Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Keepitsimple

The New Climate Game

Recommended Posts

Sorry but "faith in science" is an oxymoron.

This is exactly the problem. Scientists think that their power comes from reason but it doesn't. It DOES come from faith, and the IPCC working group 1 doesn't understand this.

They do their job as scientists, but the public believes in them as priests and they need to acknowledge that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure read a lot more into what I said than I ever imagined.

I suppose.

I'm a criminal? :huh:

You sure read a lot more into what I said than I ever imagined.

[

I concede the climate change debate. You win. I've actually pretty much given up worrying about it.

There are bigger issues right now, mostly political.

Edited by Pliny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This represents only part of what they do. In my experience, almost nobody who wants control also rejects the idea that they are responsible for the areas that they control. In other words, saying the government wants to control, tax and spend ignores the aspect of paternalism that comes with those functions - for good or bad.

They are responsible until things start crashing down then it's the publics fault or not enough resources are available.

Government wants to be our parent, not a parasite. Your understanding of that will help you promote alternatives to that model.

What parent lives off their kids and tells them how to live their life? They are a particularly bad parasite that will eventually overwhelm and destroy the host if left to it's own devices.

If people are to understand democracy they need to understand the role of government which is not about voting for entitlements that require sucking the lifeblood out of the host to pay for them. Give one entitlement to one group or special interest and there are 1000 that will be squealing for their equal entitlement.

This is not true at all, IMO. In the 20th century, science was seen as responsible for the arrival of many gadgets and comforts that made life easier. Also, there were wonders that boggled the mind, that priests and wizards of the past couldn't ever have delivered.

So you have the ascendancy of science and the 'expert' happening at that time. With that, a lot of pseudo-science like Economics and Psychology gaining believe. The newspapers began quoting experts and in the post-war centralized authority coupled with expertise (the 'government man', the mathematician, the corporation, the engineer etc.) provided specialized expertise that were going to usher us into the next utopia.

Priests and wizards were content to have people believe in the ideal they had constructed. Whenever an ideal is achieved there is resistance to change by those in power. Science brought the change and the progress. It should not now establish the ideal and take the place of the priests and wizards of yore that resists change to the power structure. Some believe science should occupy this position but it is subject to Lord Acton's axiomatic proclamation that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" as much as any priest or wizard.

You can count on the public to act in their own interest. There is a paradox there, though. The public can't be expected to digest issues that are beyond a certain complexity. But then again, neither can a board of directors. So somebody has to decide when to educate, when to summarize, and when to gloss over things.

There it is again the "public" can't digest complexities. Who does that leave to digest complexities? The politician? Sorry, he is just as much a member of the public as anyone else. Who is the somebody that's going to decide when to educate, when to summarize and when to gloss over things? Golly, I hope it isn't a member of the public.

Sorry, but the public is all we have. Who is not part of the public? The Queen?

Identifying public opinion leaders and engaging them is the key, IMO. I can see opportunities to do this with 'the web' but there hasn't been a great breakthrough yet. Almost, but not yet.

I agree. We have to identify good leaders who aren't just interested in the maintaining of the power base or the current "ideal". We have democracy as the best form of government with all it's faults. Let's work toward improvement and a better ideal. The best ideal is that people have lives and live them. WE all co-operatively ease each others suffering and that's the best we can do. We cannot and government especially cannot eliminate suffering that is a part of life. Government promises to eliminate the bad parts of life - it never will and it can't unless we all become automatons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do their job as scientists, but the public believes in them as priests and they need to acknowledge that.

The opinions of people who think of scientists as "priests" are irrelevant. Science need not and will not be reduced to catering to idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but "faith in science" is an oxymoron. The whole point of science is that it can be understood through REASON not through faith. An individual need never take any scientific finding on faith, they can evaluate it for themselves. Any person who tells you "believe the science", "do as science tells you", or anything along those lines, is a zealot and a mystic, not a scientist. The only difference between him and a missionary trying to convert you is their religion.

Pretty well true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What parent lives off their kids and tells them how to live their life? They are a particularly bad parasite that will eventually overwhelm and destroy the host if left to it's own devices.

If people are to understand democracy they need to understand the role of government which is not about voting for entitlements that require sucking the lifeblood out of the host to pay for them. Give one entitlement to one group or special interest and there are 1000 that will be squealing for their equal entitlement.

That's fine, but your point of view will brand you as an 'idealogue', and rightfully so, if you don't tart it up somewhat. One man's entitlement is another man's 'basic human right'.

There's something admirable about refusing to compromise, though.

It should not now establish the ideal and take the place of the priests and wizards of yore that resists change to the power structure. Some believe science should occupy this position but it is subject to Lord Acton's axiomatic proclamation that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" as much as any priest or wizard.

Priests and wizards are not exactly the same as scientists. I suspect that they were more pliable to those in power. But their position to the public is similar.

Do they resist change or not ? I don't know about that. I would say that they pursue knowledge and that change is pursued as an application of the knowledge gained.

What kind of change ? It's not change to you, in that government control will continue to grow. But it's a major change that they're proposing to the way economies are managed.

There it is again the "public" can't digest complexities. Who does that leave to digest complexities? The politician? Sorry, he is just as much a member of the public as anyone else. Who is the somebody that's going to decide when to educate, when to summarize and when to gloss over things? Golly, I hope it isn't a member of the public.

Sorry, but the public is all we have. Who is not part of the public? The Queen?

Right, but the public as a homogeneous blob can't be expected to digest such things in whole.

That's why we have to put 'DO NOT EAT' on packets of silica gel that come in the packing case that houses your big-box purchases.

The public is heterogeneous and as such, members of the public must be identified as leaders. The message needs to be tailored to them.

I agree. We have to identify good leaders who aren't just interested in the maintaining of the power base or the current "ideal". We have democracy as the best form of government with all it's faults. Let's work toward improvement and a better ideal. The best ideal is that people have lives and live them. WE all co-operatively ease each others suffering and that's the best we can do. We cannot and government especially cannot eliminate suffering that is a part of life. Government promises to eliminate the bad parts of life - it never will and it can't unless we all become automatons.

Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opinions of people who think of scientists as "priests" are irrelevant. Science need not and will not be reduced to catering to idiots.

They don't realize that they think of scientists as priests or shamans, but effectively that's what they are. If science doesn't cater to idiots, then who does ?

Key to this discussion is how we think of 'the public'. What is 'the public' and what are 'the masses'. Those are two views of the people that, like the particle and wave theory of light are never 100% right or wrong.

In fact, the public is a heterogeneous blob - made up of sheep, dolts, opinion leaders, and brilliant folks. How do you deal with that ? Good question. In my opinion, you need to simplify concepts to the point that the intellectually curious (not 'intellectuals') will understand them. The idiots will follow populist loudmouths (which I call hog-callers) of every stripe.

One should make an effort to reach out to opinion makers, hog-callers, the intelligensia, and hope that the idiots fall in behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty well true.

no Simple, your denying science precludes you from expounding on the illegitimate ties between "faith" and science. You do not accept the referenced understanding of science through "reason".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but "faith in science" is an oxymoron. The whole point of science is that it can be understood through REASON not through faith. An individual need never take any scientific finding on faith, they can evaluate it for themselves. Any person who tells you "believe the science", "do as science tells you", or anything along those lines, is a zealot and a mystic, not a scientist. The only difference between him and a missionary trying to convert you is their religion.

speaking of "faith in science"... sorry... couldn't help myself!

Representative John Shimkus, a true champion of the "faith in science" wing of the U.S. Republican party... yes, as the OP states, it is a "New Climate Game" - it's actually a theological debate!

"There is a theological debate that this is a carbon starved planet - not too much carbon"

“So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry... couldn't help myself!

Nonsense. When it comes to inserting a strawman, nobody does it better! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonsense. When it comes to inserting a strawman, nobody does it better! :lol:

you truly are a simpleton, oh inconsequential one - you should recognize the difference between a play on words and a 'strawman'. It certainly wouldn't suit your presumed strawman assignment to have me actually agreeing with the original position... would it? As in:

Sorry but "faith in science" is an oxymoron. The whole point of science is that it can be understood through REASON not through faith. An individual need never take any scientific finding on faith, they can evaluate it for themselves. Any person who tells you "believe the science", "do as science tells you", or anything along those lines, is a zealot and a mystic, not a scientist. The only difference between him and a missionary trying to convert you is their religion.
Pretty well true.
no Simple, your denying science precludes you from expounding on the illegitimate ties between "faith" and science. You do not accept the referenced understanding of science through "reason".

ya see, lil' inconsequential buddy, one doesn't actually agree with the original premise, if one presumes to refute a substituted strawman, rather than refute the original premise. So ya, I trust you've been schooled on distinguishing a strawman from a play on words through another one of your Shady practices! ... oh, look... another play on words! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a very interesting article about possible celestial drivers on long-term climate change (argued as the driver of the switch between Cold House and Warm House periods, and also acts with sunspots to decrease/increase cloud cover). It's a peer-reviewed article from the journal "Geoscience Canada": http://www.whitemoose.com/climate/GACV32No1Veizer.pdf

Basically, the theory is that as our solar system (and therefore earth) moves between the galactic arms of the milky way (over very long periods of tens of millions of years), the galactic cosmic rays (containing high-energy particles, such as pieces of atoms, neutons/protons) given off my supernovae that are concentrated within the galactic arms react in our atmosphere when as they bombard earth and create more low-lying cloud cover. Low-lying clouds have a net cooling affect on the earth, therefore when we are within a galactic arm (as we are now, in the Orion Spur) the earth cools since cosmic ray flux increases.

Clouds form more readily when tiny particles in our atmosphere, known as aerosols, pick up electric charges and so act as more effective nuclei for the collection of water droplets. Recent theoretical and experimental studies demonstrate that galactic cosmic rays are one of the sources that act to charge aerosols and thereby create more low-lying clouds. This cloud-producing effect has actually been reproduced in labs. There is a very good correlation between long-term global temperatures (the last 500 million years) and cosmic ray flux, as seen in one of the graphs in the article.

Variability of the output of our sun also is theorized to react with cosmic ray flux to affect short-term temperature (as low as 11-year cycles). Increased solar output blocks some of the galactic cosmic rays from reaching earth, therefore decreasing low-lying cloud cover and warming the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

IIRC the people who came up with that theory said it acts over much to large of a timescale to have that much affect on current climate. Though maybe I'm thinking of something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah pretty sure any effects related to the solar system's motion through the galaxy would have timescales of at least on the order of millions of years.

Additionally, supernovae are rare events and each such event, if it were to have a climate impact, would do so discretely, and would not depend on our distance to the spiral arms. It's not like the arms are constantly bursting with supernovae. On average, a supernova happens just a couple times per century in our galaxy.

And, of course, cosmic rays from extragalactic sources would not depend on whether we were inside a spiral arm of our galaxy or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One should make an effort to reach out to opinion makers, hog-callers, the intelligensia, and hope that the idiots fall in behind them.

Sounds pretty much like the status quo to me. We need "hype and chains"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opinions of people who think of scientists as "priests" are irrelevant. Science need not and will not be reduced to catering to idiots.

:lol:

How about idiots with research grants?

Many scientists did research in Germany in the thirties in genetics.

Seems there was a big rush to get "Fat Boy" deployed.

Did big pharma just sell Vioxx because it was there or did someone do some peer-reviewed studies and develop it.

I don't think people think of scientists as priests but the parallels of science and religion are notable. They are asking the public to "believe" in the infallibility of the scientific method. If science says it - it must be true. I know science doesn't promote itself in this manner but the idiots they cater to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opinions of people who think of scientists as "priests" are irrelevant. Science need not and will not be reduced to catering to idiots.

How about idiots with research grants?

I don't think people think of scientists as priests but the parallels of science and religion are notable. They are asking the public to "believe" in the infallibility of the scientific method. If science says it - it must be true. I know science doesn't promote itself in this manner but the idiots they cater to do.

only an anti-science guy... or an apologist of religion... would foster belief in your stated, "the parallels of science and religion are notable". Which are you Pliny? Are you one of those wingnuts attempting to link science with a religious verse, claiming originality of religious verses on the basis of scientific discovery? Is that you Pliny?

who are the "they" you speak of Pliny? The "they" that are asking the public to "believe" in the infallibility of the scientific method... who are your "they", Pliny? A defined theory arrived at following the scientific method is not infallible... by definition, it must be falsifiable - refutable. Who are your "they", Pliny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds pretty much like the status quo to me. We need "hype and chains"!

The status quo ? Look at the disparity between the scientist believe in AGW and the public. Even if AGW was completely false, and the scientists were completely evil there shouldn't be so large a gap. They have ignored disseminating the message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the percentage is higher than that.

The need for action is a whole different story. For one, scientists are not necessarily the most qualified to determine what action a society needs to take.

If you have 9 doctors who say you need immediate surgery and one who says you don't what do you do, consult your plumber?

Secondly, it is reasonable to assume that any action that can be taken now will be substantially less effective than action taken in the future, because in the future we will have access to both more advanced technology and a larger economy. This may sound like little more than glorifying procrastination, but it just happens to be true. Now, I am not arguing against action, I think action like adopting nuclear energy, reducing our needs for combusting hydrocarbons for transportation, etc, are all worthy endeavors, but this point needed to be made.

It sounds more like wishful thinking.

Sorry but "faith in science" is an oxymoron. The whole point of science is that it can be understood through REASON not through faith. An individual need never take any scientific finding on faith, they can evaluate it for themselves. Any person who tells you "believe the science", "do as science tells you", or anything along those lines, is a zealot and a mystic, not a scientist. The only difference between him and a missionary trying to convert you is their religion.

Well, you sure seem to have just expressed a lot of Cornucopian faith in the ability of future scientists to solve the problems we create now.

I would argue that it cannot. Science is a way of thinking, not an institution. One can be a scientist in the absence of any institutional entity.

Still, we look to science at some point to give us direction and their persistant high level of consensus gives me real pause to consider. Like I said you have 9 doctors telling you one thing and 1 telling you the opposite...what does one do?

You could be right, because collectives tend to be stupid. Mob mentality and all that. Most individuals, however, would have no trouble with the paper bag. Leave people to act in their own interest rather than forcing the collective will upon them and you'll most times end up with a better result than you could otherwise.

It's a matter of producing collective will. Apparently the market is rational even though its participants aren't. We have no problem putting our governance in the hands of that same irrational collective in an election in the belief that it will do the right thing and render an appropriate decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you are another that has no faith in the public. That's another thing that makes me leery. Anyone with a poor opinion of the public calling them idiotic and ignorant certainly isn't interested in educating them. It seems they are more interested in their own selfish-interests. Who else but the criminal calls their victims stupid? And when it is generalized as the stupid public there are some serious questions to ask of that person.

Nonsense. You know perfectly well I support far more public participation in democracy with more referendums. I've repeatedly pointed at the issue of taking action on AGW in particular should be put to a referendum.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only an anti-science guy... or an apologist of religion... would foster belief in your stated, "the parallels of science and religion are notable". Which are you Pliny? Are you one of those wingnuts attempting to link science with a religious verse, claiming originality of religious verses on the basis of scientific discovery? Is that you Pliny?

who are the "they" you speak of Pliny? The "they" that are asking the public to "believe" in the infallibility of the scientific method... who are your "they", Pliny? A defined theory arrived at following the scientific method is not infallible... by definition, it must be falsifiable - refutable. Who are your "they", Pliny?

They are the hog-callers, opinion leaders and intelligentsia. You fit in with the hog callers.

I am neither an anti-science guy nor an apologist for religion and at the same time I am both. I accept neither as authority on all matters. Al Gore, declarer of the infallibility of the scientific method, chief idiot to whom science caters, seems, if I may use the analogy, to be your Pope. I understand your contempt for wingnuts who are anti-science and/or religious apologists - they are obviously in your view sacrilegious heathens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The status quo ? Look at the disparity between the scientist believe in AGW and the public. Even if AGW was completely false, and the scientists were completely evil there shouldn't be so large a gap. They have ignored disseminating the message.

A message is being disseminated. This is it - "One should make an effort to reach out to opinion makers, hog-callers, the intelligensia, and hope that the idiots fall in behind them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. You know perfectly well I support far more public participation in democracy with more referendums. I've repeatedly pointed at the issue of taking action on AGW in particular should be put to a referendum.

I know you do.

That's why I don't think you should be parroting other people's idiocies about the public being stupid.

I think what the public needs to do is know how to pick good leaders. Anyone who holds the general public in contempt wouldn't make a good leader since they have no respect for themselves as members of the public.

I don't like referendums much. The democratic line on political issues is usually drawn between those who benefit and those who pay or those who benefit more than they pay and those who pay more than they benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A message is being disseminated. This is it - "One should make an effort to reach out to opinion makers, hog-callers, the intelligensia, and hope that the idiots fall in behind them."

There is a disconnect between the scientists and the HCs. There is no PR between the scientists and the 'skeptical journalists' at present. There is just a wide gulf there at present. I don't count the email hackers as public relations people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah pretty sure any effects related to the solar system's motion through the galaxy would have timescales of at least on the order of millions of years.

As i mentioned in my post, yes the affect of cosmic ray flux alone happens over tens of millions of years. However, the theory that increased solar flares from our sun and block some of the flux from reaching earth is claimed to correspond with the solar cycles, which are much shorter in timescale. The Schwabe cycle is about 11 years long, the Gleissberg cycle is 75-90 years long etc.

Additionally, supernovae are rare events and each such event, if it were to have a climate impact, would do so discretely, and would not depend on our distance to the spiral arms. It's not like the arms are constantly bursting with supernovae. On average, a supernova happens just a couple times per century in our galaxy.

This is true on the frequency of supernovae in our galaxy. They say one every 30 years on average. Unfortunately i don't know how scientists working on this theory explain this then. However, i can see how being within spriral arms (thus closer to more stars) could affect cosmic ray flux on the earth over long time periods (tens of millions of years). What i do know is that scientists have measured the amount of cosmic ray flux through the last 500 million years via proxies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...