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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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 ?