tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18238804.post8937008147221484741..comments2022-11-22T18:30:59.980-05:00Comments on A Future Metaphysics: A State of Uncertainty: My Current Thoughts on ClimateScott W. Somervillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17312154442915574915noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18238804.post-74340126030471466182010-02-06T12:06:21.473-05:002010-02-06T12:06:21.473-05:00If so, how do you apply that to big issues like gl...<i>If so, how do you apply that to big issues like global warming?</i><br /><br />I only dimly remember the book.<br />(I have a copy around the house somewhere.)<br />From a scientific perspective, there's nothing very "revolutionary" about global warming so I don't think that Kuhn applies all that much in this case.<br /><br />The Earth Sciences that support AGW are long established.<br />The idea that carbon dioxide traps heat and that people pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is very old.<br />The scientific consensus on global warming was reached decades ago.<br />The remarkable thing about the history of AGW is how...unremarkable it is.<br /><br />There was no radical explosion of new ideas. No shocking discovery that shook the scientific foundation to it's core. The way that AGW became accepted in the scientific community was in a plodding step-by-step manner. Science being done the old fashioned way. <a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm" rel="nofollow">Through hard work, involving multiple different disciplines and decades of painstaking record keeping and research.</a><br /><br />The scientifically illiterate general public simply didn't notice.<br /><br />The only reason we are discussing it NOW is because of the attack on science.<br /><br />Vested interests have realised that if they are not allowed to continue pumping carbon into the atmosphere, that this will hurt their profit margins.<br />So they have mobilised public ignorance and set up "Institutes".<br /><br />Belittle the scientist.<br />(Label them hippies, commies and wild-eyed wierdos.)<br />Re-cycle the talking points.<br />Throw up a smokescreen.<br />Delay, confuse and sow indecision.<br />Doubt is their product.<br /><br />They don't have to prove anything themselves. They just have to keep public opinion off-balance and unfocused.<br />The tobacco industry got away with <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rctyhcjdkZM" rel="nofollow">such tricks for decades.</a>Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18238804.post-60607911768191601202010-02-06T08:17:35.148-05:002010-02-06T08:17:35.148-05:00Cedric, have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's "...Cedric, have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? If so, how do you apply that to big issues like global warming?Scott W. Somervillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312154442915574915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18238804.post-55104809748797232982010-02-06T03:32:53.473-05:002010-02-06T03:32:53.473-05:00Just one more item.
If you delve into the skeptica...Just one more item.<br />If you delve into the skeptical community out there you'll find all sorts of genuinely wacky and wonderful material.<br />I've had the JREF (for example) embedded in my web name for several years now.<br />Perhaps the most imaginative and witty presentation of skeptical thinking I've seen in a long time would be....<a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/CaptainDisillusion#p/u/8/wu77YbjTa38" rel="nofollow">Captain Disillusion.</a><br />He's made many cool videos.<br />Check 'em out.<br />Enjoy.Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18238804.post-14089402623156819732010-02-06T01:51:48.319-05:002010-02-06T01:51:48.319-05:00...you might be able to help me assess the argumen...<i>...you might be able to help me assess the arguments for and against CO2 amplification. Do you know any good resources?</i><br /><br />Well, I approach the whole topic as a complete layman.<br />When I look at any science topic, not just global warming, I am always painfully aware that I am way out of my league.<br />I double-check everything.<br />I don't rely upon "other people's" interpretations of what the scientists did or said.<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8" rel="nofollow">(Here's a perfect example of what I mean. Please, please, please hold you nose at the title and watch. 7min only.)</a><br />I go to the scientists directly.<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRH2mFXIGn8&feature=related" rel="nofollow">I demand the peer-review be there. And LOTS of it.</a><br />I demand the scientific process.<br /><br />Everybody should have a solid, reliable system to sort out good information from bad information.<br />That system, that process of gathering reliable information, should be consistant. It should not bend and wobble depending on the topic you examine.<br />Avoid confirmation bias at all costs.<br />It's not just global warming.<br />There's plenty of disinformation out there that confuses and seduces good, normal people like you and me.<br />Being "smart" is no protection.<br />Having a "degree" is not protection.<br />Using "common sense" is not protection.<br />Science is often counter-intuitive and goes against "common sense".<br />Everybody thinks that propoganda and or disinformation doesn't work on them.<br />That's the first false assumption that people ALWAYS make.<br /><br />Take vaccinations for example.<br />I don't know anything about vaccinations.<br />I'm not a doctor.<br />Yet there is this big media circus over parents being afraid of vaccinating their children because of alleged links between autism and vaccinations.<br />The anti-vacc crowd created slick web-sites. They got some big name Hollywood personalities on their side to promote the cause. They even had a few tame "doctors" with Phds to trot out in front of the media.<br />They expertly manipulated the media to examine "both sides" of the "controversy".<br />The hysteria and the fear and the indecision that they caused was world-wide.<br />The inaction on getting children vaccinated put children everywhere at risk from diseases that science had conquered long ago.<br />It was criminal. It was stupid.<br />Yet the disinformation campaign was/is stunningly successful.<br />Medical science only had the facts.<br />Hysterical parents had their fears.<br />Fear won.<br />How would you, as a non-medical scientist, rationally and cold-bloodedly assess the topic of vaccinations?<br />What resources would you use?<br />How could you avoid being flim-flammed?<br />Here's a few links to bring you up to speed on the issue.<br />Warning: May cause you to get very angry with some very stubborn people.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYelpIXV6hc" rel="nofollow">7:30 Report piece on the Anti Vaccination Network.</a><br />and<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfheO9H8CD4" rel="nofollow">Ben Goldacre on MMR, autism and media mendacity on London Tonight</a><br />and<br /><a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/anti-vaccination_movement/" rel="nofollow">The Anti-Vaccination Movement</a><br />and<br /><a href="http://www.domain.com/" rel="nofollow">"Building bridges" to the leaders of the anti-vaccine movement?</a><br /><br />When I want to find out about medical issues, my first port of call is the AMA.<br />They do the work. They follow the scientific process. They have earned my attention.<br />When I want to find out about global warming, I go straight to NASA.<br />They do the work. They follow the scientific process. They have earned my attention.<br /><br />If you want to be a real skeptic and not a "skeptic" then regularly read issues examined by skeptical societies. Test your "baloney kit detector" on other scientific issues. Test your consistancy.<br />Remember: Skepticism is not a position. It's a process.Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18238804.post-58190362258299486732010-02-05T17:30:44.419-05:002010-02-05T17:30:44.419-05:00Cedric, I truly appreciate your comments, and I am...Cedric, I truly appreciate your comments, and I am delighted to take them in good humor.<br /><br />At the moment, I think I'm a "lukewarmist" who has trouble taking the anti-nuclear ideologues seriously. I'm NOT yet persuaded that rising CO2 levels are going to be amplified by other forcing mechanisms. I don't expect you to do much about the Gaia-worshipping greenies, but you might be able to help me assess the arguments for and against CO2 amplification. Do you know any good resources?Scott W. Somervillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312154442915574915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18238804.post-26417069136965683462010-02-05T15:21:02.649-05:002010-02-05T15:21:02.649-05:00Arrg!!!
After all the effort I put into editing m...Arrg!!!<br /><br />After all the effort I put into editing my post, I've only just realised that two of the links (Dunning-Kruger and the "skewed views of science" video) have been posted before on a different thread here.<br />Sorry.Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18238804.post-57525483148184113392010-02-05T14:51:40.226-05:002010-02-05T14:51:40.226-05:00Scott, I hope you'll accept any criticisms I m...Scott, I hope you'll accept any criticisms I make as constructive ones. No offence is intended. Please take everything I say in good humour.<br /><br /><i>I’m not ready to blame ALL the “denialism” on a fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign. It certainly doesn’t account for MY questions.</i><br /><br />Yes and no.<br />Nobody is accusing you of being in on the payroll of Exxon. However, the PRATT's you mention are indeed from the fossil-fuel industry. They are talking points that are recycled by professional deniers and spoon-fed to the media and to bloggers everywhere. The "Urban Heat Island Effect" PRATT is a classic.<br /><br />It came from somewhere.<br />Do you remember where you first heard it?<br /> <br />I can't answer that question for you but...I can tell you where you DIDN'T get that PRATT from.<br />You didn't get it from the scientific community. You did not read a series of peer-reviewed papers in "Nature" and then start worrying about the "Urban Heat Island Effect".<br /><br />Every time you innocently repeat a PRATT on the Internet without fact-checking with scientific communities; the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute do a little happy dance.<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-br8Yewo9A0" rel="nofollow">How to Boil A Frog presents Naomi Oreskes - pt. 1</a> 4min 21 sec<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHPk2aAX-0&feature=related" rel="nofollow">How to Boil A Frog presents Naomi Oreskes - pt. 2</a> 4min<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXzKprnW0WM&feature=related" rel="nofollow">How to Boil A Frog presents Naomi Oreskes - pt. 3</a> 4min 22sec<br /><br /><i>...it's an issue that dramatically depends on a very complex kind of science that very few people can master.</i><br /><br />No argument here.<br />So how does the interested layman figure out the truth over a complex scientific issue?<br /><a href="http://kriswager.blogspot.com/2009/05/dunning-kruger-effect.html" rel="nofollow">Beware the Dunning-Kruger effect!</a><br /><br />Nobody is immune to it. Not you. Certainly not me. When you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.<br />Remember Richard Feynman: <b>Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.</b> <br /><br />Carl Sagan came up with the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU" rel="nofollow">baloney detection kit.</a> <br />Here's another look at critical thinking involving science.<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro&feature=PlayList&p=D19BC28E757B2B02&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1" rel="nofollow">Skewed views of science</a> 10 min<br /><br /><i>That leaves the average 21st century person in a position a little like the average 16th century European, trying to choose between Catholicism and Protestantism with their eternal soul at stake.</i><br /><br />Very, very bad analogy.<br />We are not dealing with two belief systems. We are dealing with...reality. Science is about the study of reality.<br /><br />Either the world is getting warming..or it is not.<br />Either the scientists are involved in a massive global conspiracy or the fossil fuel industry is playing games to make more money.<br /><br />Either smoking is the leading cause of cancer...or it's not.<br />Either the medical community are involved in a massive global conspiracy or the tobacco industry is playing games to make more money.<br /><br /><i>I've noticed a shift from "global warming" to "climate change" without any explanation.</i><br /><br />Yes, there has been a shift in the terminology.<br />However, this is just yet another PRATT.<br />Do a google search and check out what the scientists themselves say about this.<br />A while back, I was curious about this one myself because...I didn't know the answer.<br /><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html" rel="nofollow">Link.</a>Cedric Katesbyhttp://www.randi.orgnoreply@blogger.com