Conservative War On Science

[TimG]

And now we enter the realm of fallacious defense. The burden of proof is on you, my friend, not on me.

Why? Why is the default presumption that no bias exists? Given the fact that humans are naturally blinded by their biases it is rather extraordinary to claim that Nature is some how able to rise above it. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the extraordinary evidence that Nature's selection of climate science articles is not affected by the bias of its editors?

You've made a specific claim that would, in fact, effect far more than just climatology

I never really intended to make the broader claim. Bias is not an issue when it comes to sciences where hard evidence can be used to conclusively refute a claim (in mathematics for example). Bias is only really an issue in the soft sciences like climatology where most claims are nothing more than opinion. In such an environment, one's bias pretty much determines what is deemed to be correct and what is deemed to wrong.

[ToadBrother]

Why? Why is the default presumption that no bias exists? Given the fact that humans are naturally blinded by their biases it is rather extraordinary to claim that Nature is some how able to rise above it. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the extraordinary evidence that Nature's selection of climate science articles is not affected by the bias of its editors?

You made the claim, you back it up. It's not my job to prove you wrong (you can't prove a negative). If you can't support the claim, then admit it.

I never really intended to make the broader claim. Bias is not an issue when it comes to sciences where hard evidence can be used to conclusively refute a claim (in mathematics for example). Bias is only really an issue in the soft sciences like climatology where most claims are nothing more than opinion. In such an environment, one's bias pretty much determines what is deemed to be correct and what is deemed to wrong.

And the backpeddle begins. But I doubt there are very many "hard" scientists out there who would think climatology is a "soft" science. Now you're just going to have to defend that one, and ponder for a moment that the tools used in climatology for predictive purposes are very similar to those used in diverse fields like subatomic physics, cosmology, population studies, biology, genetics and so on and so forth. If modeling (computer and otherwise) and statistical analysis are now suddenly "soft" methods, you've just lassoed a whole bunch of fields, including some of the "hardest" around.

Care to keep going down this path?

[Saipan]

So, where's the global warm up already?

[ToadBrother]

So, where's the global warm up already?

I dunno. Could you explain where you got the idea that it was supposed to happen suddenly and all at once?

Pretending to be stupid is only amusing when you're not actually stupid.

Edited October 1, 2010 by ToadBrother

[TimG]

You made the claim, you back it up. It's not my job to prove you wrong (you can't prove a negative). If you can't support the claim, then admit it.

Squid claimed that nature is only biased towards 'good science'. I asked him to prove it. Mostly to demonstrate the aburdity of you demanding "proof" for my opinion.

But I doubt there are very many "hard" scientists out there who would think climatology is a "soft" science.

It takes more than statistics and computer models to make a field a hard science. If that was the definition economics would be a "hard" science. Climatology is a soft science because it impossible to use real life experiments to validate a hypothesis. For example, McIntrye has demonstrated using statistics that proxy reconstructions of the past climate are little more than exercises in data mining but he can't prove they are wrong because he can't go back and measure the real temperatures. This ambiguity allows scientists to choose to believe the reconstructions are realistic and there is no evidence or argument that can change than belief.

The same goes for the attribution studies. It is impossible to quantify the effect of clouds and aerosols on climate because we don't really understand the phenomena and even if we did we don't have the data. As a result, all studies from the past fabricate the data required and then estimate the effect of CO2 based on that fabricated data. In a hard science such calculations would be considered an unverified hypothesis and would not be given much credence until the hypothesis was used to predict future outcomes. In climate science they simply choose to believe the fabricated data that happens to confirm whatever apriori expectations they have. As with the paleo reconstructions there is no evidence or argument than can possibly refute these beliefs because real life experiments are not possible. This means the claims are really nothing but opinion and therefore cannot be called a hard science.

Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

more on... anti-science Conservative/Republicans - timely reference to Christine O'Donnell... mice with fully functioning human brains - oh my! Stem Cell research run amok

[Michael Hardner]

Any science magazine that uses the word 'denier' to denigrate those who question the 'consensus' view in an editorial has zero objectivity. It is ridiculous to claim they are objective given the evidence available.

At what point are we expected to take fringe views seriously ? Evolutionists, bigfoot spotters, or 9/11 conspiracy nuts are entitled to their views, but we are entitled to ridicule their claims.

Oh yes, and once in a thousand years they will turn out to be right, allowing the rest of them to point at that and say "see !".

[Saipan]

At what point are we expected to take fringe views seriously ? Evolutionists, bigfoot spotters, or 9/11 conspiracy nuts are entitled to their views, but we are entitled to ridicule their claims.

Why would you be ridiculing Evolutionists, unless you have firm evidenced evolution is a bunk.

Do you still DENY climate change was here even before humans?

[TimG]

At what point are we expected to take fringe views seriously ? Evolutionists, bigfoot spotters, or 9/11 conspiracy nuts are entitled to their views, but we are entitled to ridicule their claims.

People who cannot distinguish between skepticism of climate science and creationism/conspiracy theories are either ignorant or dishonest. The fact is the current scientific understanding of climate is extremely poor and the uncertainties are large. This means one can plausibly argue that the current warming is largely natural without violating any basic scientific principles. In fact, the progress of science depends on those people which minority views that constantly challenge the consensus and there are numerous examples of where the consensus was eventually overturned. Nature's attempt to denigrate those who do not accept the consensus view is harmful to the progress of science.

[waldo]

from the journal Nature... no less!

Science scorned

The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge.

“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 is tempting to laugh off this and other rhetoric broadcast by Rush Limbaugh, a conservative US radio host, but Limbaugh and similar voices are no laughing matter.

There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts — including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research. Take the surprise ousting last week of Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent Republican senator for Alaska, by political unknown Joe Miller in the Republican primary for the 2 November midterm congressional elections. Miller, who is backed by the conservative 'Tea Party movement', called his opponent's acknowledgement of the reality of global warming “exhibit 'A' for why she needs to go”.

The right-wing populism that is flourishing in the current climate of economic insecurity echoes many traditional conservative themes, such as opposition to taxes, regulation and immigration. But the Tea Party and its cheerleaders, who include Limbaugh, Fox News television host Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who famously decried fruitfly research as a waste of public money), are also tapping an age-old US political impulse — a suspicion of elites and expertise.

Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement. Limbaugh, for instance, who has told his listeners that “science has become a home for displaced socialists and communists”, has called climate-change science “the biggest scam in the history of the world”. The Tea Party's leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research — which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government. Under the administration of George W. Bush, science in policy had already taken knocks from both neglect and ideology. Yet President Barack Obama's promise to “restore science to its rightful place” seems to have linked science to liberal politics, making it even more of a target of the right.

US citizens face economic problems that are all too real, and the country's future crucially depends on education, science and technology as it faces increasing competition from China and other emerging science powers. Last month's recall of hundreds of millions of US eggs because of the risk of salmonella poisoning, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, are timely reminders of why the US government needs to serve the people better by developing and enforcing improved science-based regulations. Yet the public often buys into anti-science, anti-regulation agendas that are orchestrated by business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups.

In the current poisoned political atmosphere, the defenders of science have few easy remedies. Reassuringly, polls continue to show that the overwhelming majority of the US public sees science as a force for good, and the anti-science rumblings may be ephemeral. As educators, scientists should redouble their efforts to promote rationalism, scholarship and critical thought among the young, and engage with both the media and politicians to help illuminate the pressing science-based issues of our time.

[Saipan]

from the journal Nature... no less!

Science scorned

Sounds like PRAVDA or Toronto Star

[TimG]

from the journal Nature... no less!

So many misrepresentations:

1) When people call climate change a 'hoax' they are talking about the claim that CO2 is likely to lead to catastrophic consequences and intrusive government policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions are necessary. There is nothing scientific about the alarmist's claim - it is entirely a political POV. Trying to pretend that it has something to do with science is disengenous.

2) People are entitled to oppose certain types of scientific research for purely ethical reasons. There is nothing anti-science about it. In fact, as out ability to do more with cloning and genetic engineering advances we will need to spend more time asking ourselves 'should we do X' rather than 'can we do X'. (BTW - I do not oppose stem cell research - I just defend other's right to object to it on ethical grounds).

[waldo]

from the journal Nature... no less!

Science scorned

So many misrepresentations:

no – you continue to conflate true scientific skepticism with outright denial… all the while revealing your personal contradictions. You accept warming, you acknowledge climate change. You deny AGW but won’t… but can’t … provide any semblance of alternative cause to CO2… even when you’re continually challenged, poked and prodded to do so. You deny the consensus science while emphasizing political posturing and continuing to foster your conspiracy themes. You front your silly isolated Adapt-R-Us end game ad nauseam… prevention and mitigation – what’s that, TimG/Riverwind?

[Michael Hardner]

Why would you be ridiculing Evolutionists, unless you have firm evidenced evolution is a bunk.

I don't think that I would do it.

Do you still DENY climate change was here even before humans?

No. The earth was once a misshapen rock (or maybe it was created by God in a day, whatever) with no atmosphere at all. What's the point ?

[Pliny]

from the journal Nature... no less!

Science scorned

Is this Conservative war on science a scientific finding? Maybe it is just someone's opinion.

I don't think Conservatives have a war on science going on. There is a problem with it's use, which is to be the only "opinion" on the block.

As educators, scientists should redouble their efforts to promote rationalism, scholarship and critical thought among the young, and engage with both the media and politicians to help illuminate the pressing science-based issues of our time.

Does "critical thought" mean just claiming, "Science says so."

As TimG points out there must be some differentiation between "hard factual science" and "our best guess from what we know", soft science. There are several "sciences" that one should wonder whether or not it were better they belong in the field of the Arts, such as economics, politics and even some aspects of medicine. Is there any reason that politics should align with science beyond the fact that it uses scientific information from other "sciences" that may questionably be sciences in themselves such as the social sciences which is filled with theories waiting to be debunked by the next celebrated fad?

Is "science" demanding we blindly accept everything they say? I don't think they want that or expect it. However, those who use it for that purpose, such as politicians, who like power and control (not to be confused with law and order), or Skeptics, who can't make the differentiation between hard science and it's best guesses, are more the problem. It isn't "critical thinking" to just claim "science is on my side". Maybe it isn't science at all maybe it is just "political" science.

If anything, I think, scientists should be outraged at the fields and organizations that like to align themselves with science solely for the purpose of riding it's coattails for the purpose of claiming legitimacy. It's time they cleaned house and took a look at who among them are the pretenders.

[Michael Hardner]

People who cannot distinguish between skepticism of climate science and creationism/conspiracy theories are either ignorant or dishonest.

I can distinguish between them, but they're both outside of mainstream science is the point. At the inside, climate skepticism is a legitimate questioning of accepted theory. But again, at that point, it's a quibble, it's not the type of skepticism that we have on this board.

The fact is the current scientific understanding of climate is extremely poor and the uncertainties are large. This means one can plausibly argue that the current warming is largely natural without violating any basic scientific principles. In fact, the progress of science depends on those people which minority views that constantly challenge the consensus and there are numerous examples of where the consensus was eventually overturned. Nature's attempt to denigrate those who do not accept the consensus view is harmful to the progress of science.

One can argue that, but one can argue anything. Better equipped scientists than you or me are not seriously challenging AGW.

Denigrating those with ridiculous views (a significant number of AGW skeptics, IMO) is a good thing 99% of the time. Or would you rather have Ron Paul as President, so that he can find the missing gold and save the US dollar ?

[Saipan]

The earth was once a misshapen rock (or maybe it was created by God in a day, whatever) with no atmosphere at all. What's the point ?

That climate is ALWAYS changing. Humans or not.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Saipan

[Michael Hardner]

Does "critical thought" mean just claiming, "Science says so."

Not at all.

As TimG points out there must be some differentiation between "hard factual science" and "our best guess from what we know", soft science. There are several "sciences" that one should wonder whether or not it were better they belong in the field of the Arts, such as economics, politics and even some aspects of medicine. Is there any reason that politics should align with science beyond the fact that it uses scientific information from other "sciences" that may questionably be sciences in themselves such as the social sciences which is filled with theories waiting to be debunked by the next celebrated fad?

Is "science" demanding we blindly accept everything they say? I don't think they want that or expect it. However, those who use it for that purpose, such as politicians, who like power and control (not to be confused with law and order), or Skeptics, who can't make the differentiation between hard science and it's best guesses, are more the problem. It isn't "critical thinking" to just claim "science is on my side". Maybe it isn't science at all maybe it is just "political" science.

If anything, I think, scientists should be outraged at the fields and organizations that like to align themselves with science solely for the purpose of riding it's coattails for the purpose of claiming legitimacy. It's time they cleaned house and took a look at who among them are the pretenders.

Good point, but most of the areas that spark the controversies are controversial exactly because solid scientific fact is challenged with unscientific viewpoints, or conspiratorial ideas...

[Michael Hardner]

That climate is ALWAYS changing. Humans or not.

Yes, it is. None of this negates the fact that humans are likely warming up the planet, though.

[Pliny]

double post

Edited October 1, 2010 by Pliny

[Saipan]

Not at all.

Good point, but most of the areas that spark the controversies are controversial exactly because solid scientific fact is challenged with unscientific viewpoints, or conspiratorial ideas...

We would settle for warmer weather.

[Michael Hardner]

We would settle for warmer weather.

You got it.

[Saipan]

You got it.

When?

[Michael Hardner]

When?

Every day, a little.

[Saipan]

Every day, a little.

Just an opinion. We no longer have those sweltering warm summers we could go swimming.