Climate Change Is A Pro-life Issue

[Perigrina]

If all researchers of all universities of all countries around the world were simply pawns of their respective states put there to influence the public through appearances of scientific credibility, then it's very strange that all these researchers end up agreeing and corroborating each other's results, despite different countries having widely different political interests especially in regards to energy and carbon emissions. I mean, we would expect that their findings would closely align with their state's particular interests.

 

It's also incredibly bizarre that despite all their "science" amounting to a thin veil to influence the public and politicians, universities manage to produce a lot of useful innovations that end up really working. It's almost as if they were doing real independent research!

 

 

It is not simply a matter of science being influenced by the state.  There are fashions in science, just as much as in clothing.  When an idea is "in vogue" it is very hard to say anything against it.  A good example is in the field of nutrition.  The "consensus position" held by virtually all the official scientific bodies for the last few decades has been wrong.  This is finally coming out in mainstream medical journals in the last couple of years.  

 

A good book on this is Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health by Gary Taubes. http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286302951&sr=1-1 He traces the history of how demonstrably wrong ideas about diet and nutrition became accepted as scientific facts, taught in medical schools and promoted by government and prestigious organizations. Anyone questioning was labelled as a crack-pot.  

 

Another book that talks about how intellectual fashions often triumph over evidence, this one in the field of social sciences, is The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial/dp/0142003344.  Scientists are human beings and just as subject to prejudice and cultural assumptions as anyone else.  We need to maintain some skepticism about science.  It is necessarily fallible.

[Winchester]

If all researchers of all universities of all countries around the world were simply pawns of their respective states put there to influence the public through appearances of scientific credibility, then it's very strange that all these researchers end up agreeing and corroborating each other's results, despite different countries having widely different political interests especially in regards to energy and carbon emissions. I mean, we would expect that their findings would closely align with their state's particular interests.

 

It's also incredibly bizarre that despite all their "science" amounting to a thin veil to influence the public and politicians, universities manage to produce a lot of useful innovations that end up really working. It's almost as if they were doing real independent research!

 

You have a hard time focusing on what's being said.

 

Could you point to where I said that research was incorrect? Could you point to where I said they were pawns? Or  that their science was "a thin veil to influence the public and politicians"

 

You like the word "independent" like Republicans like the word "conservative".

[Dr_Asik]

You have a hard time focusing on what's being said.

 

Could you point to where I said that research was incorrect? Could you point to where I said they were pawns? Or  that their science was "a thin veil to influence the public and politicians"

 

You like the word "independent" like Republicans like the word "conservative".

You said that the idea that universities are "in any way independent" is "beyond laughable" and "insane", and this, because they are "massive beneficiaries of the state". So while you did not explicitely call them pawns of the state, it's quite obvious your statement implies that: they are in no way independent of the state, i.e. fully dependent, i.e. pawns. Since your first post here was about the "legitimacy" of their research which independence is merely a "buzzword", it seems you are attempting to cast doubt on the legitimacy of university research based on putting in question their independence.

 

I don't see how you can both claim that and say that they're doing real science, unless you don't understand what science is or how it works.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Winchester]

You said that the idea that universities are "in any way independent" is "beyond laughable" and "insane", and this, because they are "massive beneficiaries of the state". So while you did not explicitely call them pawns of the state, it's quite obvious your statement implies that: they are in no way independent of the state, i.e. fully dependent, i.e. pawns. Since your first post here was about the "legitimacy" of their research which independence is merely a "buzzword", it seems you are attempting to cast doubt on the legitimacy of university research based on putting in question their independence.

 

I don't see how you can both claim that and say that they're doing real science, unless you don't understand what science is or how it works.

Your substitution does not match my intent.

 

I am not questioning the research, I'm questioning your faith in that word.

 

You'll note I've not rejected anthropogenically driven climate change.

[Dr_Asik]

Another book that talks about how intellectual fashions often triumph over evidence, this one in the field of social sciences, is The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial/dp/0142003344.  Scientists are human beings and just as subject to prejudice and cultural assumptions as anyone else.  We need to maintain some skepticism about science.  It is necessarily fallible.

This is true. That's why it's not so much that there is a consensus among scientists that's important, but that the consensus is based on solid evidence and rigorous scientific investigation. And, as far as I'm aware, the reports of the IPCC are based on the most open, comprehensive and rigorous scientific process that we have in all fields of science; actually few fields are lucky enough to get that kind of comprehensive international review and scrutiny. We're also well past the point where anthopogenic global warming is a novel hypothesis with little or questionable basis in research. While, as you say, humans are by nature fallible and it is not strictly impossible that another theory of global warming might emerge, in light of current research it appears extremely unlikely, and therefore the most reasonable course of action is to act as if the theory was true, especially given the dire consequences that not acting may have on future generations.

 

To take an analogy, if a giant asteroid was headed on a collision course with earth, and 97% of astrophysicians agreed we should do something about it to avoid a global disaster, and this was backed up by the best form of international scientific process we currently have, would the reasonable thing to do be to keep a "healthy dose of skepticism" and not do anything about it?
 

[Dr_Asik]

Your substitution does not match my intent.

 

I am not questioning the research, I'm questioning your faith in that word.

 

You'll note I've not rejected anthropogenically driven climate change.
 

I've already explained exactly what I meant by that term and I don't see why you keep insisting that it implies some level of "faith" or false legitimacy. And I frankly don't see how you can reconcile your claim that university research is not "in any way independent" from the state subsidizing it with the idea that this research is in any way legitimate. The legitimacy of scientific research requires a high level of independence. If you accept anthropogenic climate change, what do you base it on if not that kind of research?

Edited June 8, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Perigrina]

This is true. That's why it's not so much that there is a consensus among scientists that's important, but that the consensus is based on solid evidence and rigorous scientific investigation. And, as far as I'm aware, the reports of the IPCC are based on the most open, comprehensive and rigorous scientific process that we have in all fields of science; actually few fields are lucky enough to get that kind of comprehensive international review and scrutiny. We're also well past the point where anthopogenic global warming is a novel hypothesis with little or questionable basis in research. While, as you say, humans are by nature fallible and it is not strictly impossible that another theory of global warming might emerge, in light of current research it appears extremely unlikely, and therefore the most reasonable course of action is to act as if the theory was true, especially given the dire consequences that not acting may have on future generations.

 

To take an analogy, if a giant asteroid was headed on a collision course with earth, and 97% of astrophysicians agreed we should do something about it to avoid a global disaster, and this was backed up by the best form of international scientific process we currently have, would the reasonable thing to do be to keep a "healthy dose of skepticism" and not do anything about it?
 

 

That just isn't the impression that I've come away with when I look at the science.  It's not my field, so my reading is superficial, but I'm just not getting the sense of certainty that you have. And when it comes to what to do about it, there is even more uncertainty.  And when it comes to politicians saying that they are going to do something about, I have no certainty whatsoever.  

[Winchester]

I've already explained exactly what I meant by that term and I don't see why you keep insisting that it implies some level of "faith" or false legitimacy. And I frankly don't see how you can reconcile your claim that university research is not "in any way independent" from the state subsidizing it with the idea that this research is in any way legitimate. The legitimacy of scientific research requires a high level of independence. If you accept anthropogenic climate change, what do you base it on if not that kind of research?

 

Why wouldn't I base it on that research?

 

I just think your use of the buzzword "independent" is massively stupid.

[Dr_Asik]

Why wouldn't I base it on that research?

Because it if has no legitimacy, as I explained is the logical consequence of having no independence from the state (which is the point you've defended), then it would be irrational to base your opinion on that. I'm simply pointing out the incoherence of claiming that university research is in absolutely no way independent from the state, and then using it as a serious scientific source to base your opinion on.

 

 

I just think your use of the buzzword "independent" is massively stupid.

... how? I've given you the exact definition of what I meant by that and you've done nothing to show that this definition was "stupid", and that's a very vague pejorative term so I'm not sure what the criticism is. You've then explained in very absolute terms your position of how entirely dependent to the state university research was, but when I pointed out how that would totally ruin their credibility, you've simply attempted to deflect my answer as misrepresenting your point. So, do you actually want to make a point?

[Dr_Asik]

That just isn't the impression that I've come away with when I look at the science.  It's not my field, so my reading is superficial, but I'm just not getting the sense of certainty that you have. And when it comes to what to do about it, there is even more uncertainty.  And when it comes to politicians saying that they are going to do something about, I have no certainty whatsoever.  

All evidence shows that we should reduce our emissions of CO2. Even outside of global warming and its many foreseen and unforeseen consequences, rising CO2 levels also threaten marine life at a global scale, and their effects on plant growth are not very well understood. We should tread carefully and not treat the planet like a dumping ground for our pollutants as we are doing now.
 

[Perigrina]

All evidence shows that we should reduce our emissions of CO2. Even outside of global warming and its many foreseen and unforeseen consequences, rising CO2 levels also threaten marine life at a global scale, and their effects on plant growth are not very well understood. We should tread carefully and not treat the planet like a dumping ground for our pollutants as we are doing now.
 

 

How does reduce CO2 emissions translate into specific actions?  

[Dr_Asik]

How does reduce CO2 emissions translate into specific actions?  

Well, simply, we should identify the activities that cause most CO2 emission and try to either eliminate or replace these with activities that cause less CO2 emissions. For example, producing electricity by burning coal produces massively more CO2 than almost any other type of fuel, and also causes a host of immediate health concerns (i.e. fine particles and radioactivity). At a political level, that would mean stopping investments in coal power and putting the money in cleaner energy sources instead. China is very focused on transitioning out of coal at the moment. Natural gas would already be better, but there are more interesting and novel alternatives that also need funding to see the light of the day, and we'll need them soon - thorium reactors and more efficient solar panels, for instance.

 

Edited June 9, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Winchester]

Because it if has no legitimacy, as I explained is the logical consequence of having no independence from the state (which is the point you've defended), then it would be irrational to base your opinion on that. I'm simply pointing out the incoherence of claiming that university research is in absolutely no way independent from the state, and then using it as a serious scientific source to base your opinion on.

 

 

... how? I've given you the exact definition of what I meant by that and you've done nothing to show that this definition was "stupid", and that's a very vague pejorative term so I'm not sure what the criticism is. You've then explained in very absolute terms your position of how entirely dependent to the state university research was, but when I pointed out how that would totally ruin their credibility, you've simply attempted to deflect my answer as misrepresenting your point. So, do you actually want to make a point?

 

I didn't say it had no legitimacy. I mocked the use of the word independent. I also mocked the idea of universities as independent. They're not independent. What "independent" really means is "Not funded by a privately owned corporation". It is a term applied to a study to lend it automatic legitimacy. It's meant to subdue skepticism.

 

It appears it worked.

[CrossCuT]

We have the capabilities, the know how, and the resources to harness the FREE energy produced by the sun as well as other alternatives. But we dont...why? Because our economic system is broken and run by members of a government who value profit over innovation. They even go so far as they convince us that we dont need these new technologies.

 

Bananas. People need to stop throttling these breakthroughs by QQing about politics. 

[Winchester]

We have the capabilities, the know how, and the resources to harness the FREE energy produced by the sun as well as other alternatives. But we dont...why? Because our economic system is broken and run by members of a government who value profit over innovation. They even go so far as they convince us that we dont need these new technologies.

 

Bananas. People need to stop throttling these breakthroughs by QQing about politics. 

 

I, too, wish the economy would quit hampering the spontaneous occurrence of solar panels and the batteries needed to store that power. Every year, wind farms and transmission lines are heartlessly destroyed by the economy after magically springing up.

 

There are no consequences to producing batteries, solar panels, or wind generators. Just as hydro power from dams has no impact.