Climategate

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Ad hominen attacks? Speak to his claim, if you will.

That ain't an ad hominen attack.

Okay, Sagan is speaking from a particular view on time and innovation. Namely, one that seeks human will and science as being primarily positive and progressive. If science's main benefit is that it always moves forward, then his claims are true. Unfortunately, he ignores human nature, politics, and ethical foundations.

Sagan is just a scientist. Scientists are not great men, their sciences are great. I'm reminded of Gulliver's Travels where Swift mocks the men of science who wield enormous power, control the heavens, but are unable to pleasure their wives.

[troutman]

Some scientists are great men/women. Some are not.

[CaptainCrunch]

The one thing that I really love about science is that the unassailable theory or position today becomes tommorrows junk science.

I was watching the discovery channel yesterday which was pretty much a dinosaur day, and all of the theories around dinosaurs from my days in school have been completely thrown out.

As the technology and math and measurements change so does everything else.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The one thing that I really love about science is that the unassailable theory or position today becomes tommorrows junk science.

I was watching the discovery channel yesterday which was pretty much a dinosaur day, and all of the theories around dinosaurs from my days in school have been completely thrown out.

As the technology and math and measurements change so does everything else.

You might enjoy this letter by Issac Asimov.

In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.
What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.
This can be pointed out in many cases other than just the shape of the earth. Even when a new theory seems to represent a revolution, it usually arises out of small refinements. If something more than a small refinement were needed, then the old theory would never have endured.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm

[yads]

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Think about it this way... If we can't forecast what the weather would exactly be like in a week what right do we have in saying what the climate will be in 100 years.

This is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Predicting climate and predicting weather are separate. It's easier predicting climate than weather, since climate is the average of all of the weather predictions.

We can't predict what the next coin flip will be, but we can predict what the distribution of flips will likely be over 1000 flips.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by yads

This is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Predicting climate and predicting weather are separate. It's easier predicting climate than weather, since climate is the average of all of the weather predictions.

We can't predict what the next coin flip will be, but we can predict what the distribution of flips will likely be over 1000 flips.

Don't tell that to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The one thing that I really love about science is that the unassailable theory or position today becomes tommorrows junk science.

I was watching the discovery channel yesterday which was pretty much a dinosaur day, and all of the theories around dinosaurs from my days in school have been completely thrown out.

As the technology and math and measurements change so does everything else.

Things change based on evidence.. just because someone sits back in their chair and from an ideologically motivated position with no evidence or work says "this is wrong" and then someday actually gets it right means nothing... at least nothing more than the fact a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I ask for specific emails or items which cause you to question the reliability of the science, and you respond with a general comment that things change and nothing to support that the reliability should be questioned.

In cases where I realize I do not have enough information to support a position, I decide to not have a position. I may have a leaning, a way I'd LIKE to think, but I realize this and try to make sure I don't actually form opinions and make decisions based only on my desire, or barring that be honest with myself that my opinion has very little foundation, and I may just be a stopped clock.

As Asimov points out, change in science more often than not means better and more accurate, not completely different.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Don't tell that to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

Pfft, they're dead anyway.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

Things change based on evidence.. just because someone sits back in their chair and from an ideologically motivated position with no evidence or work says "this is wrong" and then someday actually gets it right means nothing... at least nothing more than the fact a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I ask for specific emails or items which cause you to question the reliability of the science, and you respond with a general comment that things change and nothing to support that the reliability should be questioned.

In cases where I realize I do not have enough information to support a position, I decide to not have a position. I may have a leaning, a way I'd LIKE to think, but I realize this and try to make sure I don't actually form opinions and make decisions based only on my desire, or barring that be honest with myself that my opinion has very little foundation, and I may just be a stopped clock.

As Asimov points out, change in science more often than not means better and more accurate, not completely different.

Wow, I'm sitting at work, I don't have access to the emails, I didn't bring up my second point to support my first point. But to point to the generalities of science.

Since I don't get paid to research climate change at work, I'll just bow to your superior intellect.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wow, I'm sitting at work, I don't have access to the emails, I didn't bring up my second point to support my first point. But to point to the generalities of science.

Fair enough, but you do see though how your reply could be seen as a generic reply to a request for specifics don't you? How can I know "I'm busy but I'll get back to this later" was implicit in your reply? I can only reply to what's written...

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Since I don't get paid to research climate change at work, I'll just bow to your superior intellect.

Oh please, no need to get dramatic or use backhanded insults. I've been honest and straightforward with you and haven't been insulting to you, I don't think I deserve that. If I misinterpret what's posted, you could just tell me without being insulting.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The one thing that I really love about science is that the unassailable theory or position today becomes tommorrows junk science.

I was watching the discovery channel yesterday which was pretty much a dinosaur day, and all of the theories around dinosaurs from my days in school have been completely thrown out.

As the technology and math and measurements change so does everything else.

One thing that worries me when people scream "science" in this thread is that for how long has climatology been a "serious science" attracting the brighest minds? Two decades, three, four? Honestly?

But whatever the answer, I'm willing to bet climatology as a serious science is a lot "younger" than say theoretical physics. Now I am not an expert but I do like to read about astrophysics, quantum theory and what not. And also I am willing to bet these fields of science do attract smarter people than climatology does. Now to the point - one thing I noticed is that everytime a physicist speaks, he humbly admits that we still know very little about physics. No one is beating their chest screaming they have it all figured out.

Now Al Gore comes along with powerpoint slides of drowning polar bears and climatogy gets its 15 minutes of fame. And what do we hear about? Humble acknowledgement of the fact that this particular field of science is still young and there is still a lot about natural processes affecting climate we dont know anything about?

No.

What we see is bold statements telling us what will happen in 50 or 100 years if we don't act now! Global temperature will rise by XY degrees by the year 2100 and we are causing it!

Don't tell me that a relatively small number of scientists have it all figured out when a comparetively large group of (smarter) physicist are still largely in the dark when it comes to understanding how exactly our world works. I'm not bying it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

One thing that worries me when people scream "science" in this thread is that for how long has climatology been a "serious science" attracting the brighest minds? Two decades, three, four? Honestly?

But whatever the answer, I'm willing to bet climatology as a serious science is a lot "younger" than say theoretical physics. Now I am not an expert but I do like to read about astrophysics, quantum theory and what not. And also I am willing to bet these fields of science do attract smarter people than climatology does. Now to the point - one thing I noticed is that everytime a physicist speaks, he humbly admits that we still know very little about physics. No one is beating their chest screaming they have it all figured out.

Now Al Gore comes along with powerpoint slides of drowning polar bears and climatogy gets its 15 minutes of fame. And what do we hear about? Humble acknowledgement of the fact that this particular field of science is still young and there is still a lot about natural processes affecting climate we dont know anything about?

No.

What we see is bold statements telling us what will happen in 50 or 100 years if we don't act now! Global temperature will rise by XY degrees by the year 2100 and we are causing it!

Don't tell me that a relatively small number of scientists have it all figured out when a comparetively large group of (smarter) physicist are still largely in the dark when it comes to understanding how exactly our world works. I'm not bying it.

Best post of the thread.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

One thing that worries me when people scream "science" in this thread is that for how long has climatology been a "serious science" attracting the brighest minds? Two decades, three, four? Honestly?

Scientists have made great leaps in our understanding of the universe in only the last 100 years or so.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Scientists have made great leaps in our understanding of the universe in only the last 100 years or so.

I completely disagree.

I used to be a huge reductionist with a primarily liberal understanding of human nature. Hobbes' Leviathan and Dawkins' Selfish Gene were my two texts of choice.

Then I began getting more back into the classical stuff I enjoyed earlier in academics, along with some of the more skeptical critics of modernity. I was reading Plato's Symposium one night, his great work on human love, and one of the dialogue's characters, can't remember who, says something along the lines of human beings seek immortality through their children.

Socrates dismisses this point, insisting that there must be more to human existence than this animal behaviour. The entire purpose of Dawkins' career was summed up and dismissed in less than a paragraph by Plato.

I was completely blown away after reading this dialogue. My entire worldview was shattered. Moderns don't know poop. Sure the technology and medicine is great, but we know a lot less about ourselves then we think we do.

[photon]

Originally Posted by troutman

Scientists have made great leaps in our understanding of the universe in only the last 100 years or so.

Originally Posted by peter12

I completely disagree.

...snip...

Sure the technology and medicine is great, but we know a lot less about ourselves then we think we do.

You just disagreed with something he didn't say.

[Flame Of Liberty]

If all this was just a pissing match between two group of scientists, we all could not care less. However, governments all around the globe are going to make huge, impactful decision based on claims of one of these groups (the fact that this group is the one they support financially is just a pure coincidence).

One thing I like to call the Great White Liberal Guilt comes into play here. Bleeding hearts love nothing more than the warm and fuzzy feeling that they are saving the humanity/planet, even if it meant damaging it instead.

Since there are plenty of bleeding hearts with the GWLG, politicans smell votes and are ready to make outlandish promises costing us billions, suffocating industrialization and progress, creating huge "business opportunities" for the selected few in the know such as carbon credit traders, supporting selected few "green initiatives" etc.

Make no mistake, these $$$ are going to end up in someone's pockets. This is no child's game, this is going to be arguably the biggest redistribution of wealth in human history. Crooked science and cooked data leaving intellectual stink, you say? Small price to pay when we've got carbon traders and green businessmen to support.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

You just disagreed with something he didn't say.

So the knowledge is nihilistic. What's the point of learning about our universe if it doesn't help us understand ourselves?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Now Al Gore comes along with powerpoint slides of drowning polar bears and climatogy gets its 15 minutes of fame. And what do we hear about? Humble acknowledgement of the fact that this particular field of science is still young and there is still a lot about natural processes affecting climate we dont know anything about?

No.

What we see is bold statements telling us what will happen in 50 or 100 years if we don't act now! Global temperature will rise by XY degrees by the year 2100 and we are causing it!

Ah but we do hear those things from scientists. "If we start the LHC the earth will NOT be destroyed." "If people stop taking vaccines we will see a resurgence of previously defeated diseases like measles and such." "Unless we restrict fishing of x species to y levels the species will be wiped out". "Unless we remove substance abc from food d there will be an increase of bad thing e". And on and on.

Part of having a theory is making predictions to see if they pan out.

Al Gore isn't a scientist. What politicians and the media say about scientific matters is usually best thrown away if understanding is what's desired.

If you read the papers they say the same thing as other scientists... "If this trend continues this will happen, and these are the variables that can impact that", or they point out that what will actually happen is unknown, because the temperatures and other things are moving outside historical ranges.

And waiting for a perfect understanding before doing anything would mean we'd still be in caves.

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Don't tell me that a relatively small number of scientists have it all figured out when a comparetively large group of (smarter) physicist are still largely in the dark when it comes to understanding how exactly our world works. I'm not bying it.

You're conflating to completely different things. They still make and understand how computers work despite not being able to harmonize gravity with the quantum world.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by peter12

So the knowledge is nihilistic. What's the point of learning about our universe if it doesn't help us understand ourselves?

The definition of obfuscation.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

The definition of obfuscation.

So do you science-y types actually utilize logic and reason to defend your perspective or are we going to continue seeing Carl Sagan quotes, appeals to science's conquest of the human ego and empty statements that science will always happen to get it right in the end.