Why I am a conservative (Part One of Two)

[ReeferMadness]

The point that you are missing is a scientist who enters politics will find it extremely humiliating to adopt a different position should more evidence come it. It pretty much guarantees that the scientist in question will not objectively assess new scientific evidence but rather be most concerned for how the evidence supports their publicly stated positions. This often occurs without scientists going into politics but it going into politics certainly amplifies this tendency.

Nonsense.

It's pretty hard to believe that scientists will be more intransigent in sticking to a position than an ideologue like, say, Stephen Harper.

[TimG]

The scientific method has components that are designed to help expose, and correct for this kind of bias.

A system that only works with fields where real world experiments are possible. With climate science there are no real world experiments which means the "truth" is manipulated though bias. At this point the field has no credibility because of the political activism of many in the field. People like you simply deny thing reality because the bias of the scientists aligns with your personal biases. Edited November 26, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

It's pretty hard to believe that scientists will be more intransigent in sticking to a position than an ideologue like, say, Stephen Harper.

Harper is a model of objectivity compared to many climate scientists.

[ReeferMadness]

Fine in theory but in practice peer review is often a mechanism that allows influential incumbent scientists to suppress ideas that they don't like. That is why a paradigm change in science often has to wait for the old generation with a vested interest in the current paradigm to die off.

So, Tim, when science tells you something you don't like, what do you do?

Say, your doctor tells you that you have cancer. Like everyone else, your doctor (and the people who develop your x-rays and process your lab samples) are biased. Maybe they're wrong. So here are your options:

1. You keep going from doctor to doctor until you find the one in fifty who tells you that you don't have cancer and you choose to believe him or her (this is the denier approach to climate change)
2. You go on the internet and find some 'miracle cures' (this is the 'climate engineering' approach to climate change)
3. You wait for the current cancer paradigm to change (not sure what this is but you suggested it)
4. You seek a second opinion to confirm. Then you go and get treatment. Brutal and nasty as it is.

There's no good choices here. But that's life.

[ReeferMadness]

Harper is a model of objectivity compared to many climate scientists.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

:rolleyes:

[TimG]

Say, your doctor tells you that you have cancer.

Unlike climate science which is nothing but computer based speculation, cancer research is backed up by real world experiments - including double blind studies. So please don't waste time with irrelevant analogies. Edited November 26, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Unlike climate science which is nothing but computer based speculation, cancer research is backed up by real world experiments - including double blind studies. So please don't waste time with irrelevant analogies.

And yet there is a mountain of failure in treating cancer. And there are plenty of people out there who, because of that, decide that the cure is worse than the disease and go out and buy stuff off the internet. Of fly to Arizona for some health spa. Or go visit a faith healer in South America.

We live in a world where it is so easy to get knowledge that knowledge itself has become a consumer choice. If you don't like what science tells you, choose to listen to someone else. The internet is full of experts. The recent tragic case of a Calgary mother whose son died because she insisted on holistic medicine is a case in point. Now the hapless criminal system needs to figure out what to do with her.

Immunization has been one of the great success stories of modern science but thanks to an ex-Playboy bunny, we are starting to lose herd immunity.

It's healthy to be a skeptic and I highly recommend getting multiple sources. But when you pick and choose science on the basis of perceived bias, then I wonder if you aren't projecting. Maybe it's not the scientists biases that are affecting you views. Maybe it's your own biases.

[TimG]

And yet there is a mountain of failure in treating cancer.

Cancer treatment = real life experiments = mountain of failure = reliable science.

Climate science = no real experiments (at least within a useful timeframe) = impossible to fail = junk science

Edited November 26, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Cancer treatment = real life experiments = mountain of failure = reliable science.

Climate science = no real experiments (at least within a useful timeframe) = impossible to fail = junk science

You consider cancer treatment to be reliable science?

[TimG]

You consider cancer treatment to be reliable science?

Reliable science meaning you can trust the scientific method to sort out what works and what does not. This is because there are many double blind experiments going on constantly as doctors try different approaches and determine what works and what does not. This connection to the real world is essential for any science. Without that connection you have nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. Edited November 26, 2013 by TimG

[dre]

A system that only works with fields where real world experiments are possible. With climate science there are no real world experiments which means the "truth" is manipulated though bias. At this point the field has no credibility because of the political activism of many in the field. People like you simply deny thing reality because the bias of the scientists aligns with your personal biases.

I dont have personal biases regarding climate change. Im basically a fence sitter. But in general we seem to do better when we at least carefully consider what the scientific community has to say. It worked to get us from the dark ages to here.

[Michael Hardner]

Politics and truth don't need to be mutually exclusive. Nor, necessarily, do self-interest and politics (provided it's declared).

No, they don't but I don't think I said that they need to - just that people don't see them as being in the same business...

[TimG]

I dont have personal biases regarding climate change. Im basically a fence sitter. But in general we seem to do better when we at least carefully consider what the scientific community has to say. It worked to get us from the dark ages to here.

If cost effective methods of reducing CO2 emissions existed I would not oppose them even though I have contempt for many people who claim to be climate scientists. But there are no cost effective methods of reducing CO2 emissions yet people seem to be willing to waste billions (if not trillions worldwide) on schemes that we know will not work. I cannot support such waste when there are many higher priority issues that demand attention and money.

[carepov]

But there are no cost effective methods of reducing CO2 emissions...

Why do you keep saying this? There are plenty of cost-effective methods of reducing CO2 emissions.

[TimG]

Why do you keep saying this? There are plenty of cost-effective methods of reducing CO2 emissions.

Despite its promise there is absolutely no political support for nuclear and that is not going to change any time soon. Other than nuclear there is nothing (energy efficiency - not cost effective by definition since there is already a monetary incentive to increase efficiency which means solutions that are not already used are not used because they are not cost effective) Edited November 27, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

Despite its promise there is absolutely no political support for nuclear and that is not going to change any time soon. Other than nuclear there is nothing (energy efficiency - not cost effective by definition since there is already a monetary incentive to increase efficiency which means solutions that are not already used are not used because they are not cost effective)

I would not write off nuclear. There is also hydro and geothermal (in some regions) and even some solar and wind (limited usefulness but still useful). And don't forget the conversion from coal to gas.

Are you saying that there is no point in looking for energy efficiencies because if it were cost-effective then it would have been done already? I strongly disagree, but even if it were true, then policies that create more incentives to increase energy efficiencies would be (and are) cost-effective methods of reducing CO2 emissions.

[TimG]

I would not write off nuclear. There is also hydro and geothermal (in some regions) and even some solar and wind (limited usefulness but still useful). And don't forget the conversion from coal to gas.

Hydro and geo-thermal are limited by geography (most of the former has already been developed). Society needs power sources can be deployed anywhere. Solar and wind are bit players - no more than 10% of the grid and come at huge cost because of the inefficiencies introduced (note: places like Germany/Denmark with >10% depend on being able to dump excess power on their neighbors so the real grid in those countries is much larger than the single country being used as reference which means the real percentage is <10%).

As for the conversion from coal to gas - that is a one time step change. Britain benefited in the 80s. The US is benefiting now. Once the change is complete emissions will start to rise again.

Are you saying that there is no point in looking for energy efficiencies because if it were cost-effective then it would have been done already?

What I am saying is the incentives are already in place and no CO2 policy is going to change speed or rate of deployment of these efficiency gains. i.e. the BAU scenario includes constant improvement in efficiency already so the marginal gains to be had are zero. Edited November 27, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

A 5% here and a 5% there, pretty soon you have some significant (cost-effective) reductions in CO2.

What I am saying is the incentives are already in place and no CO2 policy is going to change speed or rate of deployment of these efficiency gains. i.e. the BAU scenario includes constant improvement in efficiency already so the marginal gains to be had are zero.

OK, but we can implement policies that increase incentives, right?

[TimG]

OK, but we can implement policies that increase incentives, right?

Not without consequences. People waste energy because it is often cheaper than trying to save it - you can change that equation by increasing the cost of energy but that, in turn, hurts productive enterprise that puts the energy to good use. You could also increase efficiency standards but that increases the cost of new equipment and potentially reduces its effectiveness (i.e. a drag on the productive economy) - so there is a limit there. Really don't think there is any extra the government can do over and above what it does already (aside: i believe the current efficiency regulations for autos exceed what is technically possible and the government will either roll them back or allow automakers to fudge the books in order to meet the targets). Edited November 27, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

Not without consequences. People waste energy because it is often cheaper than trying to save it - you can change that equation by increasing the cost of energy but that, in turn, hurts productive enterprise that puts the energy to good use. You could also increase efficiency standards but that increases the cost of new equipment and potentially reduces its effectiveness (i.e. a drag on the productive economy) - so there is a limit there. Really don't think there is any extra the government can do over and above what it does already (aside: i believe the current efficiency regulations for autos exceed what is technically possible and the government will either roll them back or allow automakers to fudge the books in order to meet the targets).

There are always consequences to change. Sometimes the consequences can be positive. For example, road tolls targeted congestion - but a consequence was reduced CO2 emissions.

In some areas, we could build more bike paths to have, have less congestion, fewer emissions and a healthier population.

Governments can stop fighting wars like in Iraq - how much CO2 did that war emit?

Governments can approve pipeline deals and instead of stupidly moving oil by rail.

Governments can stop subsidizing growing corn for fuel.

Yes there are limits to what governments can do (and in some cases they are doing too much) - but they can certainly do a lot more over and above what they are doing now. Simply consider the immense variety of energy efficiency programs that different governments around the world have implemented. Selecting and widening the best-practices (where appropriate) would lead to a great deal of cost-effective policies that reduce CO2.

[socialist]

I think the question is whether their views influence their work.

Scientists, teachers and so on are professionally charged with the pursuit and communication of 'truths' so understandably people get upset if their personal views cause them to colour their professional goals.

Business people, however, are charged with pursuing business interests - so the shoe changes feet when they are in parliament and suspected of working against the best interests of the people.

So - people don't want politics to enter the 'truth business' and people don't want self-interest to enter the politics business.

Michael, have you studied the writings of Antonio Gramsci, Howard Zinn, Paulo Freire, and Frantz Fanon? These four men have had the largest influence on the teaching of humanities in the western world. Fascinating stuff Michael. Take a look.

[On Guard for Thee]

What I am saying is all sources of information have a bias and one must take that bias into account when assessing the information. i.e. biased sources are not necessarily wrong but they should not be immediately accepted as the one and only truth.

All sources of information do not have a bias. I have been a pilot for 40 odd years and science has kept my ass and those of my passengers alive all that time and I am very thankful and interested in what comes next in the field. Lift over a wing has no bias. It couldnt care less about your political slant. You either pay attention or you die. I guess if Harper had of been in power a hundred years ago, we would still be riding a bus or boat everywhere. Burn the carbon and cover your ears when scientists speak.

[TimG]

Lift over a wing has no bias.

Lift over a wing is not a 'source of information'. It is a theory has been confirmed by countless repeatable experiments. A source of information is a textbook explaining the theory of lift and the textbook would have a bias.

It is also important to separate scientific theories into testable vs untestable. Testable theories can be verified with real world experiments that produce unambiguous results. There little room for opinion in a presentation of these kinds of theories. Untestable theories such as the consequences of CO2 warming on human society are really nothing but opinion and any presentation of the facts will be distorted by the bias of the presenter.

Being able to distinguish between testable and untestable theories is as important as being able to understand the bias inherent in the information source.

Edited November 30, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Untestable theories such as the consequences of CO2 warming on human society are really nothing but opinion and any presentation of the facts will be distorted by the bias of the presenter.

Being able to distinguish between testable and untestable theories is as important as being able to understand the bias inherent in the information source.

True, but there are certain things which will be untestable, and that shouldn't stop us from acting if we're "sure" that there needs to be a response, without getting into the specifics of climate change....

[TimG]

True, but there are certain things which will be untestable, and that shouldn't stop us from acting if we're "sure" that there needs to be a response, without getting into the specifics of climate change.

Why? Maybe the best response to the science is to "wait and see"? You are inserting your own bias into the discussion by claiming that "action" is required (i.e. you a presuming a result without looking at the facts). Edited November 30, 2013 by TimG