 |
| |
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
I love this part, because it is relevant every single day.
quote:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. |
quote:
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Gatekeeper: Perhaps so, but from what I've seen, "concensus science" rests on "evidence" gleaned from mathematical models. As Crichton points out, many of the components of these models are unknowable and therefore the models have no real scientific value. |
For better or for worse, mathematical models are here to stay, much as polling is.
That said, I'm not one of those people who believes the sky is falling, but neither am I dense enough to think we're *not* altering the environment, and not always for the better. One doesn't have to go too far from home to realize the impact we, as a species, have on our surroundings. Combine that with the findings that scientists are making, and it raises legitimate concerns, IMO.
Just as Crichton proposes that some environmental scientists use "celebrities" to help fund their research and push their views, so do I worry that other people will use Crichton's views to basically do *nothing* to alter their way of life. IOW, they'll continue to rely on oil and coal instead of pursuing cleaner (and better) energy. They'll keep using a poor-mileage vehicle when they don't need it (SUVs come to mind here, along with the civilian Hummers) but have it anyway because of the "glamour" factor and so on.
The twin passions that drive (heh) my desire to abandon oil as an energy source is the fact that the U.S. relies far too much on a volatile Middle East for it and the fact that there are better energy sources out there. I wish a leader would step forward and implement another Manhattan Project effort, except this one would be for energy, not atomic weaponry.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Even if we know the Theory is uterly impossible, rediculus, internaly contradictory and in poor agreement with observation. So long as its the best we can do it remains. A new theory needs to decicivly defeat the old theory and become "king of the hill" so to speak. |
Hey, I agree with this. You can only do what you can do and nobody should ask you to make up **** to square the circle. On the other hand, you have to be honest about the state of the theory. I don't hear a lot of "well, it's a stupid theory, but it's the best we have." Do you? Rather, I hear a lot of very strident scientists and policy wonks writing the stupid theories into their Book of Truths.
Last edited by DanS on 12-12-2004 at 01:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
That said, I'm not one of those people who believes the sky is falling, but neither am I dense enough to think we're *not* altering the environment, and not always for the better. One doesn't have to go too far from home to realize the impact we, as a species, have on our surroundings. Combine that with the findings that scientists are making, and it raises legitimate concerns, IMO. |
In another speech, Crichton opines that many westerners have an unrealistic view of nature because of our urbanization. I have seen this myself. I grew up in an area where my closest neighbor was a mile away. In such an area, human beings don't have control over nature -- nature does its thing and doesn't care a whit about what human beings do. However, you can see some areas where human beings do impact nature more than others. As jon miller alludes to, the streams aren't nearly as clean as they were 50 years ago. This is due to industrialization and the tendency of cities and towns to run untreated waste directly into the streams.
On the other hand, you will know that things are getting somewhat better in this regard because the government is cracking down on some plants and is spending extravagant amounts of money to build waste water treatment plants for even the smallest villages (the town of 1,400 people near which I grew up got one of these about 10 years ago).
But then I moved to the city and man, what a difference! My apartment is in a building that shields me equally from weather that is 120 degrees and sunny or -30 degrees and a blizzard. If I don't go outside, I will in no way be impacted by almost hurricane force winds. I may not even know that such a storm is happening unless I turn on the TV or read the paper. In short, my world is now man-made. Nature intrudes rarely.
I think that city folk look at how they can impact their environment (i.e., almost totally) and freak out when they apply those experiences to the broader world. They believe that Nature is fragile, because it is so in their environment. But for 95% of the land area of the US, for instance, their urban existence has no meaning. For the oceans, which cover 2/3rd or 3/4 of the Earth or whatever, and are often many miles deep, human beings rarely intrude. Human beings only intrude mostly to 20 or 30 feet out of 50 miles of atmosphere.
You have to correct for proportion in many of these perceptions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
I did a little googling for ice cores and found something of interest. CO2 levels today are at their highest in 440,000 years. Climatologists are focusing on 450,000 because the Earth's orbit was similar to today and could tell us if the present interglacial will end "soon" or if it will ~match the interglacial from that time, i.e., lasting about 28,000 years long as opposed to the more typical 10,000 year long integlacial. Anyway, if CO2 levels were higher 440.000 years ago during a 28,000 year long interglacial that bears resemblance to today in other ways (orbit), then how can we claim we are a threat?
One fairly well known factor is the Earth's tilt which fluctuates between 21.5-24.5 degrees. When we approach the lower angle the higher latitudes where ice sheets form and spread recieve less sun during the summer and climatologists believe ice sheets spread because of cooler summers, not colder winters. We are at ~23.45 degrees now after hitting the 24.5 max several thousand years ago and heading to 21.5. We should get there in about 8,000 years. Of course thats just one orbital factor. The last ice age ended when the planet had a ~22-22.5 degree tilt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
|
More of that here.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-12-2004 00:18
|