tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2502776680187784224..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Statements by scientists are not necessarily statements of scienceVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18762590143280466002017-02-14T20:38:10.412-07:002017-02-14T20:38:10.412-07:00Joe Hinman said...
" atheists say we don&...Joe Hinman said...<br /><br />" atheists say we don't want arguments"<br />I never heard that before. Where did you get that? I use arguments continually and so does every atheist I know of.<br /><br />I think you are just making this up out of your imagination.<br /><br /><br /> February 06, 2017 2:53 AMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86292210361515187422017-02-06T02:53:10.209-07:002017-02-06T02:53:10.209-07:00apologetics v science; argument v fact
atheists ...<a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/02/scientist-extrapolate-form-data-to-make.html" rel="nofollow"><b>apologetics v science; argument v fact</b></a><br /><br /><br />atheists say we don't want arguments we want facts but sciences bases fact upon argumentJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36818362341731025432017-02-04T09:28:30.113-07:002017-02-04T09:28:30.113-07:00B. Prokop said...
" Seems to me that'...B. Prokop said...<br /><br />" Seems to me that's a plan the entire political spectrum could enthusiastically get behind.<br />"<br />Allow me to put this first, since various interests would in fact object to your ideas for various reasons.<br /><br />" Plant more trees - billions of them. "<br />Nope, that would take up commercially valuable cropland and urbanization space.<br /><br />"Encourage "green roofs" (buildings with vegetation on top, so from the air a city looks a vegetated area)." <br />Nope, that would require much more expensive roofs, with much more weight, all kinds of maintenance problems, people falling off while tending the roof (roofing is a far more deadly profession than policing, for example), and all the water resources already stretched to the limit in many places, plus all the pests that habitat would draw onto the roof and into the house.<br /><br />"And stop deforesting the rain forests."<br />Nope, they are getting deforested for very good human reasons, to harvest wood for commercial uses, to build houses, and to open up farm land to produce more food for more people. Deforestation may be bad environmentally in the long run but it is tremendously beneficial to humans in the short run.<br /><br />" Seems to me that's a plan the entire political spectrum could enthusiastically get behind."<br />If wishing made it so...<br /><br /><br /> February 03, 2017 3:38 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61375490358919356842017-02-03T15:38:06.661-07:002017-02-03T15:38:06.661-07:00"It's beyond me what is best to do."..."<i>It's beyond me what is best to do.</i>"<br /><br />Plant more trees - billions of them. Encourage "green roofs" (buildings with vegetation on top, so from the air a city looks a vegetated area). And stop deforesting the rain forests.<br /><br />Seems to me that's a plan the entire political spectrum could enthusiastically get behind.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63869306533874370032017-02-03T12:53:53.899-07:002017-02-03T12:53:53.899-07:00The normative aspect of climate change science cur...The normative aspect of climate change science currently tells us we should make fewer greenhouse gases, unless of course the world would become too cold without them.<br /><br />This does not directly imply what the UN official wants, except as one course of action among a great many others. It's beyond me what is best to do.<br /><br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74805123916410314292017-02-03T11:42:26.723-07:002017-02-03T11:42:26.723-07:00How climate change data gets interpreted by one UN...How climate change data gets interpreted by one UN official.<br /><br />The task is to "intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."<br /><br />http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28594270844432056392017-02-02T12:03:30.039-07:002017-02-02T12:03:30.039-07:00Certain scientific fields, including veterinary an...Certain scientific fields, including veterinary and human medicine, conservation biology, and environmental science (which includes climate change studies) are highly normative disciplines. When the normative parts of science have policy implications, the things a scientist says about them may be correctly seen as political.<br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15368451905061450452017-02-01T22:39:42.451-07:002017-02-01T22:39:42.451-07:00William Brown said...
It is politically driven by...William Brown said...<br /><br />It is politically driven by progressives who favor globalisation and increased government control. An effort by the government to control the climate would ensure most of their goals. Al Gore's background and beliefs serve as a useful case study.<br /><br /><b>your reasons are ideological not scientific, you oppose to because you see it as a prodict of the enemy camp so the thing about the data is just an excuse. Do you also deny that air pollution is harmful?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57893154133490686932017-02-01T19:22:38.989-07:002017-02-01T19:22:38.989-07:00Sorry, but I just can't believe in conspiracy ...Sorry, but I just can't believe in conspiracy theories. Haven't seen one yet that hasn't ultimately been shown to be a house of cards built on sand.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63567309827533413042017-02-01T18:47:16.287-07:002017-02-01T18:47:16.287-07:00It is politically driven by progressives who favor...<br /> It is politically driven by progressives who favor globalisation and increased government control. An effort by the government to control the climate would ensure most of their goals. Al Gore's background and beliefs serve as a useful case study.bbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02679936591494267078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20871292694583626592017-02-01T18:41:27.290-07:002017-02-01T18:41:27.290-07:00"A better survey would look at what percentag..."<i>A better survey would look at what percentage of leftists, progressives, and socialists are climate alarmists vs. the percentage of those with a conservative worldview.</i>"<br /><br />My point exactly. If the 97 percent figure is true (you apparently contest it), then the findings have nothing to do with political leanings. If they did, you'd expect a divide much closer to 50/50.<br /><br />But this isn't really a tangent, since we're discussing the admixture of agenda and science, and what such a thing would look like. Interestingly enough, if Climate change science does turn out to be politically driven, then it is truly a unique phenomenon. Every other case of "conspiratorial" science I can think of has been sponsored by some business interest (such as the tobacco and automobile industries). But if climate change is a conspiracy, then it not only has no backing from industry, but rather faces intense and determined opposition from the fossil fuels industry.<br /><br />Curious.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25425533335155402062017-02-01T18:16:47.511-07:002017-02-01T18:16:47.511-07:00The “97 percent” statistic first appeared in a 200... The “97 percent” statistic first appeared in a 2009 study by University of Illinois student Kendall Zimmerman, based on a two-question online survey. Only 5 percent of respondents, 160 scientists, were climate scientists. The “97 percent” statistic was drawn from a smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.” A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not improve on Zimmerman’s. Anderegg surveyed 200 scientists. <br /><br /> The most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian John Cook, who9 wrote the 2011 book 'Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand' and created of the blog 'Skeptical Science, Getting skeptical about Global Warming Skepticism.”. In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and got 97 percent. <br /><br /> When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.<br /><br /> Sorry for the tangent on the highly politicized topic. A better survey would look at what percentage of leftists, progressives, and socialists are climate alarmists vs. the percentage of those with a conservative worldview.bbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02679936591494267078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45965018348070807832017-02-01T17:36:57.704-07:002017-02-01T17:36:57.704-07:00The climate situation is similar to the sinking bu...The climate situation is similar to the sinking building situation in the article below, with a few key differences. Engineering (a science) knows how to stop sinking buildings because they have proven their models that say "if you do X, then this will happen to the building". If they were to discover a growing volcano underneath it I expect they will deem that to be an uncontrollable natural event, stop throwing money at a fix and resign themselves to the fact that nature WILL devour the building. <br /><br />Is the global climate an uncontrollable natural event like a growing volcano? We don't know. It's all theory and modeling at this point. Real life trial and error experiments will cost trillions upon trillions of dollars.<br /><br />https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-01/who-will-pay-for-san-francisco-s-tilting-sinking-millennium-towerSteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24342507823040139522017-02-01T15:39:38.582-07:002017-02-01T15:39:38.582-07:00RE: advocating various countermeasures
This is wh...RE: advocating various countermeasures<br /><br />This is what "they" are doing. Based on what settled science? Predictive models that haven't been able to predict anything useful regarding climate change other than it's changing. Way too many unknowns for anyone demand the world spend trillions stopping it.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36505596553945748712017-02-01T15:34:21.622-07:002017-02-01T15:34:21.622-07:00And what exactly is that?And what exactly is that?B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13262607343340538092017-02-01T15:28:00.024-07:002017-02-01T15:28:00.024-07:00The label is irrelevant. It's what "they&...The label is irrelevant. It's what "they" are doing. SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10635232977371390932017-02-01T15:19:30.504-07:002017-02-01T15:19:30.504-07:00But Steve, the scientists running the models and a...But Steve, the scientists running the models and advocating various countermeasures are by no means all (or even majority) "elite liberals". If you knew real world scientists up close and personal, you'd know that hardly any of them could ever be classified as "elite" anything, liberal or otherwise. And from my own experience, no one political philosophy is predominate amongst any gathering of scientists.<br /><br />Query any random group of, say, five scientists, and you'll likely find one liberal, one conservative, one libertarian, one middle of the road-er, and one who couldn't care less.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58460562644100108032017-02-01T14:55:04.686-07:002017-02-01T14:55:04.686-07:00"But I hadn't realized how many people ac..."But I hadn't realized how many people actually--I mean really, truly--believe that climate change is a nefarious conspiracy concocted by elite liberals to . . . do what, exactly?"<br /><br />I answer that in my prior comment, they are trying to convince us that "we must implement drastic measures". That is not a scientific conclusion by any means, it's a politically driven agenda based on an unproven model.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83932712592987112992017-02-01T14:43:21.900-07:002017-02-01T14:43:21.900-07:00Bob,
As far as I'm concerned, the denial aspec...Bob,<br />As far as I'm concerned, the denial aspect regarding climate change only applies to being able to predict how it will play out (accurate models) and that we must implement drastic measures. I deny the latter because of the former. SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5595572763677334972017-02-01T09:00:21.469-07:002017-02-01T09:00:21.469-07:00when it was actually posted by Legion of Logic.
&...when it was actually posted by Legion of Logic.<br /><br />>>I'll change it<br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2172173047118362162017-02-01T06:37:10.593-07:002017-02-01T06:37:10.593-07:00Joe,
Near the end of your essay, you mistakenly a...Joe,<br /><br />Near the end of your essay, you mistakenly attributed the quote "How so, out of curiosity? For example, I have two young kids. To think of them as "my son and daughter" is one thing. ... (etc.)" to me, when it was actually posted by Legion of Logic.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75386867492046571572017-02-01T01:50:54.096-07:002017-02-01T01:50:54.096-07:00David Brightly said...
Joe, if you as a well-known...David Brightly said...<br />Joe, if you as a well-known scientist publicly claim that God had carefully chosen the fundamental physical constants to make the universe habitable for us, Victor would reasonably say that you are exceeding your remit as a scientist. But WL Craig can make exactly the same claim as a scientifically-informed theologian.<br /><br /><b>I agree. I should have said FT makes use of scientific data not that it is scientific,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6116295277113169422017-02-01T01:46:46.720-07:002017-02-01T01:46:46.720-07:00My essay on Metacrock's for Wednesday is quoti...My essay on Metacrock's for Wednesday is quotimng frpm <br />Dusty and Prokop from this discussion and making my point about what they said.if you think I misrepresented you please let me know,<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/01/on-victor-repperts-dangerous-idea-blog.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Losing Phenomena of BeimgHuman</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11667430852997066382017-01-31T16:31:07.496-07:002017-01-31T16:31:07.496-07:00Joe, if you as a well-known scientist publicly cla...Joe, if you as a well-known scientist publicly claim that God had carefully chosen the fundamental physical constants to make the universe habitable for us, Victor would reasonably say that you are exceeding your remit as a scientist. But WL Craig can make exactly the same claim as a <i>scientifically-informed</i> theologian.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38447256940679579462017-01-31T10:17:14.107-07:002017-01-31T10:17:14.107-07:00I'm with Joe on this one.
Climate change sci...I'm with Joe on this one. <br /><br />Climate change science is not a good example of researchers having an agenda. Both my hobby of amateur astronomy and my social connections to Johns Hopkins University mean that I know <i>lots</i> of professional scientists (mostly astronomers and folks in the medical field) quite well. And I can assure you that by and large, scientists mirror the general population when it comes to politics. That means that approximately half of them are liberal and half conservative (or whatever other terms you might wish to use, like left/right or Dem/Repub, etc.) But climate change denial is almost exclusively a right wing phenomenon. Practically no one on the left disbelieves it. So if climate change were indeed a left wing conspiracy, then you would expect a 50/50 split amongst scientists as to whether it was in fact occurring. But the actual split is 97/3. There is no way to account for such a lopsided consensus other than by the conclusions (i.e., climate change is real and man is contributing to it) being apolitical.<br /><br />If anything is a good example of agenda-driven research, it would be climate change denial!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.com