evidence or new insights.”

If that is the case, all “science” is really “art”, where sometimes “impressions, opinion and conjecture” substitute for truth.

Certainly, the supposed science of climate change modelling is pure “art” based on theories of consequences and effects and using samples the significance of which is ponderable / disputable.

Somehow, making predictions about the future of our climate on a process which is subjective suffers the variability of other arts, where the same woman is painted by a cubist, impressionist, realist or presented in any other manner. The outcome of the artistic analysis is as variable as the painter chooses and that not a good basis for deciding what the future may hold.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 9 May 2008 11:01:24 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
Reason is crucial to clear communication. Its very nature is connected to the concept of language and in this respect, if we believe in the importance of the human desire to communicate, we have to believe in reason. We have now a communications medium like the internet that is unlike others that were one to many forms. The internet is communications many to many. I find this truly significant.

The Enlightenment we understood as a struggle in the name of reason, against tyranny, superstition and inequity, and here I feel we are seeing our new enlightenment, the 360 degrees of an infinite meta-narrative with its global network of moderators and always connected, hopefully helping us to a better understanding of science.

However there still persists a priest class that promotes this belief in a finite, expanding universe, a la the big bang cosmological nonsense model. Now that is belief in belief or religion which generally builds down from some anthropic principle using deduction. Of course even though billions is spent, we simply do not find one skerrick of deductive evidence for a finite gravity only universe. It is not hard to see AGW alarmism similarly.
e.g.
All the people involved with the bigbang nonsense and AGW are not about DISCOVERY but are involved in an outcome directed pseudo science trying to force/fudge raw data to conform to something that is expected to be seen. I believe that good scientific knowledge is learned, by studying those things that do not fit what you expected. i.e. WHY this particular data set is not conforming to the conventional theories or .... gosh that's funny peculiar.
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 9 May 2008 11:09:12 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
Another good example of the ‘perversion of scientific debate’ to which Professor Brooks referred is the idea that evolutionary theory refutes God’s existence. Many atheists have suggested this, and so they provoked the intellectual cul-de-sac of intelligent design.

This is all so unnecessary. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about God. It’s a scientific theory. It does not speculate about spiritual questions. If people insist on interpreting the science as being evidence for or against the existence of God, then such interpretations are by definition unscientific.

My advice to intelligent design proponents: stop pretending that biological sciences have anything to do with God and just get on with being scientists. Or go and be priests. When you try to do both, you debase both scientific and theological knowledge.

If you want to have an intelligent conversation, let’s talk about God. Or science. They’re both important and useful discussions. But not together. That way lies madness. Let’s play along for sh**s and giggles and you’ll see what I mean:

Can anyone tell me what is so intelligent about the design of a human that:

a) Lives for three-score years and ten, but whose teeth only last 35, eyesight 45, hearing 55 and knees 65 years?
b) Has a spine that is poorly suited to bipedal walking, but is well-suited to walking on all fours, or swinging through trees, and which compresses the lumbar discs to the point that they fail?
c) Has such a narrow birth canal that women frequently die in childbirth under natural conditions? A 200-pound gorilla female bears a 5-pound baby, whereas a 120-pound human female has to squeeze out an 8-9 pound whopper.
d) Has a digestive appendix that serves no purpose and which harbours so many bacteria that it frequently becomes fatally infected unless surgically removed?

And are there any ‘Answers in Genesis’ as to why God blessed the children of father-daughter incest? (Genesis 19:30-38). It’s not a good look to have your intelligent designer pimping for Josef Fritzl.
Posted by Mercurius, Friday, 9 May 2008 12:04:01 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
Outstanding post at 2.09, Mercurius. Eventually you'll stop trying to reason with runner - he's wrapped up in fundamentalist death anxiety and can't come out - but it's a good one to refer to for the next (inevitable) assault on civilisation by fundamentalist quasi-scientists.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 9 May 2008 1:51:03 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
Candide, you ask who is credible on AGW or generally on science, or how to determine this? That's a very very good question. I have thoughts on this, but i'll leave off answering for now. as long as barry brook is defending/clarifying his post (largely in response to silly interpretations), i think it's best just to pay attention to his offerings. i presume one thing is clear to you: those who bluster the most are going to inform you the least.

davidf, i know you're fully occupied with other posters, but a quick comment. you write:

"Good science does not invariably win if winning means convincing the audience. One can be good scientist advancing one's thesis with rigour but not be as skilled in debating techniques as the denialist."

obviously this i true, but i have little sympathy with the scientific community in this regard. if they want to educate the community about scientific method, to convince people of the true state of play on a given issue, then they should stop whining and get their hands dirty and go engage with the public. (which is pretty much what brook's article is calling for).

if truth and integrity and the weight of numbers are on the scientists' side (and i believe they usually are), these are powerful weapons: a few hucksters and a few less than principled media men should be no threat whatsoever. i chalk up any failure to arrogance and laziness.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 9 May 2008 3:38:09 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
I wrote "In science proof is never established we merely have plausible explanations which can be overthrown by new evidence or new insights."

trade215 wrote:

"Thusly you have defined proof."

Writing that proof is not established in science is not defining proof. A plausible explanation is not a proof.

trade215 also wrote:

"If you are saying there is no objectivity, thus no inherent proofs, then l agree. All things are causal and conditional."

I don't appreciate your statements being put in my mouth. Proof is hard edged and is completely objective. It does not exist in experimental science, but it exists in mathematics.

trade215 also wrote:

"l would suggest that proof is subject to the conditions of the environment in which it arises, namely consciousness. Consciousness may be possibly defined as subjective (the subject who possesses it), propelled by experience (the basis of knowing and knowledge). As experience and knowledge (consciousness) operate on a coninuous feedback loop, its 'proofs' are in a persistent state of flux or evolution."

I find your suggestion unacceptable. Proof is a determination of validity in all cases. It is not in a state of flux or dependent on consciousness. It exists in mathematics, Fermat's theorem has been proven and was not dependent on the consciousness of the person who proved it or the environment in which it has been proven. It proceeded by a series of logical steps from the basic premises.

Hypotheses validated by experimental results which are reproducible independently of the state of consciousness of the experimenter or the environment characterise experimental science. The only relevant part of the environment is the experimental parameters. Your definition is New Age rather than science. Validity is determined by reproducible results. If an experiment does not yield reproducible results and the procedure is not faulty the hypothesis is invalid and must be abandoned.

Your definition of proof makes proof like a will of the wisp.

You may define terms any way you like, but your definition of 'proof' is not related to any definition I understand as proof.
Posted by david f, Friday, 9 May 2008 5:09:19 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
Anamele, you clearly didn't read my follow up posts, esp. the 2nd one.

Don Aitken, my point holds - you dismiss over a century of progress with a wave of your finger over your keyboard. "we barely understand ‘climate’. It is too vast a domain" - barely understand relative to what? The world is riddled with complex systems for which we have incomplete understanding, but sufficient grasp of (and evidence for processes) to make informed conjecture about cause and effect - and hence (in this context) predictions of response to climate forcing. I maintain that your stand is but one step away from anti-science, because progress in any field can conveniently be characterised as mostly incomplete and therefore unreliable. Following this logic, you'd best switch off that electronic device you are typing on - after all, we really actually understand so little about the quantum dynamics of the circuit board and the behaviour of those electrons.

Time will tell for global warming in one sense - evidence will continue to accumulate, uncertainties will continue to be examined and debated, CO2 will continue to build. Unexpected things may happen that either amplify or negate the change (models suggest the former is more likely, but models are simply caricatures of our understanding of the real world, and are therefore always limited and simplified). An expectation of absolute proof on the other hand is not science. In only the most trivial issues can there ever be proof. The issue of global risk management of the Earth System will be heightened whilst more and more uncertainties are ironed out, or refuted, or re-formulated.

The concern is that at some point - perhaps soon - positive feedbacks and hysteresis takes the problem forever out of our hands. At that point, there is no chance for re-evaluation of policy or reparations via drastic counter-action. That is what is meant when it is said that we are are running out of time. How long are we willing to "risk it" before we take some serious insurance? That is the core argument for current policy, nationally and globally.
Posted by Barry Brook, Friday, 9 May 2008 5:35:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Three items have predominated on this string - the Big-Bang, AGW (anthropogenic global warming) and evolution. Most scientific opinion favours the Big-Bang. Fred Hoyle coined the term 'Big Bang' seeking to belittle the theory. However, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964 was taken as almost undeniable support for the Big Bang. Whether we accept it or not it will make little difference in our lives. I lack the knowledge to judge whether it is a valid theory or not.

I regard AGW as a bad term. It is bad because it ignores other anthropogenic effects of changing atmospheric conditions. One effect is increasing acidification of the oceans due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air. The ocean absorbs carbon dioxide at a greater rate due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air. Carbon dioxide together with water molecules forms carbonic acid which makes the ocean more acidic. Most if not all life in the ocean finds it more difficult and sometimes impossible to live with lower ph levels. Food production to a large extent is dependent on plant fertilization by bees. In the US in many places bee colonies have been dying out. Apparently this is due to increasing air pollution which interferes with bees' keen sense of smell and cuts down the range in which they can detect flowers. Whether AGW is a valid concept or not we need to curb emissions since they interfere with food production on land and on sea. With increasing global population we need to curb emissions. Increasing population is another issue.

Evolution is a fact. The disappearance of species and the emergence of new species is shown by the evidence of fossils. Darwinian theory is the only reasonable theory to show how this process has come about. Even if Darwinian theory could be disproved evolution would remain a fact. However, if we discarded Darwinian theory we would have to discard much of the biological, medical and geologic sciences which support and are supported by Darwinian theory.
Posted by david f, Friday, 9 May 2008 7:17:40 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
Candide,

for authoritative sources on GW or any scientific matter see only reputable sources - government, scientific, educational. Their subscription magazines are often hard to find but many have accessible websites. As to what you decide once you've read it - well, it's a bit like Fox News. "We report - you decide". Where 99% of scientific research concurs, go with it.

A lot of people are scientifically illiterate. That's OK as long as they don't encourage ignorance among others. Regards trolls, there are some articles on this thread that illustrate quite nicely the point the author is trying to make. Can you pick them?
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 10 May 2008 10:41:34 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
david f,

no offence intended. Wasnt trying to misrepresent. l made an assumption, my bad.

Ok, how about abstract proofs like mathematics. They are self referential circular proofs that are, so far established, without transience.

1+1=2. This bounded conceptualisation (an object) and that other one can be seen as a new concept (a total).

That equation is both a self referentially established proof and also establishes a proof for a conceptual process of consciousness.
Posted by trade215, Saturday, 10 May 2008 3:38:48 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
ps. these notions being advanced are done under a free-flowing, open ended conceptual process as advanced by Bohms Dialogue. As flawed as the attempt may be. Which is a good way of redressing things like "You may define terms any way you like, but your definition of 'proof' is not related to any definition I understand as proof." lm not trying to define proof, nor dictate what the word points to, lm trying to understand it. Anyway, l dont wanna argue nor ridicule conceptual frameworks here. And l most certainly dont wanna have to submit to the perceptual dictates and processes of the competitively self appointed high priests of consciousness, whatever their flavour.
Posted by trade215, Saturday, 10 May 2008 3:57:38 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
David f, it is interesting to note these important themes, the Big-Bang, AGW and evolution appearing in this thread. Whilst i disagree with the Big Bang nonsense i also disagree with your comment that "it will make little difference in our lives". Isn't this actually the question pertaining to all questions and the problem that really prepossesses all others? We need to know where we came from, what are the limits, what are our goals, to what do we tend to, to what do we have control over, to what are the possibilities, to what is determinable and to how much we desire the indeterminable. These three themes are linked and provide the building blocks for so many other scientific disciplines. The persistence of the BB nonsense hypothesis simply seems to add to the inertia against change where any new approach will require a reassessment in most if not all scientific disciplines.

I must say when i first heard of the BB hypothesis as a thirteen year old some fifty years ago, i felt it to be fictional because even if there was a state of nothingness (which is illogical anyway) prior to the BB fireworks the question remains ..... how can you get something from nothing? Also if it is expanding then what is it expanding into ..... itself?

Also it is interesting to note, all without reference to any Big Bang cosmology, the following ... In 1896, Charles Edouard Guillaume predicted a temperature of 5.6K from heating by starlight. Arthur Eddington refined the calculations in 1926 and predicted a temperature of 3K. Eric Regener predicted 2.8 in 1933.
Posted by Keiran, Saturday, 10 May 2008 5:38:25 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
Keiran wrote:

"David f, it is interesting to note these important themes, the Big-Bang, AGW and evolution appearing in this thread. Whilst i disagree with the Big Bang nonsense i also disagree with your comment that "it will make little difference in our lives". Isn't this actually the question pertaining to all questions and the problem that really prepossesses all others?"

I sense in you a thirst for knowledge which is an admirable quality. You don't accept the Big Bang. If you did accept it what difference would it make in your life?

Our cosmic origins are the beginning of all that exists. I disagree that it makes the key question. It still remains one of many questions. Apparently most if not all human societies have considered it and have their own creation myths. The bible contains the creation myth of the Hebrew tribes. There is no more reason to accept that than to accept any other creation myth.

I neither accept nor reject Big-Bang since I have not evaluated the evidence on which it is based. Having taught physics at a graduate level I am qualified to weigh the evidence, but I don't want to spend the time. Other matters seem to me more important.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 10 May 2008 7:08:06 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
David f, just continuing on with this thread about honest science.

Take Gamow's predictions with reference to the Big Bang, ranged from 50K to 6 K. Other big bangers had very high predictions too but when the COBE satellite measured it to be only 2.7K, astonishingly all the Big Bang proponents claimed victory. This is astonishing because the Big Bang proponents had NO reasonable degree of accuracy. Plus 2.7K was what was always understood as normal without reference to any Big Bang cosmology.

However, in 2006 the Nobel Prize in Physics, was shared between Smoot and Mather. Mather who is at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center writes big bang lies like .........
"The cosmic microwave background (CMB) spectrum is that of a nearly perfect blackbody with a temperature of 2.725 +/- 0.001K. This observation matches the predictions of the hot Big Bang theory extraordinarily well, and indicates that nearly all of the radiant energy of the Universe was released within the first year after the Big Bang."

ALSO. Dr James E Hansen is director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies and he in fact wrote his doctoral thesis on the climate of Venus highlighting CO2 as a problem that caused a runaway Greenhouse effect which is all bogus. But with AGW we see Hansen's incorrect assumption in all its glory expressed as the deductive method chasing and distorting data to make it fit.

You say how does it all effect my life ...... well perhaps we wouldn't be having this discussion on AGW and pseudo-science for starters.
Posted by Keiran, Sunday, 11 May 2008 10:55:07 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
Barry Brooks, as I said a few days ago, it's not all about non-climate scientists trespassing on your domain, it's about AGWers depending on statistical methods and econometric modelling which have been irrefutably shown by experts in those fields to be wrong. By your own criteria, you should be deferring to their expertise, not ignoring ("denying"?) them. Have you read the C-H and related critiques and the IPCC's non-response? As someone who has directed economic modelling of the economic impacts of global warming (I first proposed such a study in 1990), I still await your response.

("Irrefutably"? I sound like a global warming advocate! But I have seen no reasoned response to the criticisms.)
Posted by Faustino, Sunday, 11 May 2008 3:54:30 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
Don,

In reading your most recent response to Barry, at what point in time do you think the scientific community overturned the then prevailing orthodoxy to what we have today? And, being a political scientist, do you think the major hurdle in ‘dealing with climate change’ is more to do with politics and economics, rather than the science itself?

Barry,

You say “active and forthright public communication of science is not only an obligation of scientists, but a critical necessity.” Admirable, but this is easier said than done. The ‘run-of the-mill’ scientists just want to do their job, maybe publish their work (in the appropriate journals for their peers to critique) and otherwise live a normal life.

You know there are a lot of ‘internet armchair pseudo-scientists’ out there who don’t understand the scientific process (let alone the nuances of the science). They intentionally (or not) misrepresent or distort the science. This can be very confusing for the casual observer.

Is it not better to explain the science to the masses by the scientific bodies, institutions or academies that represent the scientists’ science? I am sure these bodies can employ real science journalists to explain the implications in lay terms.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 11 May 2008 6:35:01 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
for Q&A: Two interesting questions, and I'm not sure of the right response to the first. We have orthodoxy in re AGW today because the IPCC was set up by governments to provide answers to human-induced global warming, and it has provided, if not answers, then 'forecasts'. Before about 1988, as far as I can see, the AGW question was not central to governments, and while it still isn't central, it has become an important political issue at the level of the electorate, which forces governments to at least appear to do something and to say the right things. What has happened in the UK recently suggests that the electorate there is not prepared to forego heat and mobility in the interests of abating greenhouse gas emissions, and my guess is that the Australian eelctorate would be pretty similar, if pushed to the test.

Your second question follows naturally. If the science really were settled, then governments would be in a very strong position to say, without risk of instant and respectable disagreement, that AGW was so important that we would all have to pull our belts in. But Treasuries and Finance departments the world over will fight to the end to prevent the reduction in economic growth that would most likely flow from serious carbon taxing. Are you out of your minds? Do you really want to become the next Opposition? would be the questions sent to Cabinet (much more politely, naturally). But to me the science isn't settled. It's conjectural, argumentative, and open to question.

I hope that helps.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Sunday, 11 May 2008 10:14:31 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
"The science is settled ! So there !"

They say that if you tell a big enough lie loudly and often enough
then everyone will believe it.

The fact is the the science is NOT settled as this debate illustrates
but does not prove.

There is just too much argument by people in the science field for the
likes of me to accept that the science is settled.
It is not settled and to call people deniers is to insult them by
inferring its relationship to Nazi concentration camp deniers.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 12 May 2008 6:10:24 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
Does any one really understand the scientific process?

Popular media does not help:-
"A cure for cancer"
Well, after we have isolated the relevant genome/chemical and given 100M for clinical trials.
This sort of academic press release does not help.

(Although it might help funding to the authors of the press release)

Better to go to the Hillsong/Church meeting and give my money to them
After all it is God who cures.
Posted by michael2, Monday, 12 May 2008 7:45:00 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
Brook starts is article by saying, “Don’t feed the trolls.”

So far 47 of us have fed into his drivel. Allow me to me the next.

My experience of OLO is that the response in number of comments an article gets is not proportionate to its quality. More often the other way round, as the author makes silly comments that are easy to contend with, or just tick people off. I often wonder whether OLO deliberately selects bad articles as it increases participation levels.

In his second paragraph, Brooks takes a cheap pot shot at creationists without in the least way giving any back up explanation or any supporting evidence as to why he thinks they belong in the troll category. He gives no reason to think that he’s ever met a creationist, engaged in one of their arguments, or even looked up the word in the dictionary.

The gist of his ‘article’ is that we should be adhering to ‘good science’ and ignoring the ‘bad’. So how does he define ‘good science’? Well, it’s pretty much defined as anything that Brooks agrees with.

Here’s a Brooks howler, “Good science gradually emerges from the pack.” Really? That’s almost as ingenuous as saying whatever is the popular consensus must be true. Even Bennie is advocating we go with the 99%. Listen, Bennie (if you were serious), in science, and also in life in general, sometimes the 1% who are willing to go against the flow are found to be correct.

Try this one on, “Science has little top-down control on what should and should not be investigated.” Let’s look at the example of the Big Bang. The control over this pet theory is so strong that leading astronomers released a statement, published in New Scientist, May 2004,
http://www.cosmologystatement.org

which says in part, “… young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. Even observations are now interpreted through this filter …”
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 7:23:06 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
Don, appreciate your reply.

It does take time for the scientific community to overturn orthodoxy. Indeed, AGW theory ‘developed’ from the late 1800s (countering about 70 years of prevailing orthodoxy) until as you say, governments worldwide started to take notice. I agree with Barry when he says “some people will attempt to hijack science for political or ideological reasons” – we will see just how much governments and vested interest groups hijack the UNFCCC and IPCC process leading up to Copenhagen.

Nevertheless, science is not politics and yes, ‘climate change’ isn’t central to government thinking. In my opinion, all governments/nation states should focus more on sustainable development. However, this would require a paradigm shift and my guess, like yours, is that dealing with the issues of climate change will take some people (and treasuries and finance departments) out of their comfort zones.

Of course there is more science to conduct, particularly in climate sensitivity and attribution studies. However, there is a preponderance of evidence (due in large part to the immense strides we have made and are making in science & technology) that robustly supports the theory of human-induced global warming … but, this is NOT to say it can’t be refuted. Any individual, group or organisation that knocks AGW out of orthodoxy will become rich, famous and be treated like modern day Messiahs. They will be able to save the world from the huge costs predicted if even the most conservative of the SRES pans out to be true.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 8:50:57 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
for Q&A: I am for sustainable development, and opposed to what I see as the unthinking belief that growth (of the economy, or population) is somehow the ultimate good. To me, 'climate change' is a fact of existence. I am well aware of the ways in which climate change has affected the shape of human history. 'AGW' is not the same thing. Our governments should be alert to climate change, sensitive to its implications, factor it in to their long-term goals (always assuming that they have any), and act with due diligence towards the people. They should, for example, point out that floods are likely in that area, and that building houses there is bad. They should, as Goyder did in South Australia, indicate the danger of growing wheat in areas of unreliable rainfall.

They should act with even more diligence with respect to AGW. It seems to me that there is abundant disagreement about it, at every level of the proposition. Nothing whatever that our government can do will make more than a trivial effect on global climate, even supposing that AGW is correct in every IPCC particular. What then? We are constantly being offered black/white, true/false alternatives. I think there is a huge grey and uncertain area between the choices. I would like to see that area explored, openly and publicly.

Finally, I accept that Professor Brooks sees the world as he does. It would be odd if he did not, given his position, though he might be more temperate in what he says. Likewise I would expect ministers and public servants in the environmental domain to be loud in their convictions that what they want is correct and must be done now. But I am simply a social scientist who thinks that climate change is an important area, and that we should move past what 'authorities' say, because they have an obvious interest in the outcome.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 10:39:07 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
Don,

You say, “nothing whatever that our government can do will make more than a trivial effect on global climate.” I would go further, even if AGW is NOT “correct in every IPCC particular”, it would require ALL signatories of the UNFCCC to play ball. This is the difficulty we have been experiencing; this is where politics, economics and social differentiation play one off against the other (black/white, true/false … right/wrong, conservative/liberal, us/them, etc). Unless all players agree by the rules (that they are trying to formulate for post 2012) we may as well all ‘spit the dummy,’ pick up our individual balls, go home and put our blinkers on in our own little corner of the globe.

It is a huge task that the UNFCCC is trying to do, and no doubt is a mine-field for political or social scientists like you. But do it they must if the collective wisdom of the world sees AGW as a real threat to world stability – energy supplies, food/water resources, national security, biodiversity, etc.

I don’t think there is abundant disagreement about AGW. It is my belief there are ‘alarmists’ on both sides – the outliers, and the distribution curve of scientists that concur with AGW to those that don’t is heavily skewed to the former. It is true that there is some debate in scientific circles about attribution, sensitivity and feedbacks, but these are nuances that in time will be resolved. There are some genuine sceptics (in the scientific sense) whom I admire and wish well in breaking down the orthodoxy of AGW, but they have not been able to do that – time will tell.

We all have an obvious interest in the outcome. My sincere but as yet unanswered question to Barry (we are all busy) alluded to how scientists disseminate their knowledge to the public (while maintaining a semblance of normality) without the political dogma that many people perceive to be inculcated within the IPCC.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 4:58:45 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
Q&A: My last for this thread. I spent most of my working life in the research domain. My reading of what I have encountered in re AGW is that the natural sciences are much more given to 'authority' than are the humanities and social sciences. The curve you refer to seems to me built on that 'authority'. Quite a lot of scientists have written to me supporting what I say and agreeing that I have it about right. They include very highly regarded people indeed. Why don't they take a public stand? Well, that is not their culture. They don't support what, for example, the Academy of Science says, but they don't publicly deny it either, even if they are Fellows. For one thing, climate change 'is not their area' and they are wary of being seen as someone who strays outside his domain, in case they say something and can be shot down. I would argue that, on the evidence, much of the supposed 'consensus' fits comfortably inside this culture.

It seems to me very likely that the earth's temperature (ie average global temp) has been warming for the past 150 + years, and quite slowly. Just about everything else seems to me highly conjectural, and the closer we get to AGW the more conjectural it gets.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 10:43:44 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
Don, I acknowledge your background in research; you are a very respected, recognised and influential public figure, a man also given to authority. However, the debate is not about an appeal to authority, natural sciences vs humanities or social sciences. Put simply, I am not saying that something is true because experts agree - this is a logical fallacy.

What I am saying, and what my curve refers to, is that the vast majority of experts believe something because the vast majority of data supports that belief.

I appreciate that “a lot of scientists have written to you supporting what you say” and “include very highly regarded people.” However, it is not enough to say they don’t take a public stand because “it is not their culture” or “climate change is not their area.” It is not enough to say that “we don’t think this,” or “we don’t know that,” or “the models have flaws,” or “the IPCC have got it wrong”.

If your learned colleagues have serious doubts, they should investigate; if there is an alternate hypothesis, publish it; if there is a better model, run it; if there is something better than the IPCC process, let us hear it. To do otherwise amounts to blowing a smoke-screen at best or akin to distorting or misrepresenting the science at worse.

My last post as well. Thank you for engaging, I have enjoyed the dialogue and have gained further insight into the issues. I guess in a way, Barry has seen some fruition in his call to action; “Active and forthright public communication of science is not only an obligation of scientists, but a critical necessity. This is especially true for climate change and environmental sustainability.”

Regards
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 10:31:01 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. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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