Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists?

[dre]

But there are really two issues: the diagnosis and the recommended treatments. Doctors are trained to do both. Climate scientists, OTOH, are only trained to do the diagnosis. This means their opinion on recommended treatments is no more relevant than the opinion any other pundit or commentator.

The trouble with the climate debate are activists who insist that expertise in diagnosis should be treated the same as expertise in choosing treatments.

You keep repeating this but its simply not true. It absolutely IS the role of scientists to make recommendations to government on how to best solve or mitigate the problems they study. Always has been... always will be.

[TimG]

You keep repeating this but its simply not true. It absolutely IS the role of scientists to make recommendations to government on how to best solve or mitigate the problems they study. Always has been... always will be.

Wrong. Scientists are supposed to provide the facts as they know them. It is up to the politicians to make decisions after looking at the economic and political tradeoffs. This false appeal to the authority of "scientists" is nothing but excuse used by activists who think they bully people in to accepting their preferred policy choices.

The bottom line is: climate scientists know NOTHING about the economics of energy production therefore their opinion on what we should do about energy production not something that deserves and special consideration.

Edited January 3, 2011 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Wrong. Scientists are supposed to provide the facts as they know them. It is up to the politicians to make decisions after looking at the economic and political tradeoffs. This false appeal to the authority of "scientists" is nothing but excuse used by activists who think they bully people in to accepting their preferred policy choices.

The bottom line is: climate scientists know NOTHING about the economics of energy production therefore their opinion on what we should do about energy production not something that deserves and special consideration.

Guess evolutionary biologists shouldn't have any say on evolution in schools.

[TimG]

Guess evolutionary biologists shouldn't have any say on evolution in schools.

Of course they shouldn't. It is up to educators and politicians to decide how material should be presented in schools.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Of course they shouldn't. It is up to educators and politicians to decide how material should be presented in schools.

You just went from mildly crazy to nuts.

[TimG]

You just went from mildly crazy to nuts.

No you just proved you are incapable of understanding some very basic concepts.

In this case evolutionary biologists do the science and come with their theories. However, they have no special authority when it comes to deciding how best to present scientific material that may conflict with any religious teachings the child may receive. It is the job of educators to figure out how to balance to manage any conflict and to present evolution as it is: the best scientific theory we have to explain natural history. The best approach to manage the conflict will depend on the community. More religious communities will require that religious views be given greater deference.

Frankly, this should be common sense. If I was a science teacher in a religious community I would want to talk about creationism in science class because that would be the best way to get the students to talk about the conflict and learn that religion is religion and science is science. The opinion of evolutionary scientists on this teaching method is irrelevant.

Edited January 3, 2011 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

But there are really two issues: the diagnosis and the recommended treatments. Doctors are trained to do both. Climate scientists, OTOH, are only trained to do the diagnosis. This means their opinion on recommended treatments is no more relevant than the opinion any other pundit or commentator.

The trouble with the climate debate are activists who insist that expertise in diagnosis should be treated the same as expertise in choosing treatments.

Political economic policies like carbon taxes etc. are mostly out of the realm of scientists, but they can make many other recommendations like what exactly should be reduced (coal production, gas vs hybrid cars vs car pooling vs bus use, urban heat generation, nuclear power, geo-engineering, aerosol reduction/increase etc.). There are may issues scientists can chime in on to help guide policy for policy makers. They do scientific research all the time to examine the different sources of GHG's, their effect/impact, and compare them to other alternatives (nuclear/wind/solar energy, hybrid cars etc)

I really don't see how you could make informed policy decisions on the environment without significant help from scientific expertise.

[TimG]

but they can make many other recommendations like what exactly should be reduced (coal production, gas vs hybrid cars vs car pooling vs bus use, urban heat generation, nuclear power, geo-engineering, aerosol reduction/increase etc.).

Those are jobs for engineers and economists. Not scientists.

They do scientific research all the time to examine the different sources of GHG's, their effect/impact, and compare them to other alternatives (nuclear/wind/solar energy, hybrid cars etc)

That is fine but the GHGs emitted by a power source are only one of many factors and the priorities given by such work will not necessarily match the priorties chosen by policy makers.

I really don't see how you could make informed policy decisions on the environment without significant help from scientific expertise.

You need expertise - but not the type that climate scientists have.

Note that I am responding to the claim that "we must adopt policies to reduce CO2 emissions since 97% of climate scientists agree that CO2 is a problem". My response is so what? - let's see what the engineers and economists say. When we do that we find the consensus disappears pretty quickly. That means the consensus argument is total rubbish.

Edited January 3, 2011 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

No you just proved you are incapable of understanding some very basic concepts.

In this case evolutionary biologists do the science and come with their theories. However, they have no special authority when it comes to deciding how best to present scientific material that may conflict with any religious teachings the child may receive. It is the job of educators to figure out how to balance to manage any conflict and to present evolution as it is: the best scientific theory we have to explain natural history. The best approach to manage the conflict will depend on the community. More religious communities will require that religious views be given greater deference.

Frankly, this should be common sense. If I was a science teacher in a religious community I would want to talk about creationism in science class because that would be the best way to get the students to talk about the conflict and learn that religion is religion and science is science. The opinion of evolutionary scientists on this teaching method is irrelevant.

Uh no science classes are for science you teach the facts or you don't teach at all. Creationism is a BS myth and should be treated as much, evolution is fact and should be treated as such. Scientists learn the facts and the science teachers teach them, that's the science teachers job. There job is not to cater to religious whack jobs who want to see us back in the bloody dark ages.

[dre]

Wrong. Scientists are supposed to provide the facts as they know them. It is up to the politicians to make decisions after looking at the economic and political tradeoffs. This false appeal to the authority of "scientists" is nothing but excuse used by activists who think they bully people in to accepting their preferred policy choices.

The bottom line is: climate scientists know NOTHING about the economics of energy production therefore their opinion on what we should do about energy production not something that deserves and special consideration.

You live in a fantasy world. Politicians seek advice and recommendations on how to deal with virtually every bit of policy they make where the sciences are even remotely involved. This happens constantly on a whole variety of different topics.

The bottom line is: climate scientists know NOTHING about the economics of energy production therefore their opinion on what we should do about energy production not something that deserves and special consideration.

Unless of course they do studies that suggest that our current behavior is unsustainable or dangerous. In that case theyre simply recommending we stop that behavior. And a lot of politicians are listening. Its up to scientists in other fields to recommend other options, and try to find solutions. Theyll also consult economists, businesses, engineers, pollsters, and dozens of other kinds of professions.

[dre]

No you just proved you are incapable of understanding some very basic concepts.

In this case evolutionary biologists do the science and come with their theories. However, they have no special authority when it comes to deciding how best to present scientific material that may conflict with any religious teachings the child may receive. It is the job of educators to figure out how to balance to manage any conflict and to present evolution as it is: the best scientific theory we have to explain natural history. The best approach to manage the conflict will depend on the community. More religious communities will require that religious views be given greater deference.

Frankly, this should be common sense. If I was a science teacher in a religious community I would want to talk about creationism in science class because that would be the best way to get the students to talk about the conflict and learn that religion is religion and science is science. The opinion of evolutionary scientists on this teaching method is irrelevant.

No you just proved you are incapable of understanding some very basic concepts.

No tim... You just proved once again that youre a luddite with very little understanding about the world around you.

However, they have no special authority when it comes to deciding how best to present scientific material that may conflict with any religious teachings the child may receive.

Yes they do Tim. The science cirriculum in the US for example was developed by the National Academy of Sciences, which is a network of scientists, and part of the International Council for Science which gathers information from members of scientists and scientific organizations around the world. Nearly 200 of its members have won Nobel prizes.

[TimG]

Its up to scientists in other fields to recommend other options, and try to find solutions. Theyll also consult economists, businesses, engineers, pollsters, and dozens of other kinds of professions.

It is the *policy makers* who consult scientists, businesses, engineers, economists. Climate scientists contribute their knowledge of the climate. After that their opinion is irrelevant. In fact, based on advice from engineers and economists policy makers could decide that doing nothing is best (many are coming to this realization too).

[TimG]

The science cirriculum in the US for example was developed by the National Academy of Sciences, which is a network of scientists, and part of the International Council for Science which gathers information from members of scientists and scientific organizations around the world. Nearly 200 of its members have won Nobel prizes.

WTF? Gawd you are misinformed.

The curriculum is set by politicians in Canada and the US. In fact, local control over eduction was one of the founding principles of many states and provices.

http://www.lakenewsonline.com/news/education/x2087804837/State-sets-school-curriculum-local-districts-choose-instructional-materials

That said, some may choose to use material provided by the NAS but they are not obligated to.

Edited January 3, 2011 by TimG

[GostHacked]

No you just proved you are incapable of understanding some very basic concepts.

In this case evolutionary biologists do the science and come with their theories. However, they have no special authority when it comes to deciding how best to present scientific material that may conflict with any religious teachings the child may receive.

If the science is sound, there is really only one way to present it. If you are presenting it in a way that would not conflict with religion, then you stop presenting science as it is. There are many forms of science where you can only interpret it one way. There is only one outcome.

It is the job of educators to figure out how to balance to manage any conflict and to present evolution as it is: the best scientific theory we have to explain natural history. The best approach to manage the conflict will depend on the community. More religious communities will require that religious views be given greater deference.

Religion simply needs to stay out of science, they are not compatible.

Frankly, this should be common sense. If I was a science teacher in a religious community I would want to talk about creationism in science class because that would be the best way to get the students to talk about the conflict and learn that religion is religion and science is science. The opinion of evolutionary scientists on this teaching method is irrelevant.

Creationism is not science, therefor no reason to be in a science class.

[Wild Bill]

Religion simply needs to stay out of science, they are not compatible.

At its essential core, religion is about faith. Where it gets into trouble is not when it says there is a God but when it tries to state how God does and did things!

When you think about it, if there is a God it's rather arrogant and presumptuous for Man to tell him how He made his Universe work...

[dre]

WTF? Gawd you are misinformed.

The curriculum is set by politicians in Canada and the US. In fact, local control over eduction was one of the founding principles of many states and provices.

http://www.lakenewsonline.com/news/education/x2087804837/State-sets-school-curriculum-local-districts-choose-instructional-materials

That said, some may choose to use material provided by the NAS but they are not obligated to.

The curriculums are based on the national curriculum and standards I mentioned, designed by the NAS and the academies. Some school boards deviate from it like the dorks who recently tried putting disclaimer stickers on evolution text books and promptly got their asses fired by the public.

Many states though have now implemented the NAS curriculum as a rigid framework to prevent people like you from getting elected to schoolboards, and teaching kids all kinds of crazy politically motivated crap.

[dre]

It is the *policy makers* who consult scientists, businesses, engineers, economists. Climate scientists contribute their knowledge of the climate. After that their opinion is irrelevant. In fact, based on advice from engineers and economists policy makers could decide that doing nothing is best (many are coming to this realization too).

It is the *policy makers* who consult scientists, businesses, engineers, economists.

Yes thats what I said. All those people give advice and make recommendations.

Good grief.

[Michael Hardner]

Further to dre's post, the system seems to work well and special interests need to make a general case for any proposed changes, rather than just agitating and clanking their tin cups on the bars of their cells.

[TimG]

Yes thats what I said. All those people give advice and make recommendations.

The give advice only with the area of their expertise. Economists don't advise on climate science, climate scientists don't advise on economic policy and neither climate scientists nor economists have any interesting to say on energy production.

My point is: it really does not make a difference how many climate scientists think that it would be a good idea to reduce carbon emissions. They do not have the expertise required to understand the technical and economic implications and once those factors are taken into account - doing nothing a perfectly reasonable response.

Edited January 3, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

Further to dre's post, the system seems to work well and special interests need to make a general case for any proposed changes, rather than just agitating and clanking their tin cups on the bars of their cells.

You are missing the point.

Alarmists scream that if you do not support policies calling for a rapid reduction in CO2 then you are 'ignoring the science'. This is rubbish. The science is only one of many inputs into the decision making process and its dishonest and manipulative to suggest that the science should be the only criteria.

In fact, the above tactic has dragged science into the politic debate and created a toxic enviroment where many scientists feel they have to produce research that supports the AGW narrative in order to protect their careers.

[Michael Hardner]

You are missing the point.

Alarmists scream that if you do not support policies calling for a rapid reduction in CO2 then you are 'ignoring the science'. This is rubbish. The science is only one of many inputs into the decision making process and its dishonest and manipulative to suggest that the science should be the only criteria.

I thought the point was where the curriculum is set.

In fact, the above tactic has dragged science into the politic debate and created a toxic enviroment where many scientists feel they have to produce research that supports the AGW narrative in order to protect their careers.

You're veering into conspiracy theory here, which I can't support. Scientists who lie risk their careers, and scientists who make a valid case do not. There are skeptical scientists who seem to do quite well for themselves.

Other than that, it's a "you guys shot first" kind of debate. Keeping religion and politics out of it is pretty difficult, but they have done a good enough job up until now so I don't see why it has to change.

[dre]

You are missing the point.

Alarmists scream that if you do not support policies calling for a rapid reduction in CO2 then you are 'ignoring the science'. This is rubbish. The science is only one of many inputs into the decision making process and its dishonest and manipulative to suggest that the science should be the only criteria.

In fact, the above tactic has dragged science into the politic debate and created a toxic enviroment where many scientists feel they have to produce research that supports the AGW narrative in order to protect their careers.

Scientists have been dragged into every political debate where science is a central concern. The 30 year attempt to deny smoking cigarettes was bad for you played out along the exact same lines as the AGW debate.

A few scientists did studies suggesting links to thinks like Cancer but the data wasnt yet acceptable to other scientists. The tobacco industry hired their OWN scientists to refute the conclusions, and folks like you alledged a global conpiracy and attacked science, scientists, and the peer review process.

The process worked in the end though, and it will work again this time. Whether its flawed or not its the best chance we have to understand the world around us. Some folks clearly figure that right-wing blogs offer a better body of knowledge, but Ill take a pass.

[TimG]

The tobacco industry hired their OWN scientists to refute the conclusions, and folks like you alledged a global conpiracy and attacked science, scientists, and the peer review process.

You are revising history to support the narrative you want. Perhaps the most important detail you left out is the tobbacco companies were facing lawsuits and defending themselves REQUIRED that they undermine the credibility of the research used by the plaintiffs. In fact, I would say they were entitled to put up the best defence they could and people like you have no business criticizing them today for doing it.

The second thing you ignore is tabacco science was built on millions of independent test subjects over decades. CAGW has nothing but computer models (evidence the globe is warming is NOT evidence for CAGW). CAGW science does not come anywhere close to the level of experimental support that tobacco science had. Your comparison displays a profound ignorance of the issues.

The process worked in the end though, and it will work again this time.

The process is fine. It is people who abuse science in order to promote a political agenda which are the problem.

[TimG]

You're veering into conspiracy theory here, which I can't support.

All I have are anecdotes from people in the field. Nothing that would be compelling evidence for you but I think it is fair assertion.

[Michael Hardner]

All I have are anecdotes from people in the field. Nothing that would be compelling evidence for you but I think it is fair assertion.

There is money out there for skeptics who have a good grasp of the science and the data, but... as to your people, I'm not sure what their situation is. A liberal estimate of scientists who don't believe in GW is 10%. I don't think many of those people would get any funding unless they had something pretty solid.