Well, just looking at that guys wiki page gives you this:
On the subject of Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject.
You can draw your own conclusions from that, and the fact that he is listed as the member of various very conservative institutes such as the Heartland Institute the George C. Marshall Institute.
If man is not responsible for climate change than how can we believe man has the power to reverse said changes? This is the very argument being made!
Dude, man has all the power to change the climate, e.g. this TED talk gives one example of a very cheap and efficient way. The problem is that with those kind of ideas there likely will be serious side effects to the Ozone layer, which is why the general consensus is to first try something that may be more difficult (like carbon sequestration, CO2 emissions cuts etc etc) but will not give everyone on earth skin cancer.
The real problem from "us" not doing anything, is that countries like India or Bangladesh who are going to suffer immensely more than, say the US or Europe, can do these measures all by themselves, arguing that saving hundreds of millions of people from losing their homes and avoiding the risk of war from the ensuing mass migrations is totally worth a slight global increase in melanoma risk.
The world is out of trust for scientists. I think a lot more effort needs to be put into scientist-layman relations.
I would respectfully disagree. For each of your examples I can think up dozens of instances where people put their trust in something that science gave them daily. Also, I should point out that in the case of nuclear power, the issue is with a misuse of the science not the science itself, and in the case of CFC coolants (or DDT or any of a long list of chemicals) the scientific community is extremely quick to admit to having been wrong.
On the subject of outreach to the general population, I couldn't agree more. It's no use us scientists whining about the short attention span of the youths today or the anti-science mentality of mainstream media. We just have to figure out more ways to communicate how utterly awesome and important scientific progress and research is. The LHC twittering it's restart last week is a good example of this, but definitely more needs to be done.
I would respectfully disagree. For each of your examples I can think up dozens of instances where people put their trust in something that science gave them daily. Also, I should point out that in the case of nuclear power, the issue is with a misuse of the science not the science itself, and in the case of CFC coolants (or DDT or any of a long list of chemicals) the scientific community is extremely quick to admit to having been wrong.
I wasn't trying to hard there, but I do think there is a definite mistrust of the smart by the average. I observe it all the time in the microcosm of car modding and custom engine building. These people think that engineers are stupid and aren't making good decisions, while the (the mechanics) know far better. Give these "experts" a blank piece of paper and they'd have no idea where to begin, but they still think they know better. It's very amusing to watch these people think they're smarter and then fail hysterically. ^_^
On the subject of outreach to the general population, I couldn't agree more. It's no use us scientists whining about the short attention span of the youths today or the anti-science mentality of mainstream media. We just have to figure out more ways to communicate how utterly awesome and important scientific progress and research is. The LHC twittering it's restart last week is a good example of this, but definitely more needs to be done.
Yes, I did enjoy the tweeting even if I didn't understand a lot of it.
I know, and I truly sympathize. For a layman it really boils down to "just trust us", I mean even if you had access to the scientific papers and data, you wouldn't be able to truly verify them without putting in the proverbial 10000 hours. Even if you are smart, you can still be hoodwinked unless you are an expert. So you have to trust us or become one of us.
One thing that helps is that scientists by nature try to disprove one another. You have wizards battling over their wizardry, and over time the best wizards win, and the people rejoice.
Their ideas are so hideous, are so insidious, so anti-free market, that they have to dress their ideas up in a phony cloak of compassion: Saving the planet, saving the polar bears, saving the water, saving the earth, saving whatever it is. "Saving the poor," while they destroy the poor. It just infuriating. So we have now the Four Corners of Deceit, and the two universes in which we live. The Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality, and The Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.
It's tempting to just dismiss this sort of thing as craziness (which it is), but many people actually listen to and believe this "person". He's considered the de facto leader of the republican party.
I don't think you'll find many card-carrying republicans anymore. Mostly now, there are "moderates" who say "both parties deserve criticism", but somehow end up criticizing Democrats the most.
I don't think you'll find many card-carrying republicans anymore. Mostly now, there are "moderates" who say "both parties deserve criticism", but somehow end up criticizing Democrats the most.
I don't think you'll find many card-carrying republicans anymore. Mostly now, there are "moderates" who say "both parties deserve criticism", but somehow end up criticizing Democrats the most.
Timo, are the facts in thisarticleaccurate or not? What about the question in the first paragraph, what temperature should the planet be?
The question is not whether the facts are true, it is very easy to find facts to support almost any claim you want. Scientific research is fundamentally about establishing a context in which to evaluate all the facts and reach a valid conclusion. So when a non-scientists presents facts about global warming, even if they are correct facts, I tend to err on the side of caution and assume that it is an ideologically motivated presentation.
As for answering the first paragraph of that article, it asks the right question in the wrong way. It is not a question about specifying a "correct temperature",which is an overly simplified way of approaching the problem. It is a question about climate change and the various effects a rising temperature has in different parts of the world. Take a look at the TED talk I posted, the real problem in the climate change debate is that there are both winners and losers, at least in the short term.
So when you see someone arguing about climate debate you should take note what they are actually debating about because there are at least the followng options:
the science behind climate change
the science behind global warming
the science behind mans influence
the effects global warming will have
the best long/short term solutions
Scientists only debate the details in 4. and 5., politicians and pubic discourse is focused on points 1.-3. which have been well established by science for over 50 years.
Now the real problem is that points 4. and 5. are important. They are also immensely politically loaded, both domestically (companies lobbying for not having to cut emissions) and internationally (regional differences in the effects of global warming), and consequently they are very complex and morally loaded issues.
This is what happens when a politician is the de facto spokesperson for an issue. Why, oh why, isn't a scientist the spokesperson?
Things like this just add fuel to those who deny that global warming exists. I mean, really, how can anyone take this guy seriously after this comment? Whether or not he's correct about everything else, I just don't understand how he can make such a gaffe. If you are worried that average Americans are becoming skeptics (as the polls indicate), Gore just made things much worse.
And now the Third World is deadlocked with the First World.
Ugh.
Like I said earlier, whether or not there is man-made global warming, I'd love to see our country reduce our addiciton to fossil feuls. Sadly, it looks like Copenhagen may turn into a giant waste of time. Not that this was a surprise. Time for everyone to get back into their corporate jets and their limos.
And now the Third World is deadlocked with the First World.
There was a good piece by the Planet Money podcast last week about what goes on in Copenhagen (and they'll probably have more coverage this week). The thing that I found most interesting is that while, as I said earlier, TV pundits and domestic political soapboxing is focused on points 1)-3), and scientific research interest is focused on points 4) and 5), the international political debate is, and has for some time, solely focused on the details of a (or rather the) practical solution to the problem.
This is what happenswhen a politician is the de facto spokesperson for an issue.
So, I'm guessing this is the offending Gore comment from the article:
These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.
. . . and the big controversy is that Dr. Maslowski didn't say that. He said (again, from the article):
Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.
So, the difference in their statements is that, instead of a 75% chance of 100% of the ice being gone in a five to seven year period, only 80% will be gone. That's huge. Dr. Maslowski also says that there might still be "some" ice by 2020. So, the main difference is not if the ice cap will melt, but when, and even then the "difference" is only a few years. Interesting. I can see how this discredits Gore. He sure made a "gaffe" on that one.
Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
Since the Climategate Files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.â€Â
The plot of the this global warming thing is getting quite thick indeed. I'm really starting to question whether or not it's actually real. I'm still going to continue lusting after more fuel efficient transit. I want a good electric car and it should happen soon.
You know, if nothing else, the global warming deniers should want more fuel efficient cars anyway, so we won't have to bother the middle east for oil all the time.
You know what I think? I think this should be a moot point, because all the things that help curb global warming also have a multitude other good environmental and social effects. We should not drive stupidly big-ass cars because they waste a finite natural resource. The only argument most people use when confronted with their unnecessary consumption of natural resources basically boils down to *Cartman Voice* "I do what I want! I do what I want!"
That aside, Tick, sir, do you not remember Timo's big ol' post from a while back? I haven't been won over to your side and I won't be, baring some huge serious global conspiracy of scientists coming out, saying "Oh Ho! We are the league of evil scientists! Every scientist is inducted into our ranks when they graduate with a science diploma. We trick you for no reason whatsoever, and we manage to keep it secret the whole time!"
The only problem I really have with the people (in government) who push climate change is that they want to force everyone into their ideals. Cap and trade is the worst example of this. Wanting to reduce pollutants and keep greenhouse gases in check is fine, I'm all for it. I live in a city where I can walk to most of the places I need to go, and I drive a fuel-efficient car (35mpg currently) and looking to get an even more efficient one in the next couple months. But are we really in the kind of danger as these people keep claiming we are? I honestly can't believe so. There are just too many counter arguments at this point for me to decide who is totally right.
The best thing that governments could do, and some are, is give incentives to "go green". Things like the cash for clunkers program should be permanent, not just a one time thing. Companies that use fully recyclable parts in their electronics should get tax breaks. More investments should go into energy companies that are aiming for energy independence (and dammit, let us use every resource we can you nuclear-power-plant-haters!). In a free market society like ours, the best way to get people to do things is to make it cheaper. It's a slow process, but we're already well on the right path. There's no need to rush things.
Comments
The real problem from "us" not doing anything, is that countries like India or Bangladesh who are going to suffer immensely more than, say the US or Europe, can do these measures all by themselves, arguing that saving hundreds of millions of people from losing their homes and avoiding the risk of war from the ensuing mass migrations is totally worth a slight global increase in melanoma risk. I would respectfully disagree. For each of your examples I can think up dozens of instances where people put their trust in something that science gave them daily. Also, I should point out that in the case of nuclear power, the issue is with a misuse of the science not the science itself, and in the case of CFC coolants (or DDT or any of a long list of chemicals) the scientific community is extremely quick to admit to having been wrong.
On the subject of outreach to the general population, I couldn't agree more. It's no use us scientists whining about the short attention span of the youths today or the anti-science mentality of mainstream media. We just have to figure out more ways to communicate how utterly awesome and important scientific progress and research is. The LHC twittering it's restart last week is a good example of this, but definitely more needs to be done.
Rush Limbaugh claims we shouldn't have banned DDT, because scientists deceived us. He further claims that science is one of the Four Corners of Deceit. Source.
It's tempting to just dismiss this sort of thing as craziness (which it is), but many people actually listen to and believe this "person". He's considered the de facto leader of the republican party.
As for answering the first paragraph of that article, it asks the right question in the wrong way. It is not a question about specifying a "correct temperature",which is an overly simplified way of approaching the problem. It is a question about climate change and the various effects a rising temperature has in different parts of the world. Take a look at the TED talk I posted, the real problem in the climate change debate is that there are both winners and losers, at least in the short term.
So when you see someone arguing about climate debate you should take note what they are actually debating about because there are at least the followng options:
- the science behind climate change
- the science behind global warming
- the science behind mans influence
- the effects global warming will have
- the best long/short term solutions
Scientists only debate the details in 4. and 5., politicians and pubic discourse is focused on points 1.-3. which have been well established by science for over 50 years.Now the real problem is that points 4. and 5. are important. They are also immensely politically loaded, both domestically (companies lobbying for not having to cut emissions) and internationally (regional differences in the effects of global warming), and consequently they are very complex and morally loaded issues.
Take note that this debates points 1)--3) of my previous post which, like I pointed out, are really more of a red herring.
Things like this just add fuel to those who deny that global warming exists. I mean, really, how can anyone take this guy seriously after this comment? Whether or not he's correct about everything else, I just don't understand how he can make such a gaffe. If you are worried that average Americans are becoming skeptics (as the polls indicate), Gore just made things much worse.
And now the Third World is deadlocked with the First World.
Ugh.
Like I said earlier, whether or not there is man-made global warming, I'd love to see our country reduce our addiciton to fossil feuls. Sadly, it looks like Copenhagen may turn into a giant waste of time. Not that this was a surprise. Time for everyone to get back into their corporate jets and their limos.
Watch from 4:10, kinda relevant, really funny.
How come no one in the American media (or this forum) appears to be talking about this?
example: World ending ZOMG!!! = story
World actually fine = boring.
You know what I think? I think this should be a moot point, because all the things that help curb global warming also have a multitude other good environmental and social effects. We should not drive stupidly big-ass cars because they waste a finite natural resource. The only argument most people use when confronted with their unnecessary consumption of natural resources basically boils down to *Cartman Voice* "I do what I want! I do what I want!"
That aside, Tick, sir, do you not remember Timo's big ol' post from a while back? I haven't been won over to your side and I won't be, baring some huge serious global conspiracy of scientists coming out, saying "Oh Ho! We are the league of evil scientists! Every scientist is inducted into our ranks when they graduate with a science diploma. We trick you for no reason whatsoever, and we manage to keep it secret the whole time!"
Pretty much my opinion on this subject. There is still a lot of other evidence for global warming, whether it is man made or not.
I really am looking forward to a nice electric car though. I really want a Nissan Leaf.
The best thing that governments could do, and some are, is give incentives to "go green". Things like the cash for clunkers program should be permanent, not just a one time thing. Companies that use fully recyclable parts in their electronics should get tax breaks. More investments should go into energy companies that are aiming for energy independence (and dammit, let us use every resource we can you nuclear-power-plant-haters!). In a free market society like ours, the best way to get people to do things is to make it cheaper. It's a slow process, but we're already well on the right path. There's no need to rush things.