Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

That 97% number has long been debunked with climatologists who found their names on the list complaining that they shouldn't even be on the list. It basically consists of anybody who wrote about global warming in a research paper who said that man's activity raises the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that carbon dioxide is a gas that blocks the heat of the sun from escaping into the atmosphere.

This is a no-brainer, and makes me wonder who the 3% are. Maybe there's some theory out there that posits man's activity as decreasing the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere. Perhaps by eating burgers, we are reducing the number of cows that would normally be farting and pooping (methane is also a green house gas), thus helping to save the earth from... from being a bit hotter than it is now, but not as hot as it has been in the past.

 

There have been critiques of one such study, but there are numerous such studies out today, and I've seen none that come up with less of a scientific consensus on human contribution to warming.

Beyond that, there is NO reason to believe that more of a consensus is required to justify public policy action on this issue.

We NEVER wait for 100% conformance of science on public policy decisions. That goes for DoD, EPA, tax policy, education, infrastructure, or any other area.

The real question here concerns why it is taking such monumental world wide consensus on THIS issue.

 

The results produced by the theories must be able to be replicated by anyone in order to be called "Science."

 

I consider myself very "pro science". I'm an extremely active supporter of space exploration not to mention undersea exploration and high energy particle physics and virtually all research into medicine.

Just because I don't believe humans are that big a factor in climate change and I'm not sure of the morality of embryonic stem cell research doesn't make me "anti science" and to claim otherwise is stupid.

 

Show us an example, and I hope you're not referring to "Global Warming in a Jar."

 

The effects of Gravity can be measured and replicated.

 

You waded right past the most important part as if it's nothing. Consensus has absolutely nothing to do with it. That's just a way for the left to say "all the smart people are in group Science and the stupid people are in group Science Deniers. Now which group are you going to join?" and by doing that, they get enough voters to convince politicians which way they should lean when it comes to legislation.

They've already got as many people as they're going to get using that particular tactic, and it isn't working. Without that, there is no second stage of 'the agenda'. Honesty isn't going to work, and all the scare tactics the left could dream up haven't worked. The scary movies and documentaries haven't worked, the propaganda coming from hollywood and the media haven't worked, and the name calling hasn't worked.

The real question is not about how much of a consensus is necessary, but rather when the left will admit defeat. You're only going to get more taxes in states that pass carbon tax laws. It's not going to happen any other way, and those extra taxes are the only reason this nonsense has been pushed in the first place.

 

How many exceptions to the "law" are there? And why are the exceptions at all?

 

Maaaate

Bloody MYTHBUSTERS showed how CO2 works!!!!

Now if you have a valid alternative hypothesis for the observed facts please state it

 

Well, rejecting the world wide consensus of climate change on the reasons for our planet warming would certainly amount to a denial of science - no doubt about that.

As for embryonic stem cell research, my guess is that most objections have more to do with ethics or morality than with the ability of science to render valid information.


Everyone loves exploration as long as we keep cutting the budget for it - as indicated by having a NASA budget that is lower in constant dollars than it has been since the late 1980's.


The real indication of support for science starts coming in when the results have something to say about policy decisions that are of actual current interest.

 

No, it's more than that by a lot.

The issue of consensus comes up because science doesn't offer proof and it doesn't have a decision making hierarchy.


Beyond that, by pitching science as both "the left" and "wrong" you identify yourself as unwilling to accept science in the first place.

So, of COURSE you won't agree - what could POSSIBLY cause you to agree on a subject that can only be detected through the use of scientific methods???

 

No, you are forgetting scepticism. This has been pointed out many times, so I wonder why this is never acknowledged and you just go on as if nothing was even said. Science has nothing to do with a consensus. You know this, but you ignore this.

Why?

Thanks for the answer. You want policy decisions to be based on this "support for science". Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to skip (which you are forced to do) the bit about denial of science and work on getting people interested in any legislation that might be passed, you have to be honest about the impact these will have on global warming. We know that many of the worst polluters aren't going to start investing in green energy, so that means having to admit that the best that all of these climate change accords and protocols will do is perhaps a .01% reduction in warming over the next century. And that this will come with a real price on the economy. How much of a hit on the economy? That depends on how high you can get those taxes raised, and on what industries. Lord knows you'd like the hit to be as hard as possible even though you're still only going to get a very very low return on the investment in terms of warming.

So the short answer to all of this nonsense is 'no!'.

 

Ahh, there we have it. An admission that science doesn't have a decision making hierarchy based upon consensus, or anything really. There are ideas that have been tested, and the test results are predicted by the idea, or the idea is wrong.

This doesn't mean that due to a lack of a decision making hierarchy, then we have to use consensus. Consensus has nothing to do with it.

 

Science doesn't offer proof. So, the skeptic is left to examine results that are NOT proof.

There is more than one way to do that. For example, one could look at only those results that have been given serious review and duplication. One can examine what the error bars look like as indication of how much confidence to give.

Another key way to evaluate is to see what those of significance in the field have to say about it.

In this case, we do find a consensus - the VAST majority of those in the field see their results as well as the results of others as pointing to the conclusion that humans are the primary cause of the warming being detected.

In that way, consensus is an important method of resolving the facts that scientific method does not offer proof and that there is no hierarchy or other such mechanism for having the world of science speak with one voice.

I want our policy making process to include science. I don't know what you mean by "based on this support for science".

Having decision makers (and the public) reject science as a contributor to our public policy decision making is a gigantic mistake.

How do we know how much lead a child's brain can take without appealing to science? Etc.

Obviously! But, the issue here hasn't been about any particular public policy. It's been about rejecting science as a contributor IN ANY WAY.

My point is that it is seriously bad for us to be rejecting science as a contributor to public policy decisions. Yet, we see that happening on various topics today - with climate being one.

I don't agree with your prognostications about what can and can't happen.

And, your nonsense about what I want demonstrates an abject disinterest in holding an honest discussion.

 

Scepticism is looking at the available evidence - denialism is where that evidence is rejected out of hand

I have yet to meet someone merely sceptical

 

I know what you want because if it was just science, you wouldn't care whether people believe in it, or not. There's an agenda behind the "concern" that there are people out there who "deny science" or reject a posited consensus amongst people whose job it is to know these things.

If I was some flat earther, would it matter to you? Maybe if I rejected the idea of evolution because I am a devout believer in the bible and that Eve was really made out of the rib of a guy made from mud, would you care? Of course not!

If you want an honest discussion, then I'd be happy to have it with you, although it's not really something I am very knowledgable about. I have read a bit about the subject and have heard people who claim that AGW is real, but we don't know to what extent. That's fine. I'll concede the point. I'd even concede that AGW is very real, and that our great great great grandchildren will be in a world of hurt if we don't do something now.

I would concede all of that, if I thought we were having an honest discussion. Being told about a fake consensus or called a science denier is not a great way to start that conversation.

 

The available evidence is going to have to be separated from the politics, or it's tainted and is not evidence. I've been around the block a few times with that in my own field, so I know how much pressure there is on people to conform to what people with the money want the evidence to be.

 

This is just more demonstration of not understanding how the natural sciences work.

Scientific method is based on falsification. It has no way of proving something to be true. One might say that comes from the fact that humans don't know it all, leaving the possibility that there are unknown factors - like the factors Newton didn't know about.

So, science has a number of ways to eliminate false results. There is a focus on attempting to prove hypotheses false. Experiments are repeated by different scientists. Results are reviewed by experts. Etc. Results don't get proven true - they just gain the confidence of scientists as they stand up to the rigors of these assaults and prove to be useful tools in further exploration.

Consensus comes in as one way for us to evaluate or characterize how much confidence science has in a particular result.

So, for example, there is a strong scientific consensus in favor of the theory of evolution, because scientists recognize that after a large number of years of trying, nobody has been able to prove it false or to provide a more successful answer and because it has proven hugely useful in exploring biology. There isn't proof. But, the level of consensus is a measure.

 

Well, you're wrong about your guesses as to what I care about. I've posted on this board concerning all those topics you mention. The intersection of science and religion is something I care about a lot - and, I don't attack religion, as I don't believe we should see religion and science as being in opposition. Also, I don't have a climate agenda beyond what is best for America and mankind.

I do see as important the consensus of climatologists concerning human activity being the primary contributor to the warming now occurring.

One can dicker about whether it is 90% or 95% or whatever, but that should not be allowed to be the issue.

As Newt Gingrich said, one must multiply the odds of an event by the cost of the event. If the odds times the cost starts going high, then it becomes important to consider public policy.

Today, science says the odds are high. And, there is plenty of evidence that the cost will also be high.

So, I care that we consider science when we make public policy decisions and I want us to recognize that the consensus we're getting on climate change today is the highest agreement we're ever likely to get from science on ANY topic of public policy interest.

What we do about it is a different discussion. We shouldn't be deciding that it isn't happening on the grounds that we don't know what to do about it or that we don't like some specific "solution".

 

You don't understand falsifiability. There is a way of proving something to be not false in science, which is to test your idea and have the results concur with the prediction of the idea. So if I predict that something with a mass greater than the mass of something else will have a greater gravity field, and testing proves that to be the case, my idea passes that particular test. It can still be wrong, but it passed a hurdle. It's "true" in the sense that the idea predicted the results.

Falsifiability involves not having a way to prove an idea wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

No. Science doesn't work like that.

The level of consensus isn't important with evolution, but rather it is such an elegant theory that it just makes sense.

 

Not a big fan of Newt Gingrich, so you might as well quote the grinch. He's talking about giving himself more power (or politicians in general) so the bias is obvious.

That bias, whether it is from scientists being paid by government agencies, or by private concerns that can benefit if the results of the modeling (another problem because models are not science) conform to the prediction are to be thrown out on the wastebin of pseudo-science.

Science is not perfect, but we can try to do the best we can to overcome the deficiencies. One of the most obvious ways to do that is to understand that motives imply bias, and bias means scepticism ratchets it up.

 

Skepticism is fine. But inaction in the face of overwhelming evidence is criminal

 

But we have to face facts. The robber barons run things. The golden rule...he that has the gold makes the rules.

 

Dude, there is no overwhelming evidence. Throw out the biases inherent in the funding of the process (science isn't free) and there is no overwhelming evidence. In fact, who funds the "science" automatically excludes whatever evidence they come up with as "evidence".

It's a lot like AA. There are a lot of really talented black guys who have jumped through the hoops of higher education, but how do employers know that they got their degrees on merit, rather than the color of their skin? They can't, so the job applications are thrown in the waste bin.

Come back when you have proved yourself without the benefits of government funding (or AA).

 

They always have. That is no excuse to ignore science