[Vision2020] Lies, Damn Lies And Science

[Paul Rumelhart]

I'm already skeptical about some of the "doom and gloom" scenarios that you hear reported in the media.  I'm skeptical about some of these computer models they are always going on about.  Where are the predictions that have been made based on these models, and how did they fare?  I'm skeptical about the minimizing of "solar forcing" as a potential cause.  Generally I agree that greenhouse gases are contributing to the problem, I just don't think we have a clue yet about the timeframes or the magnitude of the effects.

However, the political side of things is making it worse.  If you are a researcher who, despite whatever you may personally believe about the topic, wants to study any aspect of the climate science that might shed doubt on the theory, will you be able to secure that funding?  In science, you are supposed to put a theory out there and then let everyone else attempt to rip holes in it.  If there is anything left when you are done, it might just be a valid theory.  If funding problems, worries about reputations, academic politics, and who knows what else get in the way of this, then we are all worse off.

I think it's insane, because there are all sorts of good reasons that are already relevant to reduce out "carbon footprint".  If removing out dependence upon the volatility of the Middle East isn't enough of a reason, then is a general media push to frighten us with images of stranded polar bears and rising flood waters going to really help that much?

Paul

--- On Sat, 4/4/09, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Lies, Damn Lies And Science
To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>, "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Saturday, April 4, 2009, 8:52 AM

The funny thing is that if you talk with scientists there really is no issue here. How did this get to be a "political" issue in the first case? Isn't it an empirical issue?

Joe Campbell

On Apr 4, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Great.  Another excuse to cram it down our throats.  I can't wait.
> 
> I don't know what the real answers are, but I do know that this topic
> has been so politicized that it sickens me.  It trips my "bullshit"
> meter, and layers on an extra level of skepticism that I would normally
> not have had.
> 
> Paul
> 
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett:
>> 
>> This article from EOS ('/Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate
>> Change/', *Volume 90*, Number 3, 2009, available to American
>> Geophysical Union members) which is quoted by Realclimate.org lower
>> down and is available to the public at the website first below, claims
>> that only 58 percent of the public in the US thinks that human
>> activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean
>> global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed.  This
>> is a very recent effort to quantify the scientific consensus on the
>> validity of anthropogenic climate change and contrast this consensus
>> with public opinion:
>> 
>> http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
>> <http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf>
>> ------------------------------
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/a-potentially-useful-book-lies-damn-lies-science/#more-661
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    29 March 2009
>> 
>> 
>>      A potentially useful book - Lies, Damn lies & Science
>> 
>> Filed under:
>> 
>>    * Communicating Climate
>>      <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/>
>> 
>> — rasmus @ 1:26 PM
>> 
>> Lies, Damned Lies, and ScienceAccording to a recent article in Eos
>> (Doran and Zimmermann
>> <http://www.agu.org/journals/eo/eo0903/2009EO030002.pdf#anchor>,
>> '/Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change/', *Volume 90*,
>> Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23 - only available for AGU members *- update: a
>> public link to the article is here
>> <http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf>*), about 58%
>> of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a
>> significant contributing factor in changing the mean global
>> temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed. The
>> disproportion between these numbers is a concern, and one possible
>> explanation may be that the science literacy among the general public
>> is low. Perhaps Sherry Seethaler's new book /'Lies, Damn Lies, and
>> Science'/ can be a useful contribution in raising the science literacy?
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090404/4983dce5/attachment.html