Topic: Good stuff. (Read 2589 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** February 05, 2007, 11:13:06 PM »

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Deep Thought · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2007, 12:04:55 AM »

Good stuff, indeed.

My compliments go out to the writer.

Joel · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2007, 07:25:56 AM »

I think the guy is right on.

I collect native American artifacts, and one book I have been stuying lately shows very clearly the roller coaster of up and down temps (at least) our continent has been experiencing for thousands of years.

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2007, 12:17:08 PM »

This guy's argument is very short on facts and long on the pooh-pooh argument against global warming. Essentially, he claims that global warming is real (who can deny it?) but that it has nothing at all to do with human pollution. In fact, he claims that CO2 is not a pollutant, which is a semantics game. However, the bulk of his article is about his own glowing credentials in climatology (a PhD) and how the scientific community has unfairly persecuted him and the handful of other climatologists. His position must be true because the establishment opposes it.

It turns out that the Bush administration, after years of wrecking environmental policy, is finally acknowledging what everyone else in the world knows: human pollution is causing catastrophic changes in the climate. Too little. Too late. But, gee, it's good to see the blinders finally starting to come off. Not that they'll do anything about it. We'll have to wait for the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican, to finally begin to take serious action. I hope that we can do something to slow down the changes, but I'm not optimistic. Most of humanity lives close to the oceans, and the sea level is rising rapidly as the Greenland and polar ice caps melt.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2007, 12:57:38 PM »

It was his discussion on science and the scientific method that I enjoyed.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2007, 10:03:14 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on February 06, 2007, 12:17:08 PM

This guy's argument is very short on facts and long on the pooh-pooh argument against global warming. Essentially, he claims that global warming is real (who can deny it?) but that it has nothing at all to do with human pollution. In fact, he claims that CO2 is not a pollutant, which is a semantics game. However, the bulk of his article is about his own glowing credentials in climatology (a PhD) and how the scientific community has unfairly persecuted him and the handful of other climatologists.

Congratulations, for completely missing the point. Look at that opening paragraph--the one in italics, I mean. "Few listen... few listen... few listen, and here's why..." He's not trying to prove that Global Warming is false, he's trying to explain why people won't listen to him when he does. If one were to write an in-depth explanation of why GW isn't real, I imagine there'd be enough there to write a book, and certainly too much to leave room for whining about how nobody's listening to it.

So, yeah, the bulk of his article is about how the scientific community has unfairly persecuted him, etc., etc., etc., because that's the topic of the article. I agree that he could've gone easier on the "glowing credentials" part, though.

Quote

His position must be true because the establishment opposes it.

I don't think he even came close to arguing in that direction. His focus on the establishment's opposition to his stance is necessary, seeing as that's the point of the article.

EDIT: For the record, I don't agree yet that Global Warming as we know it is not real. I'll reserve judgment on that matter, as I do with everything else, 'til I actually know something about it.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #6 on:** February 07, 2007, 08:24:47 AM »

DT, if you are at all interested in this sort of topic (how scientists with unpopular views are persecuted) I suggest that you read Alternative Science by Richard Milton. He does a pretty good job of destroying the notion that scientists are open-minded about discoveries that challenge "accepted" theories.

For what it's worth, I'm skeptical of some of the areas of study he covers, but the point he makes is valid.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** February 07, 2007, 08:44:58 AM »

Thomas Kuhn has a number of good works too. I think that article mentioned one. I think his "Copernican Revolution" is top notch. One of the rawest exposes on the human side of science that I've read is Watson's (of Watson and Crick fame) "The Double Helix."

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** February 07, 2007, 12:50:57 PM »

The article devoted a paragraph to Kuhn, which is standard fare for those who are criticizing the scientific community. Kuhn took the position that scientists behave like many other social groups in the way they attack and defend prevailing wisdom. There is an "in group" or "old boy" network that tends to exclude others for social, rather than rational, reasons. Most scientific arguments do not lead to a "paradigm shift", but they replace a conventional explanation with an alternative while still maintaining the prevailing paradigm. It usually takes a brand new generation of scientists to bring about the paradigm shift, because young people tend to be more flexible in evaluating new ideas.

During the 1960's, Noam Chomsky introduced an entirely new way of looking at human language. His theory of "generative linguistics" completely overturned the prevailing view that language systems were primarily social and conventional in nature. What Chomsky showed was that there were astounding insights to be gained by looking at linguistic systems as part of a psychological model, and he argued quite successfully that the human language faculty was an inherited trait in the human species. During that period of time, Thomas Kuhn was very popular in the linguistic literature, and we all (me being a grad student at the time) mentioned him frequently as a harbinger of our new approach to language. (My teachers were primarily first generation students of Chomsky.)

So don't get me wrong when I criticize Ball's article. I am not totally opposed to Kuhn's viewpoint about paradigm shifts, because I've lived through one myself. But one thing to note about Ball's article is that he is NOT talking about a paradigm shift. He does not propose to overturn any fundamental approaches to climatology. He has not inspired a generation of "Young Turks" to overthrow the establishment. What he has done is to join a small clique of individuals who make a living out of denying the significance of, or nitpicking, scientific findings on climatological change. He has more in common with a holocaust denier than a revolutionary scientist. Just because someone is rejected by the "establishment", that does not automatically make them into disciples of Kuhn.

Richard Lindzen, a senior MIT climatologist, is mentioned in Ball's article as a case in point, but Lindzen (unlike Ball) is a well-known and well-published apologist for those who deny human involvement in global warming. Lindzen has been given quite a fair hearing by his fellow scientists, and they have critiqued his published articles quite thoroughly. If you read what Lindzen has written recently, you will find that he no longer maintains many of his earlier positions. The research that he claimed had not been done, or had not been confirmed, has now been done and confirmed. There is no longer any uncertainty at all about the major impact of human activity on climate. The only arguments left are between those who squabble about just how badly we have polluted our own nest.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** February 07, 2007, 01:09:31 PM »

Now I think you're missing Doc and my points. Kuhn's viewpoints about paradigm shifts don't have to be rejected. Your point that "scientists behave like many other social groups in the way they attack and defend prevailing wisdom. There is an "in group" or "old boy" network that tends to exclude others for social, rather than rational, reasons" is right on, but a significant part of the problem is that scientists don't tend to admit this and the public isn't usually aware of it.

If scientists are more human then is often thought (by others and themselves) then the rest of us ought to bring to the table a very healthy wariness and skepticism... even of them.

Kuhn is right about paradigms. Obviously right, and we didn't need Kuhn to tell us. Since even what is 'scientific' comes to us through the lens of people operating in line with their own motivations, their own philosophical biases, etc, we should always wonder if what we are being presented as a 'scientific fact' is indeed something empirically verifiable and not something that is actually the product of the paradigm.

You know that I have always focused heavily on defining that which is 'scientific' as being within a narrow epistemological band... In short, ie, experimentally verifiable. And we've seen the venom that you among others have spilled out on me for having that view. But there are good reasons for this view. Chief among these reasons is that I know what is in a Man. My skeptical warning bells ring off the wall when it is positively demanded that a theory come with the label 'scientific,' passively allowing one to equivocate and paper over the many differences in the quality of evidence that scientists have allowed to come under that label.

That is why I liked his article: for what it said about science and the scientific method. If science as a whole behaved as though science were as this man described a whole host of things currently wearing with pride "Scientific Fact" would have to be re-labeled.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2007, 01:10:57 PM »

"Richard Lindzen, a senior MIT climatologist, is mentioned in Ball's article as a case in point, but Lindzen (unlike Ball) is a well-known and well-published apologist for those who deny human involvement in global warming. "

Possibly he was bought off.

cimics · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2007, 03:58:33 PM »

I remember researching and arguing this issue in the context of academic debate in high school and college. In college I concluded that global warming was probably real and caused by humans, and what I've learned since then has only bolstered that conclusion. We have been successively hit with "the hottest year on record," the polar ice sheets are melting, and the number of hurricanes per year is increasing. And since CO2 takes quite awhile before it sinks out of the atmosphere, it looks like much of the warming is irreversible for about a century. And what is really scary is that China and India are industrializing with a billion plus people each and may be poised to pump huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. At this point, we can probably only hope to keep the rate of warming slow enough to allow human populations to adapt to its effects.

And what this article proves is you can find anybody to say anything. That there are a wide diversity of views on a subject does not mean all the views are equally plausible.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #12 on:** February 07, 2007, 04:24:50 PM »

Quote

And what this article proves is you can find anybody to say anything. That there are a wide diversity of views on a subject does not mean all the views are equally plausible.

Which is a good point... which really puts a finer point on just why an argument from authority is dangerous, even when it is not done in a fallacious manner. We should always be prepared to do our own thinking and we should NEVER defer judgment without sufficient checks and balances (both internally to our selves and externally to society) to people, even if they are credible authorities.

This man is a credible authority. You, cimics, have looked at the arguments and evidence yourself, and form your own opinion. This is good.

This forum is filled with instances where one is absolutely and positively maligned for disputing as 'truth' a currently accepted view on what is 'scientifically proven/demonstrated,' and this is usually bundled up into arguments like "How can ALL those scientists be wrong?" and "Do you really think all those smart people could get this wrong?"

I blogged about an abuse of authority here not to long ago:

http://sntjohnny.com/front/archives/36

It is no surprise to me that the 'scientist' in the Milgram's experiment was a 'biologist.'

Anyway, this ties into some of my views about science in the classroom and the question of the so called 'separation between church and state.' You cannot trust that science is nuetral and that scientists do not bring their own biases and motivations to that question. There must be room for individual communities to make up their own minds through the elected process.

We should talk about what your Republican governor down in Texas is doing, Cimics.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2007, 04:26:47 PM »

[quote author=sntjohnny link=topic=2297.msg40017#msg40017 date=1170887090]
[quote]And what this article proves is you can find anybody to say anything. That there are a wide diversity of views on a subject does not mean all the views are equally plausible.[/quote]

Which is a good point... which really puts a finer point on just why an argument from authority is dangerous, even when it is not done in a fallacious manner. We should always be prepared to do our own thinking and we should NEVER defer judgment without sufficient checks and balances (both internally to our selves and externally to society) to people, even if they are credible authorities.

This man is a credible authority. You, cimics, have looked at the arguments and evidence yourself, and form your own opinion. This is good.

This forum is filled with instances where one is absolutely and positively maligned for disputing as 'truth' a currently accepted view on what is 'scientifically proven/demonstrated,' and this is usually bundled up into arguments like "How can ALL those scientists be wrong?" and "Do you really think all those smart people could get this wrong?"

I blogged about an abuse of authority here not to long ago:

http://sntjohnny.com/front/archives/36

It is no surprise to me that the 'scientist' in the Milgram's experiment was a 'biologist.'

Anyway, this ties into some of my views about science in the classroom and the question of the so called 'separation between church and state.' You cannot trust that science is nuetral and that scientists do not bring their own biases and motivations to that question. There must be room for individual communities to make up their own minds through the elected process.

We should talk about what your Republican governor down in Texas is doing, Cimics.
[/quote]

TheDoctor · « **Reply #14 on:** February 07, 2007, 04:28:14 PM »

[quote]test[/quote]

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2007, 09:22:27 AM »

http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/NEWS01/70222005/1002

Second article I've seen in the last couple of weeks where the governors of the states went out and asserted that their climatologist didn't speak for them... Loved this quote: ""Your views on climate change, as I understand them, are not aligned with those of my administration," Minner wrote.

Such a doctrinal/dogmatic way to speak. Who on this forum is going to tell us now that governors have more credibility on science than scientists? Nah... we shouldn't be wary about modern science's claim to 'work' so well...

Zagzagel · « **Reply #16 on:** June 08, 2007, 07:24:54 PM »

At one point I was tempted to blame mankind for all this stuff... but then I couldn't argue against the strong belief that God said that the earth will remain forever... simple minded stuff eh??? haha

The article was neat to read. Thank you for that.

stathei · « **Reply #17 on:** June 08, 2007, 09:07:40 PM »

ROFLMAO! I love the way you guys take this apologist for the enery industry soooo seriously. He has as much crediblity as the (snigger) Young Earth Think Tank someone brought up a few weeks ago. Keep right on believing it, it's easier that way - a little like believing all that other crap you believe.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #18 on:** June 08, 2007, 11:04:04 PM »

Yup... at first, I felt like you did stat... but it is NOT EASIER ..... hey, you did believe too before didn't you??? and now you think you have enough knowledge to mock??

You are not genuine. I speak with many who feel or experience what you went through. Heck... I've been there.

stathei · « **Reply #19 on:** June 09, 2007, 05:07:33 PM »

Quote

but then I couldn't argue against the strong belief that God said that the earth will remain forever... simple minded stuff eh???

With that sort of inane, unreasoning piffle, you give the simple minded a bad name, Z

.

Author Topic: Good stuff. (Read 2589 times)

stathei

stathei