Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Political & socio-economic nerd-rage thread.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
    I'm confused. Are we doing scienctific credentials or not? You trust one scientist, just not the overwhelming majority of them, who are in some sort of commie plot.
    You should be. Science isn't about consensus. It's about understanding nature.

    NOVA | Mystery of the Megaflood | PBS

    There are plenty of other examples where the consensus was wrong. To what benefit does any scientist have to latching on to one particular interpretation over another? To what benefit does a politician or policy maker have to latching on to one particular interpretation over another? To what benefit does any other person (layman) have to latching on to one particular interpretation over another?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
      I'm confused. Are we doing scienctific credentials or not? You trust one scientist, just not the overwhelming majority of them, who are in some sort of commie plot.
      You might also notice that there's a distinct tendency for the scientists trotted out to proclaim scientifically the falsehood of global warming/greenhouse effect/climate change to be not climatologists. Lots of meteorologists, lots of astrophysicists, lots of "earth scientists" or geologists or what have you, even plenty of us engineers for some reason. Not very many climatologists. Because, you know, going into climatology makes you an evil conspiracy-supporter whereas all those other scientists who don't know much about climate know The Truth about global warming. It's an odd phenomenon, almost as if... the vast majority of people with access to the relevant data and who have obtained the relevant mastery of the subject agree with the consensus view. Huh, no, that can't be right. That "vast left-wing conspiracy with nebulous but clearly nefarious motivations" theory is clearly the more parsimonious of the two.
      Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

      My Primal Journal

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
        You might also notice that there's a distinct tendency for the scientists trotted out to proclaim scientifically the falsehood of global warming/greenhouse effect/climate change to be not climatologists. Lots of meteorologists, lots of astrophysicists, lots of "earth scientists" or geologists or what have you, even plenty of us engineers for some reason. Not very many climatologists. Because, you know, going into climatology makes you an evil conspiracy-supporter whereas all those other scientists who don't know much about climate know The Truth about global warming. It's an odd phenomenon, almost as if... the vast majority of people with access to the relevant data and who have obtained the relevant mastery of the subject agree with the consensus view. Huh, no, that can't be right. That "vast left-wing conspiracy with nebulous but clearly nefarious motivations" theory is clearly the more parsimonious of the two.
        You just have to know enough math to know you can't correctly solve a coupled system by holding variables constant. If the anthropogenic models of climate change involve holding the Sun's contribution constant, you can be certain mathematically that the model is wrong.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
          Because, you know, going into climatology makes you an evil conspiracy-supporter whereas all those other scientists who don't know much about climate know The Truth about global warming. It's an odd phenomenon, almost as if... the vast majority of people with access to the relevant data and who have obtained the relevant mastery of the subject agree with the consensus view.

          I'm quoting this because I find it interesting that many on this forum would be more than willing to point you towards fathead or other sources claiming that the vast majority of nutritionists, scientists etc are conspiring for money/grants/ignorance to promote CW and the state-sponsored USDA view of food despite contrary evidence and this is considered not only perfectly sane but in some respects the foundation of the paleo/primal movement. After all, if all of them were right there would be no need for alternate ways of eating. Yet, when anyone mentions that perhaps climate scientists and the like might have the same motivating factors (because holy snikes does the govt throw money at climate change proponents) they are called wingnuts, tinfoil hat wearing freaks, and other such terms. Because apparently none of these people have mortgages to pay or would possibly sell out the purity of science.


          I am not saying climate change is correct one way or the other. I just find the different levels of willingness to accept the CW view on different subjects interesting.

          Edit: I should add that I do not think Uncephalized is blindly following CW. He has obviously done his research for his point of view.
          Last edited by canio6; 05-29-2012, 03:17 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by js290 View Post
            You just have to know enough math to know you can't correctly solve a coupled system by holding variables constant. If the anthropogenic models of climate change involve holding the Sun's contribution constant, you can be certain mathematically that the model is wrong.
            Do you think your single encounter with one researcher, working in one little corner of climate research, is representative of the entire state of the science across the whole spectrum of sub-disciplines? That is to say, do you think no one has ever thought of the weak objection you are making? Do you think climate scientists the world over routinely neglect the effects of solar output in all their models?

            Or look at it another way. When physicists and engineers use the Navier-Stokes equations to solve problems involving fluids, they don't actually solve the real equations. They simplify them first, eliminating as many terms as possible by making reasonable assumptions about how the fluid behaves given the constraints on the system. The more terms you eliminate the more tractable the problem becomes mathematically, with the full set of equations being apparently unsolvable by analytical means. The trick is having the knowledge to know what you can get away with neglecting and still get a close approximation to the true result. I bet you a dollar your cloud-albedo researcher knows more about the effect of changes in solar irradiance on his math than you do--since it is his job--and is probably making a useful contribution to the sum of human knowledge about climate regardless of his "grievous error" that apparently renders useless everything he works on. He could be completely incompetent, but most scientists are at least reasonably intelligent and capable. I just need something better from you than "a scientist controlled for a variable OMG all climate science is WROOOOONG!" Yeah, most science is "wrong". But it's a hell of a lot less wrong than it was 40 years ago and getting asymptotically closer to right all the time. Just because it will probably never quite get there doesn't mean we can't do some pretty useful stuff with it in the meantime.
            Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

            My Primal Journal

            Comment


            • Yes it's a conspiracy, DUH.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by fiercehunter View Post
                Yes it's a conspiracy, DUH.
                No it's not, DUH.

                See how when other people do it, it's not very convincing either?
                Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                My Primal Journal

                Comment


                • Wow, three different spam bots quoted my line. That must be some kind of record.

                  Comment


                  • The majority of scientists dispute global warming.[1]

                    [1] 17,200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming

                    Comment


                    • I will be more than thrilled if it all does turn out to be alarmism. That would be great for human beings and the planet too. However I distrust the interests aligned against climate change science as much as I distrust world governments or any other large, faceless organization. Most of these groups are transparently motivated by the same kinds of factors that pushed tobacco companies to go on billion-dollar anti-science campaigns trying to prove cigarettes were good for your heath. The main thrust of my argument is not that global warming is real. It's that none of us really know because a) the science is damned complex and beyond our ability to analyze from our armchairs without years of serious study, b) there are clearly lies and distortions of both sides, just as in every politically contentious issue ever, and c) there is so much sheer volume of nonsense being spouted off by illiterate pundits and other know-nothings that it's nearly impossible to separate the signal from the noise.

                      I happen to think getting off fossil fuels would be a fantastic move for the species regardless of carbon dioxide's impact on the climate, for a whole host of reasons, so I'll continue to oppose desperate, dangerous and destructive technologies like shale extraction, mountaintop removal, and deep-water oil drilling, and do anything I can to support the introduction of technologies and practices that might let us move past this dirty, extractive phase of our development. Right now as a species we pretty much act like ticks, or maybe flesh-eating bacteria, and it's not very becoming, nor in keeping with self-image as the "very wise man" Homo sapiens sapiens.
                      Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                      My Primal Journal

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
                        . Right now as a species we pretty much act like ticks, or maybe flesh-eating bacteria, and it's not very becoming, nor in keeping with self-image as the "very wise man" Homo sapiens sapiens.
                        Nicely put.

                        Instead of asking scientists, that may or may not have a vested interest in the question of global warming, why don't we just ask the polar bears? Oh, but they might be a little biased.
                        Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Urban Forager View Post
                          Nicely put.

                          Instead of asking scientists, that may or may not have a vested interest in the question of global warming, why don't we just ask the polar bears? Oh, but they might be a little biased.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
                            Or look at it another way. When physicists and engineers use the Navier-Stokes equations to solve problems involving fluids, they don't actually solve the real equations. They simplify them first, eliminating as many terms as possible by making reasonable assumptions about how the fluid behaves given the constraints on the system. The more terms you eliminate the more tractable the problem becomes mathematically, with the full set of equations being apparently unsolvable by analytical means. The trick is having the knowledge to know what you can get away with neglecting and still get a close approximation to the true result. I bet you a dollar your cloud-albedo researcher knows more about the effect of changes in solar irradiance on his math than you do--since it is his job--and is probably making a useful contribution to the sum of human knowledge about climate regardless of his "grievous error" that apparently renders useless everything he works on. He could be completely incompetent, but most scientists are at least reasonably intelligent and capable. I just need something better from you than "a scientist controlled for a variable OMG all climate science is WROOOOONG!" Yeah, most science is "wrong". But it's a hell of a lot less wrong than it was 40 years ago and getting asymptotically closer to right all the time. Just because it will probably never quite get there doesn't mean we can't do some pretty useful stuff with it in the meantime.
                            Yes, ignore enough variables until you understand the problem, then simplify until it tells the story you want to hear. I did not say climate science is wrong. I'm just saying you cannot decouple a coupled system. This is fundamental mathematics. Ask your math friends how to solve eigenvalue problems.

                            You admitted yourself in a previous reply:

                            Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
                            The quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere would be proportional to the average global temperature AFAIK, since the water capacity of air goes up with temperature as does evaporation from the oceans. So it would be coupled to solar output somewhat, because higher solar output, all things equal, would increase temperature. CO2 shouldn't be coupled to solar output as closely because it's largely dependent on biological activity and release from human sources like burning coal and oil.
                            So the first obvious question is whether solar output affects temperature enough to explain the observed temperature data? And, is the resultant increase in CO2 a cause, effect, or unrelated to increase in temperature?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by canio6 View Post
                              I am not saying climate change is correct one way or the other. I just find the different levels of willingness to accept the CW view on different subjects interesting.
                              Most of us accept the CW most of the time -- gravity, evolution, the link between smoking and cancer. And for good reason, most of the time the CW is right. It's held up to scientific rigor. Which is something Mark does, frequently citing PubMed and such.

                              But sometimes the CW is off -- because of group-think or past-prejudices or corrupting money. The food pyramid contains a litte bit from all these.

                              And sometimes the picture is muddied intentionally to instill scepticism about a CW that could cost big industries money -- like the tobacco industrie's propping up doctors telling us that there is no link between cigarettes and cancer.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                                Most of us accept the CW most of the time -- gravity, evolution, the link between smoking and cancer. And for good reason, most of the time the CW is right. It's held up to scientific rigor. Which is something Mark does, frequently citing PubMed and such.

                                But sometimes the CW is off -- because of group-think or past-prejudices or corrupting money. The food pyramid contains a litte bit from all these.

                                And sometimes the picture is muddied intentionally to instill scepticism about a CW that could cost big industries money -- like the tobacco industrie's propping up doctors telling us that there is no link between cigarettes and cancer.
                                There are thousands of scientists who would be more than happy to state with scientific rigor why CW nutrition is correct. Hell, many have been doing it for decades. Is it because they are right? Is it because the status quo = money? Is it because they are morons? Mark says it is wrong. I am not 100% sure of Mark's background but I thought he was an athlete/personal trainer not a scientist. Yet, here we all are.

                                Also, I do not claim to be any kind of expert on climate change, yet, the little I do recall from science classes long ago is that the earth's temperature has been cyclical...ice ages, thaws etc. Yet, now we are supposed to believe that in less than 200 years of industrialism we have fucked up a multi-billion year old process so much that it matters? Perhaps we have, I have not given it enough study to know for sure, yet, I think it merits some skepticism.

                                I have heard from several people the following though, (or something to this extent): "OMG all these doctors and studies and even the government says low fat is best. Why are you eating steak? Shouldn't you be eating chicken? Nooo! Do not use butter. That stuff will kill you! Use vegetable oil! Dr. Oz/Phil/whoever says it is better! Eat some tofu, it is low in fat and good for you! You really need to look into meatless meals. Add some soy protein. Yeah, my doctor told me to do it. Oh, and take some statins, they really help with the cholesterol...ad infinitum."

                                It seems to me every side wants money.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X