A Plan To Defend Against the War on Science

[Krank]

IMO, great article. No doubt some will disagree... and some won't.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-plan-to-defend-against-the-war-on-science/

[KeithKSR]

Climate change is more about politics than science. The pro climate change side is hugely political with very little scientific process involved.

[Krank]

Climate change is more about politics than science. The pro climate change side is hugely political with very little scientific process involved.

This article seems diametrically opposed to your opinion. Why do you think that is?

[KeithKSR]

This article seems diametrically opposed to your opinion. Why do you think that is?

They haven't read the email exchanges, or they have a political bias. Some of the climate change fanatics are endorsing the jailing of dissenters. What does that say about the quashing of science and scientific debate?

[CitizenBBN]

IMO, a slanted piece of anti-science. I agree with his premise, but ironically he shows the same failings he cites in others.

The first sign you are NOT a scientist: dismissing those who disagree with a scientific theory and dismissing them with things like ad hominem attacks. He does exactly what he claims he wants to see stop.

For example, here's a lovely bit of anti-scientific thinking:

Those on the left are more inclined to accept the evidentiary conclusions from biological and environmental science but they are not immune to antiscience attitudes themselves.

Those on the left are inclined to accept climate change b/c climate change furthers their long held political and social goals, goals they've had since long before climate change became any kind of real issue. When any kind of study comes out refuting those conclusions they dismiss it as quickly as the oil industry dismisses studies that show it is man-made. when a given position in science differs with their agendas they dismiss it, which is of course identical to those on the right as he observes.

IMO he does prove his point, but only b/c he shows exactly the same thinking that he is trying to criticize, which is to be closed to those who question assumptions and conclusions, which is of course the hallmark of good science.

He even uses things like "climate denier", a term used to describe anyone who disagrees not as someone who disagrees, but clearly implying it's someone unwilling to accept the truth, thus "deny".

The truth is that there is still a lot of contradictory evidence on climate, and it's even MORE true that the whole threat of climate change is being used not to address the problem but to further the goals of those who want to centralize government power and control both in the US and globally.

here's a great dead giveaway:

The difference is that although those on the left seek to extend regulations based on fears that are not always supported by science, those on the right oppose regulations that are.

No, those on the left seek to expand regulations, period. If it has scientific support great, if not too bad. Those on the right by and large are supposed to oppose regulation so they are deeply skeptical of scientists paid with government money who say we need MASSIVE new regulations and government centralization. Given that few if any of the proposals for dealing with these issues are based in using the free market, those fears seem well founded.

It's not a difference in being able to accept science. The implication of this story is that those of us who question the climate mantra are just clinging to our guns and religion, and that's bunk. I have a pretty strong background in science (and economics), and I have very serious doubts about the climate change mantra and how much man contributes to it in the end.

FWIW i'm not alone. there are well respected scientists who also have doubts, but they are being shouted down by people like this person who calls us all deniers of science simply b/c we may disagree with the conclusions on this subject.

See, I'm old enough to remember when the theory that dinosaurs were eradicated by a meteor was seen as absolute nonsense. The people who put forth that theory were ostracized and ridiculed in the scientific community, and now we believe they were in fact right. That has been the case in science for a long time, where many if not most scientists forget the scientific principle and just start ridiculing and attacking anyone who doesn't agree with the majority.

That's dangerous thinking in general and in science in particular, but that's exactly what he does here. Even if 90% of scientists agree it is still good science to not dismiss the 10% who don't, but rather to address their arguments in an objective and honest way.

[CitizenBBN]

Now, that being said, I DO agree with him that this idea of factual relativism that infects our universities, where there is no right or wrong even in things like mathematics, is very dangerous and of course nonsense.

He's got that right, but it's not that movement that leads some of us to question climate research paid for by organizations who directly benefit if it's found that man is doing this and we need to massively retool our entire society with government force NOW to save us all.

No, I doubt it b/c just like research on smoking funded by the tobacco companies, I'm good at following the money, and the money behind climate research is not unbiased.

[dan_bgblue]

In the late 60's and early 70's the scientific community was in agreement that the earth was headed for global cooling and predictions were for a mini ice age coming in the early 2000's due to putting particulate matter into the atmosphere from burning coal in power plants that would block out sunlight from getting to the earth to provide necessary warmth.

Science is important to us all for our every day lives. Global warming or cooling predictions are based on computer models that are only as good as the input data. IMO the input data is severely lacking in it's ability to provide accurate output.

Just an example from an avid tropical storm weather watcher. NHC uses the most sophisticated computer models available today to predict the storm intensity and the track of the storm on a daily basis. Their best efforts can only get it right for about 2 days in advance. Remember they are looking at current data from satellites that is available every 30 minutes and their computer models still disagree and they have to predict on the average of the data.

The author's intent is valid as it is important that we accept proven science. His example using global warming is a very poor one. He could have as easily used the example of the polio vaccine, but chose to attempt to sway public opinion so that it would agree with his opinion

[dan_bgblue]

In the late 60's and early 70's the scientific community was in agreement that the earth was headed for global cooling and predictions were for a mini ice age coming in the early 2000's due to putting particulate matter into the atmosphere from burning coal in power plants that would block out sunlight from getting to the earth to provide necessary warmth.

Science is important to us all for our every day lives. Global warming or cooling predictions are based on computer models that are only as good as the input data. IMO the input data is severely lacking in it's ability to provide accurate output.

Just an example from an avid tropical storm weather watcher. NHC uses the most sophisticated computer models available today to predict the storm intensity and the track of the storm on a daily basis. Their best efforts can only get it right for about 2 days in advance. Remember they are looking at current data from satellites that is available every 30 minutes and their computer models still disagree and they have to predict on the average of the data.

The author's intent is valid as it is important that we accept proven science. His example using global warming is a very poor one. He could have as easily used the example of the polio vaccine, but chose to attempt to sway public opinion so that it would agree with his opinion or his agenda driven article that supports his research funding requests.

[CitizenBBN]

Great post Dan.

I was debating climate change stuff back in the 70s, and cooling was the big fear there, the next ice age. Now it's the opposite, and yet it's supposedly caused by the SAME actions of man. Huh?

Now there are things that come from such science that we CAN do, that are wise. A great example is the regulation of CFCs in that era. We were able to find ways to use substitutes and manage the use of them more carefully (but not by outright banning refrigeration or air conditioning), and that's just smart and it seems to have worked.

But what we're seeing with the climate movement is very different. It's a political movement that can be used to justify nearly any expansion of government and reduction in individual rights, and is being played out globally to justify the entrenchment of the elites and MNCs.

His argument that we should listen to science is fine, but we should NOT just accept conclusions b/c it's claimed that it's science. We should always question methodology and data, and when we do that with climate change we see that it's not a closed case.

The truth is we understand very very little of how the world's climate model works, which is proven by 17 years of wrong model predicitions. We can't get the weather right yet we know for a fact how the Earth regulates temperature?

it's clear the Earth has had some MASSIVE climate events in its history yet it seems to restore itself to a pretty narrow climate range, and has done so repeatedly without human action. Am I to believe that the Earth can adjust to a meteor that wipes out 90% of life on the planet but it won't adjust to our coal fired power plants? The truth is we really dont' know how it will respond.

[bigsky]

Science is challenging hypothesis, not making a religion out of them.

The "soon we'll freeze" and "natural gas is running out" of the 70s has been replaced by "global warming" and "peak oil".

I'm all for alternate sources of energy that get us self reliant and less polluting, but not at the cost of lives and freedom.

[KeithKSR]

Science is challenging hypothesis, not making a religion out of them.

The "soon we'll freeze" and "natural gas is running out" of the 70s has been replaced by "global warming" and "peak oil".

I'm all for alternate sources of energy that get us self reliant and less polluting, but not at the cost of lives and freedom.

Scientific fact and theory are separated by using the scientific process and arriving at a conclusion when there are no other possibilities. It seems to me that the climate change theorist seem to forget that climate change remains a theory, not a fact.

[bigsky]

Hypothesis, theory, accepted theory, so there is a hierarchy in science. If a person could prove the earth was 6000 years old, they'd win the Nobel.

One thing that should be said more, calling people who are skeptical about the ability to change man made global warming, "deniers" is to compare them to Holocaust deniers, which is where the term comes from. The Holocaust is an historical fact. Science isn't history. And skeptics about the puffy clad jet setting skiing and Hollywood crowd's dedication to reducing carbon, isn't supporting Nazis. It's the worst kind of intimidation.

Use of "deniers" equals calling people Nazis. It's time we called that out.

[CitizenBBN]

The "deniers" thing is a dead giveaway. The implication is that man made climate change is a fact, in toto, and if you dont' accept it you are anti-scientific and believe in Christian Science or whatever.

No, I'm very scientific, but I also am not naive enough to think that no one with a PhD has any bias or ulterior motives or willingness to find the data they need to support the position they want to support. The Tobacco Institute was full of full fledged scientists with degrees who spent decades presenting studies to prove cigarettes weren't bad for you.

Big government from the UN down to the EPA DESPERATELY want this to be true b/c it justifies all kinds of accumulation of power and spread of bureaucracy. This thing is a wet dream for them.

Isn't it funny that they are the very ones funding all these studies, yet if you question such things you are anti-science?

It's true some who doubt it probably aren't very scientific, and are resisting it due to THEIR political and personal motives, but that just means that both sides are going to use this for political means, and that we have to question ALL of it to try to find the truth.