Re: Little green idiots cause global warming
From: R Philip Dowds (rpdowds_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 12/18/04
- Next message: Arthur Boff: "Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?"
- Previous message: Karl Johanson: "Re: The Nerd Quotient"
- In reply to: charliew2: "Re: Little green idiots cause global warming"
- Next in thread: charliew2: "Re: Little green idiots cause global warming"
- Reply: charliew2: "Re: Little green idiots cause global warming"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:22:36 GMT
This is getting very long, so I will truncate. Those having difficulty
following the argument may have to go backwards in the thread.
charliew2 wrote:
> "R Philip Dowds" <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote in message
...
>>
>>A great deal of human affairs does not allow for this kind of repetitive
>>testing under controlled conditions. For instance, in the early 50's,
>>the CIA organized a coup which overthrew the democratically elected
>>Mohamed Mossadeg of Iraq. Most historians are now convinced that this
>>was seminal event in turning the Middle East against America, but ...
>>some historians still adhere to the thinking of the fifties, which is
>>that the Russians were about to make inroads in Iraq, and we had to act
>>in order to prevent a communist take-over.
>
>
>
> This was an exercise in the realm of politics, not science. The analogy is
> flawed.
But, even Mr Crichton is debating the proper nexus between public policy
and science. The two worlds do intersect, and usually with some
justification. I made the point about Iran to show how we choose to act
even absent solid scientific proof; the analogy to global warming
policy, where the evidence is at least semi-solid, maybe better, should
be obvious.
...
> It means that claiming a scientific argument for something that cannot be
> experimentally tested, for whatever reason, is normally a bad thing to do.
> Such arguments tend to fall into the category of opinion and speculation.
> Without the reproducible experimentation, you can never tell where a
> hypothesis is succeeding and failing.
And so OK: Creationists argue that evolution is "just a theory" because
we cannot replicate and experiment with the evolutionary process. Would
you therefore agree with them that creationism and evolution should be
given equal weight in a high school curriculum?
...
>>OK, another zinger is embedded here: "Certainty". For relatively simple
>>matters involving short time spans and few variables, scientific
>>certainty is indeed possible. We all have a pretty clear picture of
>>what happens when we mix oil and water, and can expect the same result
>>each time.
>
>
> That's correct - you can repeat the experiment. Another comment - most real
> world problems have more than three independent variables involved, and
> often many more. Most humans start getting confused when they have to deal
> with two or more independent variables at the same time. For something as
> complicated as global climate models, which have hundreds, thousands, or
> millions of independent variables, there is no doubt that such complexity is
> beyond full human comprehension.
Don't be so sure. Particle physics -- the mathematical models and
evidentiary data (which is increasingly probabilistic, not
deterministic) -- is largely not understood (except in anecdotal terms)
by any other than the most exquisitely trained experts. Are you quite
sure that people assembling and operating climate models do not really
understand what they're doing, merely because you don't understand it?
...
> Mathematical modeling should *always* be verified by real world data. I
> will not get too detailed here, but suffice it to say that there are very
> many ways to get mathematical modeling wrong. Just because a set of
> equations exists in a computer, and the computer is capable of converging
> those equations, does *not* necessarily mean that the resulting answer is
> correct. In fact, for the highly multi-variable problems, the resulting
> answer is a very large printout which contains a lot of small changes in
> each of the variables. Human interpretation of such output is
> problematical, even when it can be proven that the output is correct.
>
>
>>Just look at
>>the entire progression of particle physics: Positrons, neutrinos, and
>>the Higgs boson all existed in theoretical mathematical models years
>>before -- sometimes decades before -- instrumentation was invented to
>>actually assemble data which served as "proof".
>
>
> Once again, the predictions were backed up with experimental results that
> confirmed the predictions.
I don't disagree, but somehow you slipped past my main point -- that
modeling theory is often out in front of substantiating data. This is
not a prima facie justification for jettisoning theory.
>
>
>>What Mr Crichton is doing here is double-crossing himself. Having
>>earlier ridiculed the tenacity of old theory in the face of better
>>theory and evidence, now he says climate theory is too juvenile and
>>unsubstantiated to warrant credulity -- which was a position he scorned
>>in the context of plate tectonics.
>>
>
>
> Climate model output is not evidence. It is a prediction of what is
> expected to happen, based on all of the input data.
> Such a prediction should be verified with real world measurements.
And indeed, I believe the process of substantiation via data
accumulation and analysis is now under way.
...
> Consensus is not science. It is an appeal to authority, which is a well
> known logical fallacy.
I don't disagree, but my point was that Mr Crichton labels people as
arrogant because they insist on their views even when the majority is
against them. He's working both sides of the fence at the same time.
>
>
>>Such a person is "arrogant". And this, from someone who just a few
>>paragraphs back denied "consensus science". Was Einstein arrogant
>>because he hung on to his models at a time when he was alone? (Many who
>>tried to dispute his general and special theories of relativity
>>concluded he was ...)
>
>
> Einstein based his theories on a very well known experiment by Michaelson
> and Morley, in which it was clearly demonstrated that the speed of light is
> constant in all reference frames. This simple demonstration led directly to
> Einstein's work, and that work evolved into a host of implications for the
> then accepted Newtonian physics of the early 1900's. The point - Einstein
> didn't blindly try to overthrow the established physics of his day. He
> sought to provide an explanation for experimental evidence that clearly
> contradicted the status quo.
Indeed, just as the theory of evolution evolved in part as a better
explanation of the fossil record, which was poorly accommodated by
creationism. The point remains is that much of Einstein's theoretical
explanations lacked solid evidentiary support until the invention and
mobilization of better instruments such as particle accelerators. I'll
stick to my guns: Inadequate evidentiary data is a reason for more and
better research, not a reason to toss out the theory.
...
>
> Why do you insist on using political analogies to draw scientific
> conclusions? Science and politics don't mix.
Would that they would. I repeat: Mr Crichton's central argument is
that we should not adopt public policy, or take public action, until we
have a high degree of certainty (95% confidence?) about something.
Well, I might be persuaded by this recommendation if I thought
government and the public would adhere to it consistently. My
counter-point remains: We should not hold action relative to climate
change to a higher standard than we used for the invasion of Iraq, or
the cutting of taxes, or the missile defense shield, or ... Well, you
get the picture.
...
>> (2) Many scientists and a lot of data indicate that this
>>re-concentration of carbon dioxide is pushing up the average temperature
>>of the earth. Furthermore, the *rate of change* of this average
>>temperature may be greater than at any point in planet history.
>
>
> Speculation. Besides, humans should be worried about what has occurred in
> the last 1-2 million years rather than the whole history of the planet.
Not speculation; credible theory bolstered by some evidence, just like
evolution. Say more about the special significance of the last 2
million years, please.
...
>
> Another generation or two is not very far into the future. It shouldn't
> take very long to verify the theories of such alarmists, should it?
Sadly, no. Part of the dilemma is that by the time the alarmists are
shown to be at least partly correct, we may have passed the point of no
return. We may not be able to repair the planetary system, once
damaged. (After 50 years of Big Macs, it takes a lot more than a week
of salads to repair your body -- if repair is possible at all.)
...
> You may have misinterpretted his point. He is saying that even climate
> scientists, funded by government money, can have a conflict of interest such
> that they tend to report developments in ways that will guarantee future
> funding. If such scientists say that there is no problem, you can be sure
> that the government will cut funding.
>
> His proposal to "spread out" the process tends to ensure that such a real or
> perceived conflict of interest has a minimal impact on the science.
Again, no disagreement. It's just that he did not come up with an
indictment uniquely devastating for climatology, as opposed to metallurgy.
...
> So, you recognize that the global warming debate is as much political as it
> is scientific?
Of course it is. Everything from tax policy to education policy to
foreign policy to environmental policy is a mix of science and politics.
A mix of information, plus interpretation of that information
according to values and personal perspective (or prejudice). And so?
You have an alternative?
RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
- Next message: Arthur Boff: "Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?"
- Previous message: Karl Johanson: "Re: The Nerd Quotient"
- In reply to: charliew2: "Re: Little green idiots cause global warming"
- Next in thread: charliew2: "Re: Little green idiots cause global warming"
- Reply: charliew2: "Re: Little green idiots cause global warming"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
