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.
Because the majority said so.
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.
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.
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?
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 ?
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question? When the hypothesis has experimental/observational verification. Policy based on any other standard, like a consensus of dubious objectivity, is a crap shoot.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Is climate change real and not a hoax?: Yes (98:1) - Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) voted "Yes"
Do humans contribute significantly to climate change?: No (50:49) - All the Dems plus a few Reps votes "Yes". Key to that result however is that before the vote Sen. Lisa Murkoswki (R-AK) took exception to the word "significantly", which I actually think is a reasonable point given the available data that tries to quantify our contribution to the changes.
The question that remains unanswered is how many of those 50 that voted "No" in the second vote would have voted differently if the contentious "significantly" wasn't present. That's almost certainly more than zero, so it appears that the disconnect between what US politicians and scientists believe about climate change and AGW might not be as far apart as some are portraying it, and might not even exist at all.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax
Especially since (1) he doesn't tell us the result of the vote, and (2) he links back to yesterday's article on slashdot that covered the same thing, and to the same article on his web site as yesterday. Nothing - nothing - whatsoever to see here.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
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.
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 :)
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 ?