Do you feel this in America?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

From what I've read you are right in saying that there is a general warming trend that is outside of human control however the majority of science supports the conclusion that humans have had major impact on the rate of warming over the last 100+ years.

 

Define "major". Quantify it.

 

I'm not sure what you do, but I don't think you are an atmospheric scientist, so I'm not going to put much weight to your, "views," on climate change.

 

All I suggest is that you read and think a little deeper. If you look at the debate, you'll find a lot of unanswered questions and glaring omissions. From what I have read and processed, the trend of global warming is currently not a reversible process. The Kyoto treaty - or anything like it - will only SLOW warming; the warming process will still occur. People who jump on this hysterical bandwagon about the need for draconian cut-backs in the use of our resources all seem to think this is a silver bullet to SOLVE the problem, when all it does is prolong an irreversible trend.

 

As for "expertise", I am commenting on the scientific process in general, not individual data measurements or research papers by specific atmospheric scientists. I have spent plenty of time reading summaries of their conclusions and how they got them. As someone who was significant education in science, has worked in the life sciences, and has read and conducted research, I have plenty of ammunition to understand how they have arrived at their conclusions and question the deductions (often by others! - policy makers, environmentalists, etc) made based on the "science". Anyone educated in critical thinking and the scientific process has a right and an obligation to challenge any "expert", especially on fundamental questions of the basis for how they make their conclusions.

[Dechristo]

the issue isn't individual bias which i don't think anyone is claiming doesn't exist, but the leap of logic which consist in claiming that since 'bias' exists, there is an institutional political bias with regard to issues like climate change, evolution, environment, etc ...

 

…leap of logic?

 

If recognized that fundamental elements are biased, is it not basic that the sum of those elements is biased? There is no club, review board, institution, or country on this planet devoid of inherent bias. It cannot be rooted out as it is fundamental to the participants.

 

…in fact other scientists love nothing better than to root out and refute bad or biased science if it is in their field of interest.

 

What is biased? Individual bias exerts itself in recognition and determination of bias.

 

Bias is. There is no activity of Man devoid of it, be it the decision where money goes or the execution of scientific study. Bias is not Bad or Good, it is. Accept it; the resultant humility weakens the power of bias in you and fuels understanding of our condition; you won't feel the need to beat up on yourself or others as often.

 

It is an answer to the question “why can’t we all just get along”?

 

I smile at our bias discussing bias.

 

I hold Science’s quest for Truth to be of the greatest and most laudable of human endeavors; the question, “Why”, the most humbling. "Why" does not stop. "Why" is infinite. “Why” takes us to the deep of the Micro and the Macro and to the search for understanding that could result in a Unified Law of Physics.

 

But, we live in a temporal environment. No one travels anywhere for long without their baggage of bias.

 

The spreading of aged manure, however offensive, makes the field fertile.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

There was a great documentary on this on cable recently.

 

so, your interpretation of a program on cable about migrations to America is the evidence you provide to support your claim of a systematic political bias w.r.t evolution or climate change?

 

I've provided more substantive information for dialog than you have "j_b". You're capable of lame, contentless snipes - and nothing more.

 

I have given you an example of institutional bias in the scientific community - something which you claim is not possible in your sacrosanct, infallible, scientific religion.

 

You find a "cable" show laughable? Google it. Look in some research journals. It's all there too. Easy to find, verify, and corroborate. I doubt you're capable of it though.

 

[mtn_mouse]

Hey stumpalot,

Do you feel this????

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It is so much easier on your conscience to "know" that there is nothing that could be done to reverse global warming.

 

That's the conclusion I draw until science can show me otherwise.

 

Ditto for the next mass extinction.

[TheJiggler]

KK - Do you believe in evolution?

[j_b]

…leap of logic?

 

If recognized that fundamental elements are biased, is it not basic that the sum of those elements is biased? There is no club, review board, institution, or country on this planet devoid of inherent bias. It cannot be rooted out as it is fundamental to the participants.

 

the leap of logic arise when you recognize that individuals are biased and then conclude that there exists a systematic political bias among scientists. if anything political preferences among scientists should more or less reflect the overall population.

 

there are systematic 'biases' in science but they arise from the history of scientific ideas, which is a good thing.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

KK - Do you believe in evolution?

 

Looking for thread drift? As if there aren't enough posts already?

[j_b]

I've provided more substantive information for dialog than you have "j_b". You're capable of lame, contentless snipes - and nothing more.

 

this is what you get for sloppy thinking. if you pay attention my "lame snipes" are not contentless but address specifically how your argument isn't really relevant to the point you are trying to make.

 

I have given you an example of institutional bias in the scientific community - something which you claim is not possible in your sacrosanct, infallible, scientific religion.

 

no, i claimed that systematic political bias among scientists to the point where other scientific points of view are suppressed from peer-reviewed publications (since this is your underlying pretense), is not found in modern science. your example is not one of political bias (for the most part) and the minority point of view could still publish i believe.

 

You find a "cable" show laughable?

 

no, what i find laughable is your interpreting a cable show to infer systematic political bias in science. the documentary may have been a good one for all i know.

 

Google it. Look in some research journals. It's all there too. Easy to find, verify, and corroborate. I doubt you're capable of it though.

 

so, in your world you assert and others do the substantiating?

[Dechristo]

the leap of logic arise when you recognize that individuals are biased and then conclude that there exists a systematic political bias among scientists.

 

My fallible writing skills, your bias and lack of understanding has allowed you to make an erroneous inference of a conclusion I do not assert.

 

if anything political preferences among scientists should more or less reflect the overall population.

 

Can you support this hypothesis taking into consideration the political leanings of educational institutions?

[Dru]

Or even the fact that advanced education is strongly correlated to leftward political leaning - being right wing is for dumb people.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

the leap of logic arise when you recognize that individuals are biased and then conclude that there exists a systematic political bias among scientists.

 

My fallible writing skills, your bias and lack of understanding has allowed you to make an erroneous inference of a conclusion I do not assert.

 

if anything political preferences among scientists should more or less reflect the overall population.

 

Can you support this hypothesis taking into consideration the political leanings of educational institutions?

 

DeChristo:

[j_b]

My fallible writing skills, your bias and lack of understanding has allowed you to make an erroneous inference of a conclusion I do not assert.

 

sorry, my bad. i did not realize you just wanted to say that "bias exist" .... then, so what?

 

if anything political preferences among scientists should more or less reflect the overall population.

 

Can you support this hypothesis taking into consideration the political leanings of educational institutions?

 

we do know that higher education types, on average, lean slightly to the left, although it remains to be seen that it is indeed the case among physical/life scientists. i'd say it's probably true as well but certainly not anywhere near the extent found in the 'softer' sciences. in any case, this political preference (on average) would in no way allow or permit the suppression of good science in order to advance a political point of view. in fact, in my experience, most scientifics are blind to politics when they talk shop.

[selkirk]

Ok, so lets assume there is a bias in science and it does tend to produce left leaning results. (Global warming is man caused, burning grass fields leads to increase asthma levels, were going to run out of oil in the near future, etc etc.) How should we approach that error? Is it better to completely write off the results do what ever we want and deal with the consequences later?

 

Personally i'm in favor of erring on the side of conservation. If were wrong, nothing happens, the trends continue, and we have a few more resources later on (trees, oil, coal, etc.) and what suffers in the short term are a few companies pocketbooks. Employment levels drop for major polluters as they spend money on upgrades and employment rises as regulation and remediation technology producers to help clean up the "dirty industries". Net effect, temporary economic slowdown, possible minor depression, unpleasant in the short term but no major long term effects. In the long run, we can always cut down the trees, burn the coal, drive off the oil, 10 years from now as easily as we can now.

 

If the scientists are right? Were ourselves over right now and in 50 years, we'll be seeing significant temperature changes, more droughts, more dangerous heat waves, more species dissapearing faster, permanently lost forests and biodiversity etc. We may not be screwed but our children might very well be.

 

So..... which is it to be? Err on the side of caution, and at worst temporary discomfort? Or Err on the side of potentially screwing ourselves over? hmmmmmm, tough choice

 

and yes, I'm a highly biased scientist. What can I say, I want to graduate

 

Bias does exist, and does take a while to correct itself. But as it's been stated before.... the scientific process eventually sets itself straight, it might take a few years, or a generation. But nothing garners scientific prestige and recognition faster than good reproducible data that refutes the current level of understanding. Names and careers are never made confirming current understanding, but by rocking the boat a little and producing new understaning.

[j_b]

Ok, so lets assume there is a bias in science and it does tend to produce left leaning results.

 

it isn't possible. if there is any kind of political bias among scientists, it is small and on average. such bias cannot explain that there are essentially no serious publications arguing against the consensus about climate change, evolution, etc ... we are then very far from the picture painted by rightwing hysterics about a leftwing conspiracy that would prevent studies/publications favorable to conservative politics in these domains. the answer is much simpler: if there are no such studies, it's because they'd be scientifically poor and they wouldn't be published.