Slashdot Mirror
Science By Democracy Doesn't Work
StartsWithABang writes The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid. Nevertheless, debates have always been a thing in science, and they do have their place: in raising what points would be needed to validate, robustly confirm or refute competing explanations, theories or ideas. The greatest scientific debate in all of history — along with its conclusions — illustrates exactly this.
Yes, it's called consensus and no, it isn't science. Not when politicians do it. Not when scientists do it.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Its just as well that we don't live in a democracy
Consensus isn't science, but it's a method of determining which of the competing scientific theories should be used as a basis of policy. It may not be a good method, but other methods are worse.
Just what exactly do you expect will happen if you almost double the amount of the atmospheres main persistent infra red absorber? And if you think it will have no effect can you please explain why you think this.
I'm just curious because I'm sure your stand is based on sound scientific reasoning rather than a rather pathetic attempt at self justification for a "lets carry on business as usual I don't care" approach to the issue which unfortunately is a standard human response to a lot of big problems.
Debate on scientific endeavors does work, because the primary purpose of congress is to fund various programs. Climate change debate in the political realm is all about transferring wealth from other productive areas of the economy. For arguments sake I'll agree there is climate change, and I'll agree to pay a few hundred million of our tax dollars for it, but no more. If you want to spent billions - well then, you've just discovered where the real debate is, and why this is going on in congress. I don't think it's as important as you think it is in dollar terms.
We can also argue about what's causing it, but at the end of the day it's about how many resources get allocated to doing something about it. Some of us think it's a fake issue to reallocate dollars into pet projects. It has happened before. What if we spend the billions and the next 10 years are the coldest on record? Will we get our money back or will we have to fund a new project to deal with global cooling?
Used to be that in a democracy we will weight the facts and then vote on a decision. Now it seems we live in a Yakov Smirnoff joke were we make the decision and then vote on the facts. Except it is not Soviet Russia...
I'd agree with that is the bill was just a vote on whether climate change is real or not. It's attached to another bill.
The democrats voted in mass for Obama Care. Are you saying that means they agree and support everything in it? Because recent history would prove that wrong.
The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid.
You think this vote had anything to do with science? This is about power and policy. It's about pandering to a group of voters. It's about setting a stage for the next election. It's about getting votes. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with power.
Science should inform public policy but nothing forces politicians to actually care what scientists tell them if the facts diverge from political needs. If a politician needs to proclaim that gravity is a hoax to get votes then they will do that and do it with a straight face.
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question ? Also, it's impossible to not have a policy while we wait. Right now, our policy is to keep producing CO2 at about the same rate. What exactly should we base that policy on, if not for our current best scientific understanding ?
You're right. We should use quantum mechanics instead as a basis for laws regarding houses, roads and bridges, because that's much more applicable to houses, roads, and bridges than Newtonian physics.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
If you remove significantly from the second question, then it loses all meaning. Humans could contribute 0.000001% and the answer would still be "yes", but they'd consider it not to be a problem because it's so small.
None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.
Now I understand the denial logic. Let say science is 90% confident that a comet is going to crash on the earth, we shouldn't do anything since the question is not fully resolved, right? That's just plain stupid, whether it's applied to a comet or climate change. Man made climate change is happening. Are we 100% confident? No, but close enough so that we should live accordingly. Again, is the science 100% settled? No. But while we continue research on the matter, there is no reason not to act.
They're not even debating the right question: Are humans causing a climate change that will cause us considerable harm?
Mod parent up with the result. Also the purpose of the vote. The vote was a strategic tool by one party to get members of the other party on the record about climate change. To what degree that works we'll get to see in the next Senate campaign (if any of the Democrats are able to effectively use it in their campaigns). But this isn't about legislating science - its about applying political pressure to the people who deny science to secure votes. While I am not sure how effective that will be I would love to see bills about creationism hit the federal level. Can you imagine your Senator on the record saying they think creationism is valid science?
So funny. First you say the data shows no global warming. Then you are shown the data, and the data shows a clear continuation of the trend with no pause whatsoever. Suddenly, when it is clear that the data no longer confirms your preconceptions, you turn against the data and say that it is not trustworthy. Then you go on to talk about how preconceptions can result in biases - but you seem to have no self awareness whatsoever! Classic :)
Could someone please explain how giving more money to the kleptocrats in government is going to cool the planet? This sounds about as scientific as voodoo witch doctors.
By creating hypothesis and then testing it, experimentally and verifying results, you know SCIENCE.
AGW and the CO2 debate has just Hypothesis generation, and the models have failed at predicting anything. And yet, you have people running around crying "2014 was the hottest year on record", and while it is fun being "Chicken Little" isn't accurate at all, and crying "consensus" (popular opinion) etc.
So far, all science has done is shown that CO2 is increasing, measured/verified.
Not to mention all the other "theories" about how weather, especially hurricanes, would increase and cause more devastation, and the cries of "Global Warming" after Sandy, which does NOTHING but drive panic (emotion, not facts) to elicit government controls on human activity. After all, only government can solve the worlds problems (never mind that governments cause most of the worlds problems).
Global warming isn't science. It is political fodder masquerading as science.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The future hasn't happened yet.
But I keep being told that AGW is "settled" and "proven" and such. Tell that to the people who don't believe (faith type) in AGW who are told basically that they are going to hell (blamed for AGW should it occur),and how the sinners need to sacrifice (go "green", pay carbon offsets etc) while the priests get to live in luxury (Al Gore and the 1000s of jets flying to AGW conferences).
You see, if you frame it right, it does sound JUST LIKE RELIGION!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
By creating hypothesis and then testing it, experimentally and verifying results, you know SCIENCE.
That's what 95% of the climate scientists believe we have done. If that's not enough, please explain your exact criteria. WHO must do all the things you mention, and WHEN does the general public know they have been done correctly ?
And that is a question not even scientists are sure of....scientists aren't even sure how much warming CO2 causes. So it's not surprising congress gets confused.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
if the same data has been used to claim a warming trend and the same data is used to say otherwise I'd call that invalid data.
The same data has been used to claim men landed on the moon, and that the moon landing was a hoax. Therefore all data related to the moon landing should then be ignored. As it's proven flawed on both counts.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
An interesting aspect of science is that all our models are always wrong. And we are always aware of that.
Rethinking email