136 replies to this topic

[SF/PF]

Yet in climate science we are told 'there is no debate'. Pure nonsense as you acknowledge.

Yes, and "there is no debate" in the Evolution/ID issue either. Do you take this to mean that there is no debate in modern evolutionary biology?

What I am saying is you have two sides in a policy debate. One side says 'you have to adopt my policies because that is what the science says and if you reject the science you are science denier'. The other responds by raising questions about the science.

Except they don't raise questions about the science. They raise questions about the scientists. Subtle but important difference.

[TimG]

Do you take this to mean that there is no debate in modern evolutionary biology?

A strawman. What you are doing bundling a large number of questions under the label 'climate science' and claiming that none of it is uncertain. Break the issues out and I will tell if there is a legimate debate or not. For example: CO2 is a GHG - no debate. 2 degC warming is a the maximum 'acceptable' rise - a political statement that has little connection to science. Every scientific claim has a different uncertainty associated with it. You cannot make blanket claims about climate science.

Except they don't raise questions about the science. They raise questions about the scientists. Subtle but important difference.

So? Why is that any difference than eco-activists that label scientists who question the consensus as stooges of big oil?

Both sides are guilty of the same things here. It is political battle and there are few boundaries.

Edited by TimG, 23 November 2011 - 03:13 PM.

[Michael Hardner]

That 'hiding the decline' refers to a 'clever trick'. Nothing but pathetic spin doctoring.

Hiding the decline of the proxies (again, not what the public thought it was about) and the use of the word 'trick' implied as a deceptive practice when it is frequently used to describe an innovative method or shortcut... that was another big nothing.

[TimG]

when it is frequently used to describe an innovative method or shortcut.

No it is not. That is a "big lie" spread by alarmists so much now that many people actually believe it to be true. Before climategate no one would have ever said the 'hide the decline' could mean an innovative method or shortcut. If a sceptic had been caught using the same words alarmists would have been screaming fraud.

You really need to recogonize when you are being manipulated by people who you are inclined to agree with. Just because you agree with them that does not mean everything they say is true.

Edited by TimG, 23 November 2011 - 03:14 PM.

[Michael Hardner]

No it is not. That is a "big lie" spread by alarmists so much now that many people actually believe it to be true. Before climategate no one would have ever said the 'hide the decline' could mean an innovative method or shortcut. If a sceptic had been caught using the same words alarmists would have been screaming fraud.

No - 'clever trick' is an innovative method or shortcut. They were hiding the decline in proxies.

[SF/PF]

A strawman. What you are doing bundling a large number of questions under the label 'climate science' and claiming that none of it is uncertain. Break the issues out and I will tell if there is a legimate debate or not.

Quite right. There is a lot of debate on the specifics of evolutionary biology, just as there is a lot of debate on the specifics of climite science. I wrote exactly that previously. But there is also an awful lot of debate on both of these subjects that has no place in scientific dialogue.

There is no debate on the fact that evolutionary theory is true. Just as there is no debate that AGW is true.

2 degC warming is a the maximum 'acceptable' rise - a political statement that has little connection to science. Every scientific claim has uncertainty associated with it.

No, its a statement that is either true or false on scientific grounds. There is nothing inherently political about the statement. You may disagree with the statement. You may dislike some of the consequences if the statement is true. But to suggest that it is a political statement is nonsense.

So? Why is that any difference than eco-activists that label scientists who question the consensus as stooges of big oil?

Both sides are guilty of the same things here. It is political battle and there are few boundaries.

No, this is where we disagree. There are two completely seperate "battles" here. The science debate, and the policy debate. And the only thing that will come of deliberatly blurring those lines is public confusion.

Of course, thats the goal.

[TimG]

They were hiding the decline in proxies.

Perhaps our wires are crossed. I am objecting to the claim that 'hiding the decline' is a normal scientific procedure. It was an attempt to hide adverse results in order to present a 'cleaner' story to public.

[TimG]

No, its a statement that is either true or false on scientific grounds.

It can't be true or false because it is not a scientific claim. It is a value judgement that makes a huge number of assumption about what will happen to ecosystems and how humans will be able to adapt to climate change. If it was a scientific claim it would have been expressed as a probability distribution.

No, this is where we disagree. There are two completely seperate "battles" here. The science debate, and the policy debate. And the only thing that will come of deliberatly blurring those lines is public confusion.

Yes. And alarmists have been deliberately blurring those lines and creating confusion for years with the full support of the media and the IPCC.

I am happy to concede that AGW is a plausible risk worth discussing and to debate policy.

But if you call me a 'science denier' because I don't accept the policies being pushed by alarmists then you are the one bringing scientists into a policy debate.

Edited by TimG, 23 November 2011 - 03:41 PM.

[cybercoma]

The issue are people who are advocates of one side of the policy debate trying to use the authority of scientists to shout down critics of their policies.

We wouldn't want social policy being based scientific evidence and research now, would we?

[TimG]

We wouldn't want social policy being based scientific evidence and research now, would we?

Science is nothing but one of many inputs into policy making. It does not override economics or values.

Edited by TimG, 23 November 2011 - 04:37 PM.

[wyly]

Hiding the decline of the proxies (again, not what the public thought it was about) and the use of the word 'trick' implied as a deceptive practice when it is frequently used to describe an innovative method or shortcut... that was another big nothing.

hey let's look at some of the definitions of "trick"...

1
a : a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud b : a mischievous act : prank c : an indiscreet or childish action d : a deceptive, dexterous, or ingenious feat; especially : one designed to puzzle or amuse <a juggler's tricks>
2
a : a habitual peculiarity of behavior or manner <a horse with the trick of shying> b : a characteristic and identifying feature <a trick of speech> c : a delusive appearance especially when caused by art or legerdemain : an optical illusion <a mere trick of the light>
3
a (1) : a quick or artful way of getting a result : knack <the trick is to make it look natural> (2) : an instance of getting a desired result <one small adjustment will do the trick> b : a technical device (as of an art or craft) <the tricks of stage technique>
4
: the cards played in one round of a card game often used as a scoring unit
5
a : a turn of duty at the helm usually lasting for two hours b : shift 4b(1) c : a trip taken as part of one's employment d : a sexual act performed by a prostitute <turning tricks>; also : john 2
6
: an attractive child or woman <a cute little trick>
and there are more definitions out there...


skeptics will take anything out of context as long as it fits their conspiracy motives...

[cybercoma]

Science is nothing but one of many inputs into policy making. It does not override economics or values.

By values, you really mean ideology, right?

[dre]

Science is nothing but one of many inputs into policy making. It does not override economics or values.

Which makes your never ending whining seem kinda odd, because thats exactly whats happening.

The government listens to the scientific community, but really thats just one factor that informs public policy. At the end of the day voters are more concerned about the economy than the environment, so in general an economic perspective trumps anything else. And thats why you see governments doing very little of what the scientific community recommends.

Clearly the factors you are concerned about are being taken into account.

[TimG]

By values, you really mean ideology, right?

If ideology includes stuff like letting a guilty person go free is better than convicting an innocent one.

The fact is everyone has an ideology that guides their choices in the face of uncertainty. I find it quite galling that so many on the left accuse people that they disagree with of being ideological when they are frequently doing exactly the same. I see it as a form of psychological projection.

[dre]

If ideology includes stuff like letting a guilty person go free is better than convicting an innocent one.

The fact is everyone has an ideology that guides their choices in the face of uncertainty. I find it quite galling that so many on the left accuse people that they disagree with of being ideological when they are frequently doing exactly the same. I see it as a form of psychological projection.

THis is standard operating procedure for everyone these days not just "the left".