[Vision2020] Lies, Damn Lies And Science

Sun Apr 5 10:02:03 PDT 2009

Thanks, Paul. There are some interesting points here.

But why think someone can't get funding to try to disprove certain  
views on global warming? I have not heard that. It isn't as if you  
could test global warming anyway. Any tests would have to be done on  
some aspect of the theory and I imagine such tests are being done.

Joe Campbell

On Apr 4, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> 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/20090405/244b28c2/attachment-0001.html 