Climate consensus and the end of science

Science and Environmental Policy Project ^ | 6/16/2006 | Terence Corcoran

[Rocko]

Ping for later.

[edcoil]

Previous post notes the go says water vapors cause 90% and other natural causes cause 9% so, mother nature causes 99% of the hoax called "global warming".

Those that agree we only cause 1% still say we need to do all we can for that 1% but if the score is 99-1 I don't think higher tax and less rights and more government are worth a new score of 99-1.

[prisoner6]

dittos...not enough time to digest now but it looks really interesting.

prisoner6

[gobucks]

"In the absence of hard scientific fact or causal relationships, a majority vote of scientists the Secular Atheistic Priests of Humanism can determine scientific truth."

That seems to be the better way to put it.

[Red Badger]

Scientific concensus.....An oxymoron.........."It is so because we say it's so!" is NOT science......

[orionblamblam]

>"In the absence of hard scientific fact or causal relationships, a majority vote of scientists the Secular Atheistic Priests of Humanism Marxist environmentalists and ID/Creationists working in concert can determine scientific truth."

There. Fixed it for you.

[ClearCase_guy]

If science were to become a belief system, then the belief with the greatest number of followers would become established fact and received knowledge.

I think this is a good observation. I think science is due for a shake-up since so much of it is driven by the politics of money. Scientists are right about so many things -- that's undeniable. But some of the stuff that scientists "know" just isn't so. And I think the current way of doing science (money, career enhancement, peer review, tenure, etc.) really gets in the way of a paradigm shift. Going along with the wide consensus is the smart thing, but it may not always be good for the field.

The Wall St Journal just had a small article on String Theory which has gobbled up most of the best talent in Physics for the past 20-30 years -- and which may be a dead-end. I imagine that taking a truly fresh look at some areas could really change things in the field.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

The Wall St Journal just had a small article on String Theory which has gobbled up most of the best talent in Physics...

That doesn't surprise me. As Hawking started popularizing "the mind of god" aspect of a Grand Unified Theory, it starts to look like a religious quest.

And there's probably a bit of Ortega y Gasset's "Barbarism of Specialization", where scientists can't see the forest for the trees.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

I think you may overestimate the resistance - at least in the physical sciences - to review of even the "best established" theory.

For example I have a friend, a recent PhD in Philosophy from a 2nd tier State University, who is quite contrarian on some aspects of relativity (specifically, the validity of Alfred North Whitehead's discussion of the "Measurement Problem").

He's been invited to address several mainstream conferences both here in and Europe, has recently published a well reviewed book on the subject, has an ongoing correspondence with several top theorists in his field (some of it initiated by the theorists themselves), and has just landed a (non-tenure track) academic position despite the fact that the basis of virtually all his recent work has been essentially heretical on something that most physicists would consider a long-closed issue.

Clearly, he's not having much difficulty obtaining at least the opportunity to be heard.

[RainMan]

Ping for ammunition in ongoing battle with resident office marxist.

[gondramB]

>>Terence Corcoran <<

Corcoran is an a business writer wh odoesn't want global warming to be true becasue it will hurt the economy.

I don't blame him - I don't want it to be true either.

Where Corcoran is wrong is

1. Attacking the existence of global warming rather than challenging proof about its cause.

2. Claiming that scientific consensus on this issue means the end of science because progress is made when the consensus is wrong. That hasn't changed but most of the time hundreds of studies that all say the same thing indicate that the studies reflect reality.

[45Auto]

I couldn't have put it better. The problem with modern science (that of the last 40 years) isn't so much that 'hard' scientists are any less objective or ignorant of the Scientific Method; its that the quest for grant money has tainted their endeavors. In the University, one must "be interested" in the topic of the day (like AIDS research) if one wants to cash in on grants.

Another problem is that we have become over specialized due to an explosion of scientific information; there is no longer any time for the Renaissance man in science. Its hard enough keeping up with a very narrow aspect of any science field. This tends to make us lose sight of 'the bigger picture' and to become myopic about science truth.

Once we allow the damn politics of the moment to interfere with experiment and exploration, we lose all credibility. Such is the debate over global warming. The reality is this is no settled matter, contrary to Al Gore, that preeminent "scientist" of gobbledy-gook theory.

[gondramB]

>>The Wall St Journal just had a small article on String Theory which has gobbled up most of the best talent in Physics for the past 20-30 years -- and which may be a dead-end. I imagine that taking a truly fresh look at some areas could really change things in the field.<<

The problem with string theory is that it doesn't predict anything that can be checked.

[gondramB]

>>I couldn't have put it better. The problem with modern science (that of the last 40 years) isn't so much that 'hard' scientists are any less objective or ignorant of the Scientific Method; its that the quest for grant money has tainted their endeavors. In the University, one must "be interested" in the topic of the day (like AIDS research) if one wants to cash in on grants.<<

Well since there is dramatically less research grant money available under President Bush43 then that means science should improve again, right?

[Old Professer]

The bootblack was often privy to the matters of state.

[Old Professer]

Why are you imputing motive?

The salient point is that science must not be consensus lest it become stagnant and malleable.

[gondramB]

>>Why are you imputing motive?

The salient point is that science must not be consensus lest it become stagnant and malleable.<<

I thought Freepers might not be familiar with his background of opposing any science that could limit economic growth.


There is always consensus (meaning agreement) about science. Those who prove the consensus wrong are legendary. Also each generation of grat scientist has someone famous and brilliant who misses the boat - Lord kelvin denying the existence of atoms or Einstien denying chaos come to mind.


But my main point is here is a business writer with a history of writing wacko things about science and he's nutty again this time too - saying there should be no consensus (meaning agreement) among scientists is ultra fringe.

[AaronInCarolina]

Michael Crichton is a big skeptic of global warming alarmists, and gave a lecture at Cal-Tech in 2003 about so-called consensus science and science that is too entwined with policy change. It is an excellent read (though quite long). In his lecture, he catalogues examples of bandwagon consensuses and persecution of skeptics and how those examples involved attempts to affect public policy. Its worth reading.

Aliens Cause Global Warming

[wolfcreek]

Suppose We do all the things the Wackos want and still the temp continues to rise. Will they pay for us all to go back to the way it is presently?