"There ain't no global warming." say fatcats & right wing
FU
I've posted four articles from "New Scientist", the "University of
Michigan", the "Atlantic Monthly", and the "University of Iowa" that agree
with my assertion. Your response to date has been to simply call me a liar
and state that no scientist disagrees with global warming. I've shown you
that you are wrong. Plenty of scientist disagree with this. Some
scientists even think we are heading toward a global cooling. The data
gathered over the last three decades regarding the temperature changes on
the surface and in the troposphere don't match the predictions of the
computer models which are used as a basis for stating that global warming is
occurring. In fact, they've switched. At one point the troposphere was
warming while the surface was cooling, and now just the opposite is
occurring. Your response to hard data is to simply sit back and call people
liars. If you ever had any credibility around here (which I doubt) it is
surely gone now.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message <6i1aju$b91$1...@supernews.com>...
>"FU" <f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
>
>>Cleaning up the air and water is quite different from enlisting the whole
>>world into a grand program to stop global warming, especially since
>>scientists disagree as to its cause, effect, and even if it reality exists
>>in any meaningfull way. It does not surprise me at all that so many
former
>
>can't resist lying can you. There is no disagreement as to the
>seriousness or the cause of global warming amoung scientists. The only
>matters left to debate are how much the temp will rise and how fast.
>
>>socialists are now on the global warming bandwagon. War is the health of
>>the state. Enlisting people into a global war against warming is terrific
>>way to expand the scope and depth of government power.
>
>
>
>>he...@ccnet.com wrote in message <6i2kni$g00$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>>In article <IXR01.3153$ub.37...@news.internetMCI.com>,
>>>
>>>The main thing, though, is that no political tendency, left, center, or
>>right,
>>>has a patent on environmentalism. Heck, even an intelligent Nazi would
>>prefer
>>>not to choke to death or drown.
>>>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Let The White Rose enlighten you.
>
>http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
>gdy weasel
>________________________________________________
>
G*rd*n
The problem with global warming is that huge amounts of
money and power are already tied up in processes that might
cause it or might be affected by any moves to discern and
control it. Hence, we must assume that this money and
power are flowing towards the production and distribution
of opinions favorable to their various owners and
manipulators.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
FU
That's quite a one sided argument you presented.
Huge amounts of government money and power are also being paid to university
researchers who support global warming claims. Hence, we must assume that
this money and power are flowing toward towards the production and
distribution of opinions favorable to the global warming enthusiasts who
control and want to expand the power of government.
G*rd*n wrote in message <6i3150$r...@panix2.panix.com>...
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
"FU" <f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
>I've posted four articles from "New Scientist", the "University of
>Michigan", the "Atlantic Monthly", and the "University of Iowa" that agree
>with my assertion. Your response to date has been to simply call me a liar
more like you are a damn dummy. I already have explained it several
times that the Iowa state study was temp cooling in the upper atmo due
to ozone depeletion, not ground based temps. As I have already stated
as well the Atlantic article is not peer reviewed as was written by a
neurologists, in which you seem to have a desperate need. I haven't
read the Mich study and haven't commented on it, but from your lack of
ability to comprend the Iowa State article I except its more
misunderstanding on your part. As for the New Scientist, I wouldn't
put alot of stock in anything they print. They also have articles
showing how global warming could trigger an outburst of volcanic
action and have claimed it has happened in the past. I'm still sceptic
of the past evidence as it was presented, but will admit at least they
made a plausible attempt at proving it. I suspect the asrticle that
you are referinf to there had to do with the Atlatnic conveyor belt
triggering a new ice age. Ooops you din't read that article to close
since it deals with the stoppage of the conveyor which would lead to a
colder Europe.
>and state that no scientist disagrees with global warming. I've shown you
>that you are wrong. Plenty of scientist disagree with this. Some
>scientists even think we are heading toward a global cooling. The data
>gathered over the last three decades regarding the temperature changes on
>the surface and in the troposphere don't match the predictions of the
>computer models which are used as a basis for stating that global warming is
>occurring. In fact, they've switched. At one point the troposphere was
>warming while the surface was cooling, and now just the opposite is
>occurring. Your response to hard data is to simply sit back and call people
>liars. If you ever had any credibility around here (which I doubt) it is
>surely gone now.
You haven't shown any hard data, and have grossly mistated at least
one of your cites, another of your citess was written by a neurolgists
and was published in the popular media and not peer reviewed journals.
Another cite of yours is probably due to a lack of understanding about
the Atlantic conveyor belt. And that last source I have not read but
from your demostrated lack of comprehnesion I suspect you have little
idea of what was being discussed.
You are either extremely ignorant or just a plain liar the choice is
yours.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
"FU" <f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
>That's quite a one sided argument you presented.
>Huge amounts of government money and power are also being paid to university
>researchers who support global warming claims. Hence, we must assume that
>this money and power are flowing toward towards the production and
>distribution of opinions favorable to the global warming enthusiasts who
>control and want to expand the power of government.
huge amounts of government money flowing to research not hardly, the
tight wads of the republicon party has cut NSF grants to almost
meanless levels. And being mean spirited republicons if they don't
like the results of a research ctudy they zero funding out, just ask
the CDC and their excellent study on gun violence.
>G*rd*n wrote in message <6i3150$r...@panix2.panix.com>...
>>The problem with global warming is that huge amounts of
>>money and power are already tied up in processes that might
>>cause it or might be affected by any moves to discern and
>>control it. Hence, we must assume that this money and
>>power are flowing towards the production and distribution
>>of opinions favorable to their various owners and
>>manipulators.
>>--
>> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
>> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>>sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
__________________________________________________
david.o...@virgin.net
A small aside - but Global Warming doesn't necessarily mean an overall hotter
planet. That's a common misconception.
The New Scientist article was regarding the fairly serious concern that the
vast amount of ice shet melting at the South Pole could stop the Gulf
Stream's operation. That would effectively give Northern Europe a climate
similar to Labrador.
On the other hand, the last 10 years have had 5 of the hottest years in
British history since records started in the 1770's, the county of Essex has
been reclassified as Arid and a state of technical drought has now occured
for the last 4 years. That is hardly normal for England. We've also now had
2 years without anything which could be described as a winter.
A close friend is a climate analyst at the Meterological Office - as far as
they are concerned there is no debate., Global Warming is happening. The
cause may be man-made or natural - that is what they are trying to determine.
It's happening, get used to it. As to the cause, well, answers on a postcard
please.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
G*rd*n
G*rd*n:
| >>The problem with global warming is that huge amounts of
| >>money and power are already tied up in processes that might
| >>cause it or might be affected by any moves to discern and
| >>control it. Hence, we must assume that this money and
| >>power are flowing towards the production and distribution
| >>of opinions favorable to their various owners and
| >>manipulators.
"FU" <f...@anarchy.org>:
| >That's quite a one sided argument you presented.
|
| >Huge amounts of government money and power are also being paid to university
| >researchers who support global warming claims. Hence, we must assume that
| >this money and power are flowing toward towards the production and
| >distribution of opinions favorable to the global warming enthusiasts who
| >control and want to expand the power of government.
In fact I did not mention any particular side or interest.
What I wrote could apply to government-bureaucratic as well
as corporate interests (assuming there's any profound
difference, which I doubt; more likely, there are competing
corporate interests which show up in bureaucracies.)
| huge amounts of government money flowing to research not hardly, the
| tight wads of the republicon party has cut NSF grants to almost
| meanless levels. And being mean spirited republicons if they don't
| like the results of a research ctudy they zero funding out, just ask
| the CDC and their excellent study on gun violence.
As I said, it's necessary to look at money and other power
relationships surrounding scientific reports. Because a
scientific opinion has been bought doesn't mean it's wrong,
but we should be aware of the transactions when we're
evaluating the theories.
Roger Shouse
In article <6i34hb$nv2$1...@supernews.com> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>From: gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com)
>Subject: Re: "There ain't no global warming." say fatcats & right wing
>Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:33:37 GMT
>"FU" <f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
>>I've posted four articles from "New Scientist", the "University of
>>Michigan", the "Atlantic Monthly", and the "University of Iowa" that agree
>>with my assertion. Your response to date has been to simply call me a liar
>more like you are a damn dummy. I already have explained it several
>times that the Iowa state study was temp cooling in the upper atmo due
>to ozone depeletion, not ground based temps. As I have already stated
>as well the Atlantic article is not peer reviewed as was written by a
>neurologists, in which you seem to have a desperate need.
[remaider of post deleted]
Let's stop right here, because we already have more than ample evidence that
you are at least an ideologue, if not a total fool. Why else would you refuse
to grapple with someone's arguments merely because they were not printed in a
"peer reviewed" journal? This is an argument that rational people, especially
scientists, would never make. It is the argument of a green graduate student
desparately clinging to orthodoxy.
And you are desparate. You are because you know that there's no way in hell
that the global warming treaty will be ratified by Congress. Your weapons of
last resort are smear and obfuscation. You've lost again. Live with it.
Roger Shouse
G*rd*n
G*rd*n:
|>|>>The problem with global warming is that huge amounts of
|>|>>money and power are already tied up in processes that might
|>|>>cause it or might be affected by any moves to discern and
|>|>>control it. Hence, we must assume that this money and
|>|>>power are flowing towards the production and distribution
|>|>>of opinions favorable to their various owners and
|>|>>manipulators.
"FU" <f...@anarchy.org>:
|>|>That's quite a one sided argument you presented.
|>|
|>|>Huge amounts of government money and power are also being paid to university
|>|>researchers who support global warming claims. Hence, we must assume that
|>|>this money and power are flowing toward towards the production and
|>|>distribution of opinions favorable to the global warming enthusiasts who
|>|>control and want to expand the power of government.
G*rd*n:
| >In fact I did not mention any particular side or interest.
| >What I wrote could apply to government-bureaucratic as well
| >as corporate interests (assuming there's any profound
| >difference, which I doubt; more likely, there are competing
| >corporate interests which show up in bureaucracies.)
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| NSF grants that go to most researchers that are not employed by a
| company are supposed to be biased? Sure thats a good joke.
I don't believe in anyone's intrinsic moral superiority.
In any case, you have to answer objections like the one
above -- that those arguing in favor of belief in global
warming and doing something about it are trying to build
bureaucratic empires, or transfer wealth to other
countries. Part of the procedure of analyzing the question
will be sociological: that is, "following the money" (and
the power).
Unfortunately we don't have much people's science. We have
corporate science and government science, and in spite of
the fact that the people own the atmosphere, they have to
go through these elites to find out what's happening to it
and what to do about it, if in fact they, the owners, will
be allowed any inputs into the decisions whatever.
Eric Freeman
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message <6i34m6$nv2$2...@supernews.com>...
>huge amounts of government money flowing to research not hardly, the
>tight wads of the republicon party has cut NSF grants to almost
>meanless levels.
Good!!!! Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the gov. can take MY
money by force and use it for global warming research.
>And being mean spirited republicons
Ah, yes... anybody who believes in personal freedom and responsibility is
mean-spirited.
Eric
--------------------------------
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to
live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end
for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
* C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
--------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2354/
http://www.datasync.com/~reba/
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>G*rd*n:
>| >>The problem with global warming is that huge amounts of
>| >>money and power are already tied up in processes that might
>| >>cause it or might be affected by any moves to discern and
>| >>control it. Hence, we must assume that this money and
>| >>power are flowing towards the production and distribution
>| >>of opinions favorable to their various owners and
>| >>manipulators.
>"FU" <f...@anarchy.org>:
>| >That's quite a one sided argument you presented.
>|
>| >Huge amounts of government money and power are also being paid to university
>| >researchers who support global warming claims. Hence, we must assume that
>| >this money and power are flowing toward towards the production and
>| >distribution of opinions favorable to the global warming enthusiasts who
>| >control and want to expand the power of government.
>In fact I did not mention any particular side or interest.
>What I wrote could apply to government-bureaucratic as well
>as corporate interests (assuming there's any profound
>difference, which I doubt; more likely, there are competing
>corporate interests which show up in bureaucracies.)
NSF grants that go to most researchers that are not employed by a
company are supposed to be biased? Sure thats a good joke.
>| huge amounts of government money flowing to research not hardly, the
>| tight wads of the republicon party has cut NSF grants to almost
>| meanless levels. And being mean spirited republicons if they don't
>| like the results of a research ctudy they zero funding out, just ask
>| the CDC and their excellent study on gun violence.
>As I said, it's necessary to look at money and other power
>relationships surrounding scientific reports. Because a
>scientific opinion has been bought doesn't mean it's wrong,
>but we should be aware of the transactions when we're
>evaluating the theories.
>--
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
__________________________________________________
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>G*rd*n:
>|>|>>The problem with global warming is that huge amounts of
>|>|>>money and power are already tied up in processes that might
>|>|>>cause it or might be affected by any moves to discern and
>|>|>>control it. Hence, we must assume that this money and
>|>|>>power are flowing towards the production and distribution
>|>|>>of opinions favorable to their various owners and
>|>|>>manipulators.
>"FU" <f...@anarchy.org>:
>|>|>That's quite a one sided argument you presented.
>|>|
>|>|>Huge amounts of government money and power are also being paid to university
>|>|>researchers who support global warming claims. Hence, we must assume that
>|>|>this money and power are flowing toward towards the production and
>|>|>distribution of opinions favorable to the global warming enthusiasts who
>|>|>control and want to expand the power of government.
>G*rd*n:
>| >In fact I did not mention any particular side or interest.
>| >What I wrote could apply to government-bureaucratic as well
>| >as corporate interests (assuming there's any profound
>| >difference, which I doubt; more likely, there are competing
>| >corporate interests which show up in bureaucracies.)
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| NSF grants that go to most researchers that are not employed by a
>| company are supposed to be biased? Sure thats a good joke.
>I don't believe in anyone's intrinsic moral superiority.
>In any case, you have to answer objections like the one
>above -- that those arguing in favor of belief in global
>warming and doing something about it are trying to build
>bureaucratic empires, or transfer wealth to other
>countries. Part of the procedure of analyzing the question
>will be sociological: that is, "following the money" (and
>the power).
from your post, you don't have a damn clue about how NSF grants work..
>Unfortunately we don't have much people's science. We have
>corporate science and government science, and in spite of
>the fact that the people own the atmosphere, they have to
>go through these elites to find out what's happening to it
>and what to do about it, if in fact they, the owners, will
>be allowed any inputs into the decisions whatever.
>--
Jerome Bigge
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:26:00 GMT, "FU" <f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
>I've posted four articles from "New Scientist", the "University of
>Michigan", the "Atlantic Monthly", and the "University of Iowa" that agree
>with my assertion. Your response to date has been to simply call me a liar
>and state that no scientist disagrees with global warming. I've shown you
>that you are wrong. Plenty of scientist disagree with this. Some
>scientists even think we are heading toward a global cooling. The data
>gathered over the last three decades regarding the temperature changes on
>the surface and in the troposphere don't match the predictions of the
>computer models which are used as a basis for stating that global warming is
>occurring. In fact, they've switched. At one point the troposphere was
>warming while the surface was cooling, and now just the opposite is
>occurring. Your response to hard data is to simply sit back and call people
>liars. If you ever had any credibility around here (which I doubt) it is
>surely gone now.
>
The Earth runs "warmer" and "colder" all upon its own. There was a "warm"
period about 1000 AD (Vikings settle Greenland), then a "colder" period with
a "low" point some centuries later (the Vikings got frozen out). As this was
not due to human activities, we can safely assume natural sources of some
sort as the "cause". There have been studies made of Earth's temperature
since the end of the last Ice Age about ten thousand years ago. We are not
at the warmest point of the cycles either, there was a warmer period earlier in
prehistory, I believe about six thousand BC, but I'm not sure of the date here.
As the last "warm" period is well within history, (1000 AD), we can determine
easily enough just what the effects will be of raising temperatures from those
we now have to the same temperatures that existed then. It should also be
noted that most food production takes place in the temperate zones, and an
increase in temperature will increase the growing season, thus allowing more
food to be raised. Thus "global warming" may be of more benefit than harm.
(rest snipped)
-
Jerome Bigge (jbi...@novagate.com) NRA Life Member
Author of the "WARLADY" series of SF fantasy novels.
And of the "alternative history" WARTIME series where
history was just a little bit "different" from our own!
Download them all at http://www.novagate.com/~jbigge
G*rd*n
| >tight wads of the republicon party has cut NSF grants to almost
| >meanless levels.
"Eric Freeman" <some...@something.com>:
| Good!!!! Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the gov. can take MY
| money by force and use it for global warming research. ...
Of course there is. It's obviously covered by the
general-welfare clause. I:8, I believe. You may argue that
"general welfare" doesn't mean general welfare, but the
Supreme Court disagrees with you and the legislatures have
consented to this interpretation; so you'll have to change
the Constitution to get it the way you want it.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
"Eric Freeman" <some...@something.com> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message <6i34m6$nv2$2...@supernews.com>...
>>huge amounts of government money flowing to research not hardly, the
>>tight wads of the republicon party has cut NSF grants to almost
>>meanless levels.
>Good!!!! Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the gov. can take MY
>money by force and use it for global warming research.
oops there is that little clause " to promote the general welfare"
You guessed wrong care to try again.
>>And being mean spirited republicons
>Ah, yes... anybody who believes in personal freedom and responsibility is
>mean-spirited.
>Eric
>--------------------------------
>"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
>victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to
>live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
>busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
>sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
>who torment us for our own good will torment us without end
>for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
> * C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
>--------------------------------
>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2354/
>http://www.datasync.com/~reba/
__________________________________________________
Russ Turpin
-*-------
Gordon Fitch writes:
> Unfortunately we don't have much people's science. We have
> corporate science and government science, and in spite of
> the fact that the people own the atmosphere, they have to
> go through these elites to find out what's happening to it
> and what to do about it, if in fact they, the owners, will
> be allowed any inputs into the decisions whatever.
I find this kind of analysis rather simplistic, and verging on the
conspiratorial. Consider that by such analysis, *all* science is
condemned on the same grounds as the rather lame research "findings"
created by the tobacco companies for so long. There can be no basis
for describing this latter as a poor and biased excuse for science,
because there is no better science with which to contrast it. The
worst that can be said for the "science" that came out of the tobacco
companies is that it came out of the tobacco companies, and the best
that can be said for much of the evidence finding tobacco carcinogenic
is that it came out of government labs. Given this as the primary
epistemic difference, we might as well return to smoking, knowing that
the claimed health dangers are as much political spin as the claims
that tobacco is safe!
Back to global warming. While it is true that scientific research is
sponsored by corporations and governments, it is this very same science
that is marshalling the evidence for global warming and pointing a
finger of blame at economic activities at the center of the current
economy. If the proof is in the source, we should NOT worry that this
indicates an ecological problem, but rather, we should look for what
government or corporate agendas are advanced by the theory of global
warming. Some right-wing nuts do just this.
I am aware, of course, that many in the humanities believe that they
can analyze scientific discourse in exactly the same way as they do
political discourse, dismissing all concern over evidential issues or
empirical findings (as this is irrelevant), and focusing solely on
social issues: the cultural background of the speakers, how they
benefit socially from what they say, etc. Sometimes when one twists a
nut too tight, its threads are stripped, and the difference between
left-handed and right-handed no longer matter. From his past writings,
I know that Fitch has little sympathy with this fashion in the modern
humanities, so I am a little surprised to see what he writes above.
Russell
--
This new ship here is fitted according to the reported increase of knowledge
among mankind. Namely, she is cumbered end to end, with bells and trumpets
and clock and wires, ... she can call voices out of the air of the waters to
con the ship while her crew sleep. But sleep Thou lightly. It has not yet
been told to me that the Sea has ceased to be the Sea. -- Rudyard Kipling
Tony Veca
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message <6i34m6$nv2$2...@supernews.com>...
>
>huge amounts of government money flowing to research not hardly, the
>tight wads of the republicon party has cut NSF grants to almost
>meanless levels. And being mean spirited republicons if they don't
>like the results of a research ctudy they zero funding out, just ask
>the CDC and their excellent study on gun violence.
Yeah and like that report was real un-biased. I finally managed to get a
copy of that thing and there was not one Criminologist, Forensics Expert or
Criminal Psychologist who participated in the study.
You would think in this type of study they would have used these the
services of experts in the field. But NOOOOOO, they used data that was bad
from the get go, and made a even sillier assumptions based on said bad data.
Had they used the Criminologists, Forensic Experts, or Criminal
Psychologists in their study they would have gotten a totally different
result for there study.
Just incase you didn't know according to Census and Justice Dept. records
gun violence percentages have been dropping since 1991.
==========
When one is frightened of the truth . . . then it is
never the whole truth that one has an inkling of.
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
Austrian philosopher. Notebooks 1914-1916
(ed. by Anscombe, 1961), entry for 15 Oct. 1914.
==========
Tony Veca
tv...@gte.net
G*rd*n
tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin):
| ...
| sponsored by corporations and governments, it is this very same science
| that is marshalling the evidence for global warming and pointing a
| finger of blame at economic activities at the center of the current
| economy. If the proof is in the source, we should NOT worry that this
| indicates an ecological problem, but rather, we should look for what
| government or corporate agendas are advanced by the theory of global
| warming. Some right-wing nuts do just this.
I didn't say the proof is in the source. I said that, in
order to understand the evidence and the theories, one
needs to know where they came from and take that into
consideration. Because a scientific conclusion has been
bought doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean we have to
scrutinize its sociological factors more closely than we
would if it came out of a more neutral procedure. We want
to know who funded each study, and how the prospects of
the parties involved are affected by the possible results.
Russ Turpin
-*--------
Fitch writes:
> ... I said that, in order to understand the evidence and the theories,
> Because a scientific conclusion has been bought doesn't mean it's wrong,
> but it does mean we have to scrutinize its sociological factors more
> closely than we would if it came out of a more neutral procedure.
Most people who are educated in the sciences will disagree.
The simple fact of the matter is that *everyone* is biased. On the
basis of sociological origin, there are NO neutral sources. We
naturally tend to be more believing of claims that come from sources
familiar and comfortable to us. And in this we fool ourselves, because
coming from a familiar and comfortable source does not make a claim
true, nor does coming from a disagreeable source make a claim false.
"Scrutinizing the sociological factors" will merely amplify this bias.
The only solution to this problem lies in ignoring the sociological
factors, and instead, in attending to the evidential issues. Who says
what about global warming and from what motive may make a great
political article, appropriate to _Rolling_Stone for example, but it
provides absolutely no insight into what physical changes in the
environment are actually occurring. For that, one must attend to the
meteorological and environmental evidence, and to the relevant physical
and metereological arguments.
JMH
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin):
> | ...
> | Back to global warming. While it is true that scientific research is
> | sponsored by corporations and governments, it is this very same science
> | that is marshalling the evidence for global warming and pointing a
> | finger of blame at economic activities at the center of the current
> | economy. If the proof is in the source, we should NOT worry that this
> | indicates an ecological problem, but rather, we should look for what
> | government or corporate agendas are advanced by the theory of global
> | warming. Some right-wing nuts do just this.
> | ...
>
> order to understand the evidence and the theories, one
> needs to know where they came from and take that into
> consideration. Because a scientific conclusion has been
> bought doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean we have to
> scrutinize its sociological factors more closely than we
> to know who funded each study, and how the prospects of
> the parties involved are affected by the possible results.
I'm curious what you might think was a more neutral procedure?
In asking I'm not questioning the point you're making but rather
extending it. Everyone has vested interests in what they do
their research. In some cases it's merely getting throught the
referee process for publication, for others it's debuncking someone
elses research. For some it's personal ideology and for others
their shared ideology.
Don't we always need to know the author in order to identify
more easily where biases, intentionally or unintentionally,
might slip into what is presented as objective analysis? Then
we also need to know our own so that we can discount the
effects on our interpretation of the utterences.
JMH
Crash
Yep, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote on 27 Apr 1998
about: Re: "There ain't no global warming." say fatcats & right wing
>The problem with global warming is that huge amounts of
>money and power are already tied up in processes that might
>cause it or might be affected by any moves to discern and
>control it. Hence, we must assume that this money and
>power are flowing towards the production and distribution
>of opinions favorable to their various owners and
>manipulators.
That is simple economics. And Internet trolls can be hired
for a dime a dozen. So simple economics says they MUST exist.
Just cheap advertising where consumer truth laws do not apply.
How nifty for them.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin):
>| ...
>| Back to global warming. While it is true that scientific research is
>| sponsored by corporations and governments, it is this very same science
>| that is marshalling the evidence for global warming and pointing a
>| finger of blame at economic activities at the center of the current
>| economy. If the proof is in the source, we should NOT worry that this
>| indicates an ecological problem, but rather, we should look for what
>| government or corporate agendas are advanced by the theory of global
>| warming. Some right-wing nuts do just this.
>| ...
>I didn't say the proof is in the source. I said that, in
>order to understand the evidence and the theories, one
>needs to know where they came from and take that into
>consideration. Because a scientific conclusion has been
>bought doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean we have to
>scrutinize its sociological factors more closely than we
>would if it came out of a more neutral procedure. We want
>to know who funded each study, and how the prospects of
>the parties involved are affected by the possible results.
hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
together as a whole provides support.
>--
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
__________________________________________________
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin) wrote:
>-*--------
>Fitch writes:
>> ... I said that, in order to understand the evidence and the theories,
>> one needs to know where they came from and take that into consideration.
>> Because a scientific conclusion has been bought doesn't mean it's wrong,
>> but it does mean we have to scrutinize its sociological factors more
>> closely than we would if it came out of a more neutral procedure.
>Most people who are educated in the sciences will disagree.
>The simple fact of the matter is that *everyone* is biased. On the
>basis of sociological origin, there are NO neutral sources. We
>naturally tend to be more believing of claims that come from sources
>familiar and comfortable to us. And in this we fool ourselves, because
>coming from a familiar and comfortable source does not make a claim
>true, nor does coming from a disagreeable source make a claim false.
>"Scrutinizing the sociological factors" will merely amplify this bias.
>The only solution to this problem lies in ignoring the sociological
>factors, and instead, in attending to the evidential issues. Who says
>what about global warming and from what motive may make a great
>political article, appropriate to _Rolling_Stone for example, but it
>provides absolutely no insight into what physical changes in the
>environment are actually occurring. For that, one must attend to the
>meteorological and environmental evidence, and to the relevant physical
>and metereological arguments.
nuts, nuts and more nuts. Scientists may spend years developing a
theory and then the rest of their lives trying to debunk their own
work. Social bias is a figment of the right wing's imagination. They
can't argue with hard data and facts, so they attempt to destroy the
researchers as biased in the same manner that they have attacked the
press as being biased and for that matter public education as being
poor quality. Hmm I see a trend there.
>Russell
>--
> This new ship here is fitted according to the reported increase of knowledge
> among mankind. Namely, she is cumbered end to end, with bells and trumpets
> and clock and wires, ... she can call voices out of the air of the waters to
> con the ship while her crew sleep. But sleep Thou lightly. It has not yet
> been told to me that the Sea has ceased to be the Sea. -- Rudyard Kipling
__________________________________________________
Mike Jones
Gdybozo says: "hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes.
The data either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken together as
a whole provides support."
Damn, Gdymoron, only one spelling error in three sentences. I'm impressed.
Don't believe in spell-checkers, do you?
There is no evidence to refute the theory and maybe some disjointed opinions
that when viewed with a kaleidoscope seem to maybe support it, then it must
be taken as conclusive proof, right? Your reasoning sucks
Gdycommielovinwhore.
You like the idea of world crisis because you believe it to empower your
fear-mongering tactics and subsequent trampling of personal rights of all
other people in your quest to be relevant. You cannot achieve any level of
significance in the real world so you create these false crises in order to
put yourself in a position of worth.
What is pathetic is that you are so worthless that you have to validate your
pathetic existence through false means. How sad.
MIke.
--
"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish
from the earth."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg,1863
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
"Mike Jones" <mdj...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Gdybozo says: "hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes.
>The data either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
>evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken together as
>a whole provides support."
>Damn, Gdymoron, only one spelling error in three sentences. I'm impressed.
>Don't believe in spell-checkers, do you?
well bright boy free agent doesn't have a spell checker.
>There is no evidence to refute the theory and maybe some disjointed opinions
>that when viewed with a kaleidoscope seem to maybe support it, then it must
>be taken as conclusive proof, right? Your reasoning sucks
the reasoning is solid and thats what drives you right wing clowns
bonkers.
>Gdycommielovinwhore.
>You like the idea of world crisis because you believe it to empower your
>fear-mongering tactics and subsequent trampling of personal rights of all
>other people in your quest to be relevant. You cannot achieve any level of
>significance in the real world so you create these false crises in order to
>put yourself in a position of worth.
>What is pathetic is that you are so worthless that you have to validate your
>pathetic existence through false means. How sad.
>MIke.
>--
>"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
>government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish
>from the earth."
>-- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg,1863
__________________________________________________
Roger Shouse
From the Detroit News, 4/30/98
Global Warming Smear
Last week the National Environmental Trust (NET) leaked
to the media internal documents of a public relations firm
hired by the American Petroleum Association (APA) to
battle the Kyoto accord, a proposed international treaty to
prevent global climate change. Based on these documents,
the New York Times ran a front-page story supposedly
exposing an insidious plot by the industrial group to confuse
the public about global warming. If the documents "expose"
anything, it is the NET's - and the media's - hypocrisy.
More than 15,000 scientists signed a petition on the eve
of the Kyoto conference last December urging the Clinton
administration to refrain from foolishly committing the
country to drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
They noted the science on global warming is hardly as
"compelling" as the president claimed. In fact, uncertainty
abounds about basic issues such as the extent of the
warming and its causes. Respected scientific journals like
Science and the New Scientist have published articles
highlighting the weaknesses of global warming theory.
Still the NET is trying to thwart dissent on global warming
by casting it as an evil conspiracy hatched by "big oil." A
look at the documents, however, shows that the APA's
publicity "plot" is innocuous compared with the
aggressiveness with which the NET has gone about
influencing the global warming debate.
Indeed, the NET was conceived in 1993 as the
propaganda wing of the Pew Charitable Trust, the biggest
environmental grant maker in the country. At the time,
NET's founder, Joshua Reichert, a Pew environmental
director, noted that he wanted NET to be a "war room" on
environmental issues. His ideal project leader, Mr. Reichert
said, was James Carville. "I don't want someone who knows
the facts or can articulate them persuasively. I want someone
who wants to win and knows how."
To this end, the NET has unabashedly cultivated
journalists, government officials, religious leaders and even
children's advocacy groups. In the week before the Kyoto
negotiations, NET, according to its own internal documents,
ghost-wrote seven op-eds, including one for Kenneth Lay,
chief executive officer of Enron Corp., a company that
produces natural gas. Enron favors cuts in carbon dioxide
emissions because they would disproportionately burden its
competitors in the fossil fuel industry.
Yet the NET is depicting as underhanded a plan by
APA's public relations firm to distribute a global climate
science information kit to the media that includes - gasp! -
peer-reviewed articles throwing doubt on the "conventional
wisdom." The idea of convincing a major national TV
journalist such as John Stossel to do a show examining the
scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty has been dubbed
as an effort to "plant a story." Also depicted as unsavory is a
suggestion to identify scientists who could help the media
and Congress understand the complexities of global climate
change.
In a democracy, the public depends on competing groups
to forcefully present their views to determine the full truth.
But smearing opponents to suppress facts that don't fit with
its agenda has become part of the basic strategy of the
environmental left. To the extent that the media are
cooperating in this campaign of suppression, they ill serve
democracy.
Copyright 1998, The Detroit News Detroit News
G*rd*n
x.xjm...@erols.com:
| > | I'm curious what you might think was a more neutral procedure?
G*rd*n wrote:
| > One in which people were motivated only by curiosity.
x.xjm...@erols.com:
| It's certainly possible that this might result in a more
| neutral process but it's not any more certain than the
| hired gun approach. Curiousity is not alway--perhaps not
| even generally when we consider the need to expend a fair
| amount of energy--free from our own biases. There is something
| that is generally motiveating our curiousity. One might even
| argue that the hired gun must be more aware of the underlying
| biases or interests driving the research since there is a
| know counter interest to be argued against.
I was just trying to give an example -- not suggest that the
curiosity-driven are exempt from all human frailty.
x.xjm...@erols.com:
| ...
| I also agree with Turnpin's (Hope I got the spellng right)
| that to the extent there is objective fact/data to be evaluated
| or theoretic constructions to be objectively tested then
| we also need to filter out the person. One way of doing so
| is to simply ignore the subjective aspects and look at the
| objective aspects, i.e. ignore the author, we don't need to
| know him. That approach attempts to remove the biases from
| both sides of the situation (author and reader). I'm not sure
| that's a complete solution and another way to filter is to
| explicit seek out the aspects to be removed, just as some
| air and water filters function.
|
| Both appoaches come with their associated risks and benefits.
| Maybe it's a bit like Type I and Type II errors in statistics.
One thing you might want to consider is Albert Einstein's
"It is the theory which tells us what we can observe." The
other is that, no matter what the facts are, certain of
them are passed around more freely than others, for
reasons.
Here's some phenomena to consider: In the controversies
around global warming, CFCs, tobacco, and gun ownership,
where substantial interests are at stake, there is a lot of
contradiction in the results of scientific research. But
in the "Ebonics" controversy, where almost nothing had been
at stake prior to the controversy but a few bureaucratic
jobs and only lower-class prejudice came into play, the
science was all on one side. That's pretty strong evidence
that money and power and the desire for them can produce
research outcomes which wouldn't show up in their relative
absence.
We expect judges to recuse themselves when they have an
interest in the outcome of a trial. We can't expect
scientists and those who interpret and report science to do
this, but we can demand full disclosure of their
interests.
JMH
G*rd*n wrote:
...
> I was just trying to give an example -- not suggest that the
> curiosity-driven are exempt from all human frailty.
That's fine Gordon. Really all I'm getting at is just what
makes one process more neutral and the other less neutral.
I think as long as we stay on the "individual" motivation
we cannot escape from biased reporting/analysis/theorising.
The neutrality comes in when knowledge of other competiting
views or interests exists and must be addressed. I don't think
this means that all theories expressed will be unbiased or
"neutrally" formulated. I don't have any dooubts that one
finds a great deal of propoganda passed off as policy analysis.
> x.xjm...@erols.com:
> | ...
> | I also agree with Turnpin's (Hope I got the spellng right)
> | that to the extent there is objective fact/data to be evaluated
> | or theoretic constructions to be objectively tested then
> | we also need to filter out the person. One way of doing so
> | is to simply ignore the subjective aspects and look at the
> | objective aspects, i.e. ignore the author, we don't need to
> | know him. That approach attempts to remove the biases from
> | both sides of the situation (author and reader). I'm not sure
> | that's a complete solution and another way to filter is to
> | explicit seek out the aspects to be removed, just as some
> | air and water filters function.
> |
> | Both appoaches come with their associated risks and benefits.
> | Maybe it's a bit like Type I and Type II errors in statistics.
>
> One thing you might want to consider is Albert Einstein's
> "It is the theory which tells us what we can observe." The
> other is that, no matter what the facts are, certain of
> them are passed around more freely than others, for
> reasons.
I don't have any problem with either of these observations,
but neither are abosolute truths either. We can certainly observe
without any theory to guide us and our observations lead to
the postulation of theory. It's a chicken-egg problem.
Some facts are passed around more freely. The ones passed
most freely by one person or group might be the very ones
some other group seeks to keep under lock and key. Alternatively,
those facts which are passed most freely by all just might be the
ones a vast majority agrees are the most relevant and that these
facts fit well with some particular set of interests is irrelevant.
The fact that some groups then ignores the other facts doesn't
make the reporting/theory less neutral in it's treatment of the
issue.
> Here's some phenomena to consider: In the controversies
> around global warming, CFCs, tobacco, and gun ownership,
> where substantial interests are at stake, there is a lot of
> contradiction in the results of scientific research. But
> in the "Ebonics" controversy, where almost nothing had been
> at stake prior to the controversy but a few bureaucratic
> jobs and only lower-class prejudice came into play, the
> science was all on one side. That's pretty strong evidence
> that money and power and the desire for them can produce
> research outcomes which wouldn't show up in their relative
> absence.
There was an equal controverse around the issue of tectonic
activity when that theory was first concidered. It didn't
require that money, power or desire exist to drive the controversy.
In each of the cases above there is a very large element of
personal preference or insufficient data which can fully account
for the disagreements and the conflicting findings.
> We expect judges to recuse themselves when they have an
> interest in the outcome of a trial. We can't expect
> scientists and those who interpret and report science to do
> this, but we can demand full disclosure of their
> interests.
Of course we expect the Judge to step asaide, but we don't know
if his doing so results in a more neutral hearing of the
case. It's more of an assumption we make. There are certainly
strong incentives for the Judge to get out of the way because
he would be openning himself up for very serious damage to his
career even if he did give an impartial hearing. The cercumstantial
evidence in a case of any acusations might be very difficult to
overcome.
JMH
Russ Turpin
-*--------
Gordon Fitch:
> Here's some phenomena to consider: In the controversies
> around global warming, CFCs, tobacco, and gun ownership,
> where substantial interests are at stake, there is a lot of
This statement troubles me.
The part that troubles me is the phrase "results of scientific
research," especially used in conjunction with topics such as gun
ownership or tobacco use. What does Fitch view as "results of
scientific research," and with regard to tobacco use (for example),
where does he find them contradictory? Most of today's issues
surrounding tobacco concern what liability tobacco companies should
have for the medical expenses of those who use it, how to regulate its
use by minors, what restrictions should be placed on how it is
advertised, and where people should be allowed to smoke. These issues
are NOT argued on scientific grounds, but from political premises, and
it is very clearly in these that the speakers differ the most.
This is not to say that science has discovered everything there is to
know empirically about tobacco use. Questions clearly remain. It
seems to me, though, that the tremendous political controversy neither
tracks nor causes a corresponding scientific controversy.
Russ Turpin
-*-------
Fitch writes:
> One thing you might want to consider is Albert Einstein's
> "It is the theory which tells us what we can observe."
I would like to know the context of this quote. Einstein very clearly
believed that we could observe events that contradict accepted or
proposed theory, and realized the necessity of testing theories against
the evidence, including his own. The quoted snippet is so short, it is
difficult to know what it means. (Free of context, it could be read to
mean "the theory tells us what we can observe, and any other
observations are impossible," or to mean "the theory tells us what we
can observe, and any other observations refute the theory," or to mean
almost anything else.)
Michael Ejercito
In article <6iajhf$8qm$1...@news.imagin.net>, "Mike Jones"
<mdj...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Gdybozo says: "hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes.
> The data either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken together as
> a whole provides support."
>
> Damn, Gdymoron, only one spelling error in three sentences. I'm impressed.
> Don't believe in spell-checkers, do you?
>
> There is no evidence to refute the theory and maybe some disjointed opinions
> that when viewed with a kaleidoscope seem to maybe support it, then it must
> be taken as conclusive proof, right? Your reasoning sucks
> Gdycommielovinwhore.
> You like the idea of world crisis because you believe it to empower your
> fear-mongering tactics and subsequent trampling of personal rights of all
> other people in your quest to be relevant. You cannot achieve any level of
> significance in the real world so you create these false crises in order to
> put yourself in a position of worth.
> What is pathetic is that you are so worthless that you have to validate your
> pathetic existence through false means. How sad.
>
> MIke.
Well,you are right. The entire purpose of the global warming hoax is to
impose comsumption taxes which will be used to aid multinational
corporations.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
In article <6iad09$rfm$2...@supernews.com>, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin):
> >| ...
> >| Back to global warming. While it is true that scientific research is
> >| sponsored by corporations and governments, it is this very same science
> >| that is marshalling the evidence for global warming and pointing a
> >| finger of blame at economic activities at the center of the current
> >| economy. If the proof is in the source, we should NOT worry that this
> >| indicates an ecological problem, but rather, we should look for what
> >| government or corporate agendas are advanced by the theory of global
> >| warming. Some right-wing nuts do just this.
> >| ...
>
> >I didn't say the proof is in the source. I said that, in
> >order to understand the evidence and the theories, one
> >needs to know where they came from and take that into
> >consideration. Because a scientific conclusion has been
> >bought doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean we have to
> >scrutinize its sociological factors more closely than we
> >would if it came out of a more neutral procedure. We want
> >to know who funded each study, and how the prospects of
> >the parties involved are affected by the possible results.
>
> hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
> either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
> together as a whole provides support.
Well,you are right THIS time,but policy DOES depend on social and
economic outcomes.
Michael
G*rd*n
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| >> hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
| >> either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
| >> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
| >> together as a whole provides support.
"Hard science" (and every other kind of science) is not a
machine. It is a social process, and social forces affect
it. Don't confuse science with the things it studies.
Stars and electrons may be indifferent to social forces;
scientists and those who represent them and their work are
not.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n:
| > One thing you might want to consider is Albert Einstein's
| > "It is the theory which tells us what we can observe."
tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin):
| I would like to know the context of this quote. Einstein very clearly
| believed that we could observe events that contradict accepted or
| proposed theory, and realized the necessity of testing theories against
| the evidence, including his own. The quoted snippet is so short, it is
| difficult to know what it means. (Free of context, it could be read to
| mean "the theory tells us what we can observe, and any other
| observations are impossible," or to mean "the theory tells us what we
| can observe, and any other observations refute the theory," or to mean
| almost anything else.)
I don't have much context handy. Altavista gives:
"Whether or not you can observe a thing depends on the theory you use.
It is the theory that decides what we can observe."
- Albert Einstein quoted in Werner Heisenberg, 'Physics ans Beyond :
Encounters and Conversations', 1971, p77
Some relevant Einstein quotations on similar issues:
"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world."
"It seems that the human mind has first to construct forms
independently before we can find them in things. Kepler's marvelous
achievement is a particularly fine example of the truth that knowledge
cannot spring from experience alone, but only from the comparison of
the inventions of the mind with observed fact."
- Albert Einstein, "Johannes Kepler" in Ideas and Opinions (New York :
Crown, 1954), 266
I believe the idea of the first quotation is that the theory
determines, not the facts, but the significance of the facts:
which ones we choose to consider and what value or meaning
we place upon them. To some extent this is _a_priori_, at
least _priori_ with respect to the data at hand.
Einstein was particularly concerned with the fact that, as
science progressed, it was coming to depend more on
instruments which themselves were expressions of scientific
beliefs. As the instrument becomes more and more powerful
it imposes more and more of the theory inherent in its
construction upon the information which passes through it.
G*rd*n
| ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >Stars and electrons may be indifferent to social forces;
| >scientists and those who represent them and their work are
| >not.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
| lasting long.
That depends, of course, on their social environment and how
it relates to their biases. But I suppose if their biases
cause their work to be more pleasing to their management,
they couldn't be considered to be "in the way" but rather
very much a part of the way.
Mike Jones
Gdyflatulence is now an authority on scientific study and government
funding, but I like this comment "only in its support or more commonly lack
of support, like the canceled Texas accelerator."
Gdypantywaste, the Texas Superconducting Supercollider project was canceled
because parasitic asswipes like yourself ran the project into financial
overdrive wasting taxpayer money with no thought of any accountability or
responsibility. they spent enough funds to build the sonofabitch ten times
over and never even got halfway there.
In a rare moment of financial responsibility, Congress pulled the plug on
the goddamned moneypit before it became even more of a waste of taxpayer
funding. Talk about your big-government whores sucking the life out of a
project. It is irresponsible fuckheads like you that give a bad name and
worse results to public projects like this.
Next time shut the hell up when you don't know what the fuck you are talking
about, dumbfucking communist bastard.
Pussy!
Hokey Wolf
In article <6ie1as$67s$1...@supernews.com>, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
?g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
?
?>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
?>| >> hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
?>| >> either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
?>| >> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
?>| >> together as a whole provides support.
?
?>"Hard science" (and every other kind of science) is not a
?>machine. It is a social process, and social forces affect
?
?only in its support or more commonly lack of support, like the
?canceled Texas accelerator.
?
?>it. Don't confuse science with the things it studies.
?>Stars and electrons may be indifferent to social forces;
?>scientists and those who represent them and their work are
?>not.
?
?scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
?lasting long.
Lack of bias is impossible.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
meje...@csulb.edu (Michael Ejercito) wrote:
>In article <6iad09$rfm$2...@supernews.com>, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>
>> >tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin):
>> >| ...
>> >| Back to global warming. While it is true that scientific research is
>> >| sponsored by corporations and governments, it is this very same science
>> >| that is marshalling the evidence for global warming and pointing a
>> >| finger of blame at economic activities at the center of the current
>> >| economy. If the proof is in the source, we should NOT worry that this
>> >| indicates an ecological problem, but rather, we should look for what
>> >| government or corporate agendas are advanced by the theory of global
>> >| warming. Some right-wing nuts do just this.
>> >| ...
>>
>> >I didn't say the proof is in the source. I said that, in
>> >order to understand the evidence and the theories, one
>> >needs to know where they came from and take that into
>> >consideration. Because a scientific conclusion has been
>> >bought doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean we have to
>> >scrutinize its sociological factors more closely than we
>> >would if it came out of a more neutral procedure. We want
>> >to know who funded each study, and how the prospects of
>> >the parties involved are affected by the possible results.
>>
>> hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
>> either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
>> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
>> together as a whole provides support.
> Well,you are right THIS time,but policy DOES depend on social and
>economic outcomes.
and that is where the flaw is. You end up with less than an optimal
solution to environmental problems.
> Michael
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
meje...@csulb.edu (Michael Ejercito) wrote:
>In article <6iajhf$8qm$1...@news.imagin.net>, "Mike Jones"
><mdj...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> Gdybozo says: "hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes.
>> The data either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
>> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken together as
>> a whole provides support."
>>
>> Damn, Gdymoron, only one spelling error in three sentences. I'm impressed.
>> Don't believe in spell-checkers, do you?
>>
>> There is no evidence to refute the theory and maybe some disjointed opinions
>> that when viewed with a kaleidoscope seem to maybe support it, then it must
>> be taken as conclusive proof, right? Your reasoning sucks
>> Gdycommielovinwhore.
>> You like the idea of world crisis because you believe it to empower your
>> fear-mongering tactics and subsequent trampling of personal rights of all
>> other people in your quest to be relevant. You cannot achieve any level of
>> significance in the real world so you create these false crises in order to
>> put yourself in a position of worth.
>> What is pathetic is that you are so worthless that you have to validate your
>> pathetic existence through false means. How sad.
>>
>> MIke.
> Well,you are right. The entire purpose of the global warming hoax is to
>impose comsumption taxes which will be used to aid multinational
>corporations.
don't they require students to take some science courses in that
degree mill you are going to?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| >> hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
>| >> either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
>| >> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
>| >> together as a whole provides support.
>"Hard science" (and every other kind of science) is not a
>machine. It is a social process, and social forces affect
only in its support or more commonly lack of support, like the
canceled Texas accelerator.
>it. Don't confuse science with the things it studies.
>Stars and electrons may be indifferent to social forces;
>scientists and those who represent them and their work are
>not.
scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
lasting long.
>--
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
__________________________________________________
EandorY
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
> >| >> hard science ...
>
> scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
> lasting long.
Is this just a bold assertion? In fact, many scientists that let their bias get
in theway enjoy long careers. Paul and Anne Ehrlich, to name two. Stanton
Glantz,
to name another. Is Jeremy Rifkin a scientist, or just a busybody? For a great
introduction to a career in bias-based research, check out Steven Milloy's
Junk Science homepage (All that junk that's fit to debunk), or Milloy's book,
_Science Without Sense_, or Michael Fumento's book, _Science Under Siege_,
or Ronald Bailey's book, _EcoScam_, or Bennett & DiLorenzo's book,
_CancerScam_. You just need to pick the right science, find some way
to associate "the children" with it, and voila! Instant career.
> http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
> gdy weasel
Eric
EandorY
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
> either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
> together as a whole provides support.
To which theory are you refering when you say, "the" theory? There is
plentyof evidence to refute the rising sea level theory *and* the rising
temperature
theory. Earlier in this thread, someone said that the theory predicts
exponential
temperature rise - no data supports that theory (I think that theory may have
been devised for newsgroup consumption, and has not been put forward by
atmospheric physicists).
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| > >| >> hard science ...
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
| > scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
| > lasting long.
|Is this just a bold assertion? In fact, many scientists that let their bias get
|in theway enjoy long careers. Paul and Anne Ehrlich, to name two. Stanton
|Glantz,
|to name another. Is Jeremy Rifkin a scientist, or just a busybody? For a great
| introduction to a career in bias-based research, check out Steven Milloy's
| Junk Science homepage (All that junk that's fit to debunk), or Milloy's book,
| _Science Without Sense_, or Michael Fumento's book, _Science Under Siege_,
| or Ronald Bailey's book, _EcoScam_, or Bennett & DiLorenzo's book,
| _CancerScam_. You just need to pick the right science, find some way
| to associate "the children" with it, and voila! Instant career.
It seems improbable that only biases filtering science and
reports of it are "leftist" given the money and power in the
hands of major corporations and those who own and operate
them -- including power over the governments and academic
systems that supposedly oppose them.
Hokey Wolf
In article <354AE164...@zianet.com>, ehu...@zianet.com wrote:
?gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
?
?> hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
?> either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
?> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
?> together as a whole provides support.
?
?To which theory are you refering when you say, "the" theory? There is
?plentyof evidence to refute the rising sea level theory *and* the rising
?temperature
?theory. Earlier in this thread, someone said that the theory predicts
?exponential
?temperature rise - no data supports that theory (I think that theory may have
?been devised for newsgroup consumption, and has not been put forward by
?atmospheric physicists).
As long as we procede as if global warming is occuring, we'll be fine.
Erring the other way invites the big tragedy.
Russ Turpin
-*--------
Fitch writes:
> I believe the idea of the first quotation is that the theory
> determines, not the facts, but the significance of the facts:
> which ones we choose to consider and what value or meaning
That hardly clarifies it. Of course theory determines the
significance of facts! For some theories and certain kinds of
significance.
I have not gone back and read the essay. Generally, though,
I am quite leary of excerpts whose easy interpretations are
contradictory, some obviously true, and other obviously false.
More than anything, they suggest the need to keep the quote
with greater context.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| ...
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >Stars and electrons may be indifferent to social forces;
>| >scientists and those who represent them and their work are
>| >not.
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
>| lasting long.
>That depends, of course, on their social environment and how
>it relates to their biases. But I suppose if their biases
>cause their work to be more pleasing to their management,
>they couldn't be considered to be "in the way" but rather
>very much a part of the way.
I was refering to their status, if they let there bias get in the way,
its not too long before the peer reviewed system of publishing exposes
them as a fraud.
>--
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
__________________________________________________
JMH
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>
> >machine. It is a social process, and social forces affect
>
> only in its support or more commonly lack of support, like the
> canceled Texas accelerator.
>
> >it. Don't confuse science with the things it studies.
> >scientists and those who represent them and their work are
> >not.
>
> lasting long.
There's a physicist in either Cambridge or Oxford who's been
arguing that the Big Bang Theory in cosmology it now presented
as truth, rather than hypothesis. He, and apparently a small
group of physicists (another I've seem raising the same questions
about the theory is with NASA) say there are other equally
convincing, i.e. consistent with the facts, theories to explain
physical phenomena observed in the universe.
One reason resistence to considering an alternative theory
might be so strong is that people have a lot of intellectual
capital invested in the dominent theory and, should it be
displaced, risk losing a great deal of prestege, risk
facing losing an orderly world having rhyme and reason to
one they don't understand as well, can feel their life's work
has been wasted or belittled (probably wrongly, even if the
BBT is wrong) orfear losing future laurals--say hopes for
a Noble, diriectorship of some research fascility or a
appointment to a prestigous academic Chair at a world
calss university. I would guess there's also more than a
little self-esteme issue caughtup in it all as well.
Then there's the whole research funding aspect and flow of
money to consider.
JMH
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Wrong, the works in peer reviewed journals are not biased, rather they
are based on objectivity. Any bias is quickly exposed and is damaging
to one's reputation.
Travis Hestilow
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
> >| >> hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
> >| >> either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
> >| >> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
> >| >> together as a whole provides support.
>
> >"Hard science" (and every other kind of science) is not a
> >machine. It is a social process, and social forces affect
>
> only in its support or more commonly lack of support, like the
> canceled Texas accelerator.
>
> >it. Don't confuse science with the things it studies.
> >Stars and electrons may be indifferent to social forces;
> >scientists and those who represent them and their work are
> >not.
>
> scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
> lasting long.
>
Speaking from personal experience?
> >--
> > }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> > Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
> >sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
>
Travis Hestilow
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin) wrote:
>
> >-*--------
> >Fitch writes:
> >> ... I said that, in order to understand the evidence and the theories,
> >> one needs to know where they came from and take that into consideration.
> >> Because a scientific conclusion has been bought doesn't mean it's wrong,
> >> but it does mean we have to scrutinize its sociological factors more
> >> closely than we would if it came out of a more neutral procedure.
>
> >Most people who are educated in the sciences will disagree.
>
> >The simple fact of the matter is that *everyone* is biased. On the
> >basis of sociological origin, there are NO neutral sources. We
> >naturally tend to be more believing of claims that come from sources
> >familiar and comfortable to us. And in this we fool ourselves, because
> >coming from a familiar and comfortable source does not make a claim
> >true, nor does coming from a disagreeable source make a claim false.
> >"Scrutinizing the sociological factors" will merely amplify this bias.
> >The only solution to this problem lies in ignoring the sociological
> >factors, and instead, in attending to the evidential issues. Who says
> >what about global warming and from what motive may make a great
> >political article, appropriate to _Rolling_Stone for example, but it
> >provides absolutely no insight into what physical changes in the
> >environment are actually occurring. For that, one must attend to the
> >meteorological and environmental evidence, and to the relevant physical
> >and metereological arguments.
>
> nuts, nuts and more nuts. Scientists may spend years developing a
> theory and then the rest of their lives trying to debunk their own
> work. Social bias is a figment of the right wing's imagination. They
> can't argue with hard data and facts, so they attempt to destroy the
> researchers as biased in the same manner that they have attacked the
> press as being biased and for that matter public education as being
> poor quality. Hmm I see a trend there.
Social bias is a fact, exemplified by you on every post. There is a wealth of
data that is equivocal as to what exactly is happening in our atmosphere. Any
data or scientist that disagrees with you is labeled "corporate whore". THAT is
social bias----you have no scientific discipline whatsoever.
To fgo back to an earlier post----it is you who are lying about the basics. Any
"scientist" who throws away data because it doesn't fit his politics is no real
scientist. Just a hack.
Or, maybe "whore" would be a better word. You seem to like it a lot.
>
>
> >Russell
>
> >--
> > This new ship here is fitted according to the reported increase of knowledge
> > among mankind. Namely, she is cumbered end to end, with bells and trumpets
> > and clock and wires, ... she can call voices out of the air of the waters to
> > con the ship while her crew sleep. But sleep Thou lightly. It has not yet
> > been told to me that the Sea has ceased to be the Sea. -- Rudyard Kipling
>
Terry Hallinan
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>G*rd*n:
>| > One thing you might want to consider is Albert Einstein's
>| > "It is the theory which tells us what we can observe."
>tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin):
>| I would like to know the context of this quote. Einstein very clearly
>| believed that we could observe events that contradict accepted or
>| proposed theory, and realized the necessity of testing theories against
>| the evidence, including his own...
>I don't have much context handy. Altavista gives:
> "Whether or not you can observe a thing depends on the theory you use.
> It is the theory that decides what we can observe."
> - Albert Einstein quoted in Werner Heisenberg, 'Physics ans Beyond :
> Encounters and Conversations', 1971, p77
>Some relevant Einstein quotations on similar issues:
> "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
> however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world."
> "It seems that the human mind has first to construct forms
> independently before we can find them in things. Kepler's marvelous
> achievement is a particularly fine example of the truth that knowledge
> cannot spring from experience alone, but only from the comparison of
> the inventions of the mind with observed fact."
> - Albert Einstein, "Johannes Kepler" in Ideas and Opinions (New York :
> Crown, 1954), 266
>I believe the idea of the first quotation is that the theory
>determines, not the facts, but the significance of the facts:
>which ones we choose to consider and what value or meaning
>we place upon them. To some extent this is _a_priori_, at
>least _priori_ with respect to the data at hand.
>Einstein was particularly concerned with the fact that, as
>science progressed, it was coming to depend more on
>instruments which themselves were expressions of scientific
>beliefs. As the instrument becomes more and more powerful
>it imposes more and more of the theory inherent in its
>construction upon the information which passes through it.
>--
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Thanks very much, G*rd*n.
Sometimes even we idiots can understand Einstein.
My alltime favorite Einstein quote was from his "Obituary" where he
talked about a guilty conscience for having cheated to get through
school but that he willingly bore that burden for the freedom it gave
him to enjory free time. [For those who are scandalized, it might be
remembered that Einstein talked about schooling "quenching the holy
spirit of inquiry." The effort required to pass his exams for his
baccalaureate so sickened him he abandoned physics for a couple years
or so. The man whose very name is synonomous with genius was learning
disabled. He was autistic.]
Best, Terry
"Positive - Being wrong at the top of one's lungs"
- The Devil's Dictionary
msi...@tefbbs.com
All the hysteria assumes humans are unable to adapt to extreme changes
in climate. An assumption not justified by the available facts.
Of course there will be changes.
Innovate, adapt, overcome. Still good advice.
Simon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EandorY <ehu...@zianet.com> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>
>> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>> >| >> hard science ...
>>
>> scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
>> lasting long.
>
>Is this just a bold assertion? In fact, many scientists that let their bias get
>in theway enjoy long careers. Paul and Anne Ehrlich, to name two. Stanton
>Glantz,
>to name another. Is Jeremy Rifkin a scientist, or just a busybody? For a great
>
>introduction to a career in bias-based research, check out Steven Milloy's
>Junk Science homepage (All that junk that's fit to debunk), or Milloy's book,
>_Science Without Sense_, or Michael Fumento's book, _Science Under Siege_,
>or Ronald Bailey's book, _EcoScam_, or Bennett & DiLorenzo's book,
>_CancerScam_. You just need to pick the right science, find some way
>to associate "the children" with it, and voila! Instant career.
>
>> http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
>> gdy weasel
>
> Eric
>
Opinions expressed herein are solely my own and may or may not reflect my opinion at this particular time or any other.
G*rd*n
| >| ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >| >Stars and electrons may be indifferent to social forces;
| >| >scientists and those who represent them and their work are
| >| >not.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| >| scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
| >| lasting long.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >That depends, of course, on their social environment and how
| >it relates to their biases. But I suppose if their biases
| >cause their work to be more pleasing to their management,
| >they couldn't be considered to be "in the way" but rather
| >very much a part of the way.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| I was refering to their status, if they let there bias get in the way,
| its not too long before the peer reviewed system of publishing exposes
| them as a fraud.
And is peer review not a social process? Or is it, unlike
any other social process, infallible and above corruption
and error?
G*rd*n
G*rd*n:
| > I believe the idea of the first quotation is that the theory
| > determines, not the facts, but the significance of the facts:
| > which ones we choose to consider and what value or meaning
tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin):
| That hardly clarifies it. Of course theory determines the
| significance of facts! For some theories and certain kinds of
| significance. ...
So it should be easy to see that, due to this need for
desire and for certain _a_priori_ formations to take place
before observations are obtained, much less interpreted --
and the fact that almost all science takes place in social
groups -- that there is a certain amount of room for
emotion and prejudice to intrude, if not indeed
subornation.
G*rd*n
msi...@tefbbs.com:
| All the hysteria assumes humans are unable to adapt to extreme changes
| in climate. An assumption not justified by the available facts.
|
| Of course there will be changes.
|
| Innovate, adapt, overcome. Still good advice.
It will especially good advice if the oceans rise a few
feet. Good adaptations would be high ground and plenty of
ammunition.
G*rd*n
Anonymous <an...@ecn.org>:
| ...
| But you didn't, did you?
| Another "conspiracy" theory.
| Doesn't mean there's nothing to it, but absent a cogent argument based
| on real evidence, totally meaningless.
In fact, what I said before was that evidence was needed
about the social forces acting on the scientific reports we
observe: who is paying for them and why, what gains and
losses the people involved expect, and so on. Is this a
"conspiracy theory"? I don't see any conspiracy. My
evidence is the widespread practice, observable by you in
everyday life, of people believing and saying what they
want to believe, find convenient to believe, are rewarded
for believing, are punished for not believing, or which
is like what most other people believe.
| "The only thing harder than getting a new idea
| into a dogmatic mind is getting an old one out."
Yes, indeed. In this case we seem to have a vision of
priestly scientists in the temple of Nature, taking
dictation _verbatim_. Or does the goddess write on their
notebooks herself?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Travis Hestilow <hestilo...@txdirect.net> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
because they have not been objective, they have chosen to ignore data
that opposes their employer views. I'll note that all of you little
ditto critters have given up on trying to discredit ozone depeletion,
at least there the data finally won out over your desire to protect
some damn corporation. The same will happen to the global warming
arguement. The wealth of data that now exists supports the theory,
there is no data that disputes or discredit that theory.
All the attempts to label it as a natural cycle or variations in
solar output are nothing more than a thinly disquise attempt to muddy
the issue. The same can be said for the so called heat islands, you
fail to realize there are many reporting stations that are in the
middle of god damn nowhere and the temps there show a increase in
temps as well. While I'm at lets get rid of the silly arguement that
90% of the green house gasses are natural. Yes the most potentnatural
green house gas is water vapor, but then you like to ignore a little
physical fact that there is a natural fixed maximum level of water
vapor in the atmo. If its exceded it starts raining or snowing. The
point is these greenhouse gasses both natural and man caused are a
minor component of the atmosphere. A large change in one can exert a
extreme effect on overall climate.
The best evidence that proves the theory are still the geological
indicators of rapid climate change, which I doubt you could even list.
Note the emphasis is on the word rapid, that alone should be enough of
a hint to dispense with changes due to the so called natural cycle.
>social bias----you have no scientific discipline whatsoever.
you would be wrong in that assessment. I didn't reach my conclusions
overnight. I only reached my views after being trained as a chemist
and reading many peer reviewed articles specifically dealling with
global warming. First off you do not know my full views on global
warming nor will you find much in the literature detailing those
views.
But then here is a brief discription. I view all deposits of
hydrocarbons, dolimite deposits and the ice caps and glaciers as an
attempt by the earth to reach a thermo equilibrium. You can find some
support for that view in the past geological cycles, as the cycles
have became shorter and less extreme in the recent past as would be
expected from a reaction overshooting its end point less the closer it
gets to equillibrium.
>To fgo back to an earlier post----it is you who are lying about the basics. Any
>"scientist" who throws away data because it doesn't fit his politics is no real
>scientist. Just a hack.
now try listing some data that the globaal warming theorists have
thrown away. Go ahead I dare you, because it does not exist.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
Travis Hestilow <hestilo...@txdirect.net> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>
>> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>> >| >> hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
>> >| >> either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
>> >| >> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
>> >| >> together as a whole provides support.
>>
>> >"Hard science" (and every other kind of science) is not a
>> >machine. It is a social process, and social forces affect
>>
>> only in its support or more commonly lack of support, like the
>> canceled Texas accelerator.
>>
>> >it. Don't confuse science with the things it studies.
>> >Stars and electrons may be indifferent to social forces;
>> >scientists and those who represent them and their work are
>> >not.
>>
>> scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
>> lasting long.
>>
>Speaking from personal experience?
nope, now tell us what happened to those that proposed polywater was
real?
>> >--
>> > }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
>> > Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>> >sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
>>
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
JMH <x.xjm...@erols.com> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>>
>> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>
>> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>> >| >> hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
>> >| >> either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
>> >| >> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
>> >| >> together as a whole provides support.
>>
>> >"Hard science" (and every other kind of science) is not a
>> >machine. It is a social process, and social forces affect
>>
>> only in its support or more commonly lack of support, like the
>> canceled Texas accelerator.
>>
>> >it. Don't confuse science with the things it studies.
>> >Stars and electrons may be indifferent to social forces;
>> >scientists and those who represent them and their work are
>> >not.
>>
>> scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
>> lasting long.
>There's a physicist in either Cambridge or Oxford who's been
>arguing that the Big Bang Theory in cosmology it now presented
>as truth, rather than hypothesis. He, and apparently a small
>group of physicists (another I've seem raising the same questions
>about the theory is with NASA) say there are other equally
>convincing, i.e. consistent with the facts, theories to explain
>physical phenomena observed in the universe.
>One reason resistence to considering an alternative theory
>might be so strong is that people have a lot of intellectual
>capital invested in the dominent theory and, should it be
>displaced, risk losing a great deal of prestege, risk
>facing losing an orderly world having rhyme and reason to
>one they don't understand as well, can feel their life's work
>has been wasted or belittled (probably wrongly, even if the
>BBT is wrong) orfear losing future laurals--say hopes for
>a Noble, diriectorship of some research fascility or a
>appointment to a prestigous academic Chair at a world
>calss university. I would guess there's also more than a
>little self-esteme issue caughtup in it all as well.
>Then there's the whole research funding aspect and flow of
>money to consider.
there is always active debate at the forefront of research. Care to
tell us what has happened to those that proposed cold fusion or
polywater?
>JMH
msi...@tefbbs.com
>I see a lot of posters both here and in the legal groups who clearly
>know nothing about science or the law. The tax protestors are a good
>example - they claim "personal sovereignty" or some such nonexistent
>legal theory they've invented. Then they wind up in jail.
To be able to exact a levee (taxes) on your subjects (slaves) is the
divine right of kings. All people in a certain geographical area where
the king claimed the ability or the right of enforcement were subject
to the king. These areas are commonly called countries.
Yes the government has the power to do this. Is it right?
Simon
Lee Rudolph
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
>msi...@tefbbs.com:
>| All the hysteria assumes humans are unable to adapt to extreme changes
>| in climate. An assumption not justified by the available facts.
>|
>| Of course there will be changes.
>|
>| Innovate, adapt, overcome. Still good advice.
>
>It will especially good advice if the oceans rise a few
>feet. Good adaptations would be high ground and plenty of
>ammunition.
The moral high ground, alas, is already overcrowded--or so it would
appear from the elegant plumage of many of the fowl thereabouts,
though maybe it's only pavonine display with the usual sexual subtext.
As to ammunition, praise the Lord! I'll pass.
Lee Rudolph
msi...@tefbbs.com
Even if the rate of rise was one inch per year it is a catastrophe you
could walk away from. Some people will lose property. One of the
hazards of beachfront property.
And yes it might cost a lot of money. One of the hazards of beachfront
property or living on a fault zone.
Simon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>msi...@tefbbs.com:
>| All the hysteria assumes humans are unable to adapt to extreme changes
>| in climate. An assumption not justified by the available facts.
>|
>| Of course there will be changes.
>|
>| Innovate, adapt, overcome. Still good advice.
>
>It will especially good advice if the oceans rise a few
>feet. Good adaptations would be high ground and plenty of
>ammunition.
>
>--
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
Opinions expressed herein are solely my own and may or may not reflect my opinion at this particular time or any other.
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >Yes, indeed. In this case we seem to have a vision of
| >priestly scientists in the temple of Nature, taking
| >dictation _verbatim_. Or does the goddess write on their
| >notebooks herself?
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous):
| Almost by definition, scientists question *everything*.
| If the facts don't fit the theory, the theory gets modified or
| abandoned. ...
Which theory? How did it get there?
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >And is peer review not a social process? Or is it, unlike
| >any other social process, infallible and above corruption
| >and error?
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous):
| No, and this question exposes your fundamental ignorance of the
| process.
| Very much like a legal argument without supporting references, a
| negative review of a scientific theory will receive little or no
| credit.
|
| "An answer should show a recognition of the problems presented by the
| question, an understanding of the material facts, the principles of
| (law/science) applicable, and the reasoning relied upon by you to
| support your solution."
|
| What peer review means is that other scientists try to reproduce your
| observations and test your theory against those observations.
|
| Their *opinion* of your theory, by itself, is of little value to other
| scientists (although it may temporarily sway journalists).
|
| If the (reproducible) observations fit your theory, other scientists
| start believing it (or come up with their own theories which provide an
| alternative explanation of those observations).
|
| Matching pet theories to objective facts is easier in politics, since
| the facts are more difficult to establish. Many posters to these
| newsgroups routinely take advantage of that fact, and forget that facts
| about nature *can* often be observed objectively.
Perhaps I'm fundamentally ignorant because you haven't
answered my questions. Don't bother lecturing me about
peer-review procedures; assume I may know something about
them. Answer the questions. After that, you may wish
to go after the Einstein quotations I posted and show why
he, too, is "fundamentally ignorant."
A reminder: if you're disagreeing with me, your position is
either that science is not a social process, or that even
if it is, it is infallible and incorruptible.
Russ Turpin
-*-------
Gordon Fitch writes:
> So it should be easy to see that, due to this need for
> desire and for certain _a_priori_ formations to take place
> before observations are obtained, much less interpreted --
> and the fact that almost all science takes place in social
> groups -- that there is a certain amount of room for
> emotion and prejudice to intrude, if not indeed
> subornation.
Yes, of course. This has never been a bone of contention between us.
The issue that I have engaged (and please read back through our
exchange if you feel I am misinterpreting) is this: *given* a
scientific theory that results from this (or any other social process),
how can one determine its accuracy, scope, and other relationships to
the empirical domain it concerns? I believe that investigating the
social process that produced the theory, including the politics and
motivations of the players, cannot answer this. The only way to answer
*this* question (I believe) is to attend to the evidence and relevant
arguments relating the theory to that evidence.
Now, one can obviously reflect this result back onto the study of
social processes, asserting that some social processes do not forward
this kind of critique, while others do better at it (recognizing that
none are going to do it perfectly). This may give a small measure of
confidence in certain theories produced by certain social processes
even without investigating the theories themselves. E.g., knowing
nothing about the theories themselves, you might give more credence to
a theory of machine mechanics from ancient Rome than to a theory of
human choice from 17th century England. Such evaluation can never be
more than a guess. Even those social processes usually good in certain
domains can still flub it, while those typically bad in others may hit
on a surprisingly good theory from pure luck! The only way to go
beyond this kind of dicey extrapolation is to explore the theory and
its evidence, not the social process that produced it.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >| ...
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >| >Stars and electrons may be indifferent to social forces;
>| >| >scientists and those who represent them and their work are
>| >| >not.
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| >| scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
>| >| lasting long.
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >That depends, of course, on their social environment and how
>| >it relates to their biases. But I suppose if their biases
>| >cause their work to be more pleasing to their management,
>| >they couldn't be considered to be "in the way" but rather
>| >very much a part of the way.
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| I was refering to their status, if they let there bias get in the way,
>| its not too long before the peer reviewed system of publishing exposes
>| them as a fraud.
>And is peer review not a social process? Or is it, unlike
>any other social process, infallible and above corruption
>and error?
oh its not infalible as the cold fusion articles got published. But
then the process did weed it out very quickly. It was not a social
process that weeded it out either, rather it was an objective approach
based on reason and hard facts and data that weeded it out.
Trying to label the process as a social process is just another lame
attempt at trying to discredit the hard facts and data that you so
much oppose.
>--
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
__________________________________________________
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >And is peer review not a social process? Or is it, unlike
| >any other social process, infallible and above corruption
| >and error?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| oh its not infalible as the cold fusion articles got published. But
| then the process did weed it out very quickly. It was not a social
| process that weeded it out either, rather it was an objective approach
| based on reason and hard facts and data that weeded it out.
| ...
It's not a social process? There are no human beings
involved?
G*rd*n
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous):
| >| Almost by definition, scientists question *everything*.
| >| If the facts don't fit the theory, the theory gets modified or
| >| abandoned. ...
G*rd*n:
| >Which theory? How did it get there?
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous):
| That's the whole point - scientists come up with theories just like
| usenet posters or priests do - out of thin air.
I don't think anything comes out of thin air. I think
people have innumerable experiences, perceptions, intuitions,
and emotions, one leading to another in sometimes improbable
ways -- and out of this stream, those who are interested in
science find the beginnings of explanations of phenomena.
Sometimes they even dream them, as Kekule did the benzene
ring.
| The difference is that those theories do not become laws of nature just
| because the scientist is bigger, louder, or more prestigious than his
| colleagues.
|
| They become "laws" (always subject to newer, better, data) when they
| are throughly tested by making predictions which are observed to be
| correct.
In other words, they go through a procedure of evaluation
in a social setting. Often, the data are not conclusive --
the Ptolmaic system gave more accurate readings than the
Copernican during the first decades of the latter's career,
yet the Copernican was widely preferred for aesthetic
reasons. So, we have a human social process with all the
things that go into, and sometimes derail, human social
processes, including imperfections of perception, language,
expression, and intention. In addition, we have the
possibility of external social pressures and influences
which may be brought to bear, which I think I've already
listed several times. All that being the case, I don't see
why you think the process is infallible. Of course it
appears infallible in hindsight, because the dead ends are
not only forgotten but effaced -- phlogiston, for example.
At the time scientists were struggling with them, however,
things were much less clear, just as issues like global
warming, CFCs, and so forth are not clear today.
| Lysenko ...
is entirely irrelevant to what I'm talking about, except
that Lysenkoism is a good example of science perverted by
political power and ideological interests.
hk...@usit.net
Charlie Reese, columnist for King Features Syndicate,
says it best:
Gore is wrong about global warming.
Global warming is OK by me.
I've always wanted beachfront property but could never afford it.
If the environmental yahoos and Chicken Littles are right, the
beach will come to me. Unfortunately for my dream of
sitting on the front porch and wiggling my toes in the surf, they
aren't right. Since when has the dull prince from D.C., Al Gore,
ever been right about anything?
Al Gore would be far more dangerous in the White House than
the current occupant, who is a rake and a rounder but not really
serious about government, even the bad government his wife advo-
cates. But Gore? Gore is very serious. He's a Jesuit without a Jesus.
Beware of men with no sense of humor and doubly beware of men
who try to fake it by reading jokes some staffer has supplied them.
Gore has said explicitly that he wants to elevate environmental
problems -- his screwball version of them -- to the status of war.
And what, pray tell, is the purpose of that? War is always the
ex-
cuse for the central government to increase its powers and to
strip its citizens of their rights and liberties. Our rights and lib-
erties are already in tatters, and if the government strips away any
more, we'll be and likely to be thought "naturalists." That's a crime
in some jurisdictions.
Don't you go thinking I'm one of those nudists, though. I'm way
too
bashful for that fast crowd, and I've never liked volleyball even
with my clothes on. Besides, sunburn is bad enough on your arms
and back.
The dull prince has decreed that global warming is a certainty.
It's
not. He has said it threatens our very civilization. It does not.
There
is no scientific consensus that abnormal global warming is taking
place or that, should an increase in average temperatures occur, it:
would cause any harm.
The question of global warming is a climatological question. When
you hear the heated rhetoric of political demagoguery and extrem-
ism being applied to scientific questions you should be warned
that predators slobbering for power are on the prowl.
Anonymous <an...@ecn.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 May 1998 09:16:13 -0700 Travis Hestilow
><hestilo...@txdirect.net> wrote:
>>> nuts, nuts and more nuts. Scientists may spend years developing a
>>> theory and then the rest of their lives trying to debunk their own
>>> work. Social bias is a figment of the right wing's imagination. They
>>> can't argue with hard data and facts, so they attempt to destroy the
>>> researchers as biased in the same manner that they have attacked the
>>> press as being biased and for that matter public education as being
>>> poor quality.
>I think you've got it pretty well right.
>I see a lot of posters both here and in the legal groups who clearly
>know nothing about science or the law. The tax protestors are a good
>example - they claim "personal sovereignty" or some such nonexistent
>legal theory they've invented. Then they wind up in jail.
>"like bats of law flitting in the twilight, but disappearing in the
>sunshine
>of actual facts." Lamm, J. in Mockowik v. Kansas City RR 94 S.W. 256
>Nature doesn't much care for human philosophies or dogmas. The fact
>that some religious leader declares that the earth is flat or was
>created 6002 years ago is totally irrelevant. Untested hypotheses are
>also irrelevant, at least until they predict new, unanticipated
>observations, which then prove to be verifiable. *Then* you have a
>theory, but that theory remains forever subject to modification as new
>observations demonstrate that the theory wasn't quite right.
>--
>"When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases"
>
> -- Robert Anton Wilson
>>
>>Social bias is a fact, exemplified by you on every post. There is a wealth of
>>data that is equivocal as to what exactly is happening in our atmosphere.
>True. But the evidence strongly suggests that dumping billions of tons
>of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere may cause problems. Two billion
>years of history indicates that *not* dumping hydrocarbons into the
>atmosphere does *not* cause problems. The people who insist that the
>burning of fossil fuels is completely harmless have no data to support
>their theory, and are arguing against the global warning theory simply
>because they want to sell such fuels.
>To give you a simple example: I may not be able to *prove* that those
>read berries on that bush are poisonous, but unless I can prove that
>they are *not*, I'm not going to eat them.
>>Any
>>data or scientist that disagrees with you is labeled "corporate whore".
>RJ Reynolds provides *masses* of data that *prove* that tobacco smoking
>is not hazardous to your health. Won't stand up to peer review, though.
>> Any
>>"scientist" who throws away data because it doesn't fit his politics is no real
>>scientist. Just a hack.
>Quite true. This is just exactly what RJ Reynolds is doing.
>I'd say that Rush Limbaugh is doing the same thing with data on global
>warming, but that would dignify his position as scientific. And Rush
>is an entertainer, not a scientist. He's playing to an audience; his
>own beliefs are irrelevant to his purpose.
>But arguing with "faith" is pointless.
>By definition, the "faithful" are unwilling to listen to anything that
>doesn't fit in with their faith.
>You have to let Nature hit 'em square between the eyes.
hk...@usit.net
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >Yes, indeed. In this case we seem to have a vision of
>| >priestly scientists in the temple of Nature, taking
>| >dictation _verbatim_. Or does the goddess write on their
>| >notebooks herself?
>nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous):
>| Almost by definition, scientists question *everything*.
>| If the facts don't fit the theory, the theory gets modified or
>| abandoned. ...
>Which theory? How did it get there?
>--
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >| >And is peer review not a social process? Or is it, unlike
| >| >any other social process, infallible and above corruption
| >| >and error?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| >| oh its not infalible as the cold fusion articles got published. But
| >| then the process did weed it out very quickly. It was not a social
| >| process that weeded it out either, rather it was an objective approach
| >| based on reason and hard facts and data that weeded it out.
| >| ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >It's not a social process? There are no human beings
| >involved?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| you are getting desperate if you are now going to call any process
| that involves a human, a social process.
| Guess that was a social process in a Ark school too.
Recognizing the simple facts of a situation is "desperate"?
This conversation is getting stranger all the time. What do
you think science is, if not a human social process?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >And is peer review not a social process? Or is it, unlike
>| >any other social process, infallible and above corruption
>| >and error?
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| oh its not infalible as the cold fusion articles got published. But
>| then the process did weed it out very quickly. It was not a social
>| process that weeded it out either, rather it was an objective approach
>| based on reason and hard facts and data that weeded it out.
>| ...
>It's not a social process? There are no human beings
>involved?
you are getting desperate if you are now going to call any process
that involves a human, a social process.
Guess that was a social process in a Ark school too.
>--
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
__________________________________________________
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
gor...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >| >And is peer review not a social process? Or is it, unlike
>| >| >any other social process, infallible and above corruption
>| >| >and error?
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| >| oh its not infalible as the cold fusion articles got published. But
>| >| then the process did weed it out very quickly. It was not a social
>| >| process that weeded it out either, rather it was an objective approach
>| >| based on reason and hard facts and data that weeded it out.
>| >| ...
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >It's not a social process? There are no human beings
>| >involved?
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| you are getting desperate if you are now going to call any process
>| that involves a human, a social process.
>| Guess that was a social process in a Ark school too.
>Recognizing the simple facts of a situation is "desperate"?
>This conversation is getting stranger all the time. What do
>you think science is, if not a human social process?
a search for the truth in the physical world. Nature has a way of
making babbling idiots out of those that thinks its a social process
or let their biases show through.
G*rd*n
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| >| you are getting desperate if you are now going to call any process
| >| that involves a human, a social process.
| >| Guess that was a social process in a Ark school too.
G*rd*n:
| >Recognizing the simple facts of a situation is "desperate"?
| >This conversation is getting stranger all the time. What do
| >you think science is, if not a human social process?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| a search for the truth in the physical world. ....
Okay; and who or what makes that search?
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >>| >And is peer review not a social process? Or is it, unlike
| >>| >any other social process, infallible and above corruption
| >>| >and error?
| >
| >>involved?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
| >you are getting desperate if you are now going to call any process
| >that involves a human, a social process.
Anonymous <an...@ecn.org>:
| He's made up his mind that the scientific method is incapable of
| overcoming the personal prejudices of the scientists involved....
I didn't say that. I suggest you go back and read what I
did say.
G*rd*n
Anonymous <anon...@netassist.se>:
| No, it is not.
|
| Are you repeating the same question (which has been asked and anwered)
| over and over in the hope that you will get *someone* to give the
| answer you want?
Actually, I'm astonished at the answers I'm getting.
_Social_, for example, refers to activities which take place
in communities. Human beings -- we _are_ talking about
human beings, aren't we? -- are among the most social of
animals, so practically everything they do is social.
While it's conceivable that science-like behaviors could
occur spontaneously in an isolated individual, I'll bet
dollars to dogbiscuits you won't find more than a very few
examples of it in human history. Most people who become
involved in science heard about science as children (through
the use of language, a social process) and what they heard
about was a project carried on by cooperating groups of
humans -- another social process -- supported by yet other
cooperating groups of humans (that is, scientists have jobs
which the economy in general pays for; they don't raise
their own cabbages, typically).
Peer review in particular involves _peers_, that is, people
who have the same standing according to some system of
ranking -- ranking persons according to status is a social
process. The review procedure itself almost always involves
writing up the results of research and theory (language is
social) and sending the materials around to the aforesaid
peers, that is, it's a community activity, another social
process.
Now, I'm using the primary dictionary definition of
_social_. Maybe you have another one, like "goes to a lot
of tea parties." I don't know; you'll need something like
that to explain how peer review isn't social. Your
assertion above seems like a flat contradiction in terms to
me.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| >| you are getting desperate if you are now going to call any process
>| >| that involves a human, a social process.
>| >| Guess that was a social process in a Ark school too.
>G*rd*n:
>| >Recognizing the simple facts of a situation is "desperate"?
>| >This conversation is getting stranger all the time. What do
>| >you think science is, if not a human social process?
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| a search for the truth in the physical world. ....
>Okay; and who or what makes that search?
to bad the physical world doesn't give a shit who makes the search.
>--
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
__________________________________________________
G*rd*n
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| >| >| you are getting desperate if you are now going to call any process
| >| >| that involves a human, a social process.
| >| >| Guess that was a social process in a Ark school too.
G*rd*n:
| >| >Recognizing the simple facts of a situation is "desperate"?
| >| >This conversation is getting stranger all the time. What do
| >| >you think science is, if not a human social process?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| >| a search for the truth in the physical world. ....
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >Okay; and who or what makes that search?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| to bad the physical world doesn't give a shit who makes the search.
No, it mostly doesn't, but this is irrelevant because it is
the search which we have been discussing, not (the rest of)
the physical world. Now, who or what makes that search?
JMH
Anonymous wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 May 1998 09:45:55 -0400 JMH <x.xjm...@erols.com> wrote:
> >>
> >There's a physicist in either Cambridge or Oxford who's been
> >arguing that the Big Bang Theory in cosmology it now presented
> >as truth, rather than hypothesis.
>
> revealed the microwave background radiation, which is nearly impossible
> to explain any other way. At which time Hoyle, the leading proponent
> of the "steady state" theory, ate his words and accepted the "big
> bang". Sea floor spreading and continental drift was regarded the same
> way, until the OBSERVATION of geomagnetic reversal proved it.
>
> > He, and apparently a small
> >group of physicists (another I've seem raising the same questions
> >about the theory is with NASA) say there are other equally
> >convincing, i.e. consistent with the facts, theories to explain
> >physical phenomena observed in the universe.
>
> basis for their "equally convincing" theories.
>
> But the detractors, like many posters to this group, have not presented
> any such theories which actually *are* equally convincing, i.e.,
> consistent with OBSERVATION. If they do, their theory will become the
> accepted one.
The last claim is the one I questioned. When theory becomes entrenched
strong resistenace to accepting any alternative theories. Kuhn wrote a
small monograph on that subject which seems to be widely accepted as
true.
I wish I could give you the names, unfortuately they're now lost to me
as I don't protect such data with backups. The professor came up in
a search related to creation theory verses Big Bang. The NASA guy
showed up in a search on galactic red shift.
The argument offerred is that the alternative theories are consistent
with observed phenomena and additionally shead light on heretofore
unexplained aspects. One would think that fits you standard of replacement.
(You never menthioned how long the displacement process was to last.
Instantaneous or decades?) I'm not a ualified person to evaluate the
matter but clearly the individuals are (unless they're some form
of virtual impersonateors) experts in the field in question.
> RJ Reynolds has a "mound of scientific evidence" to show that cigarette
> smoking is not hazardous to your health. The Creation Institute has a
> "mound of scientific evidence" to show that special creation is a fact
> and the earth is only 6002 years old. But those "theories" have no
> basis in OBSERVATION, and will, therefore, not stand up to peer review.
>
> That's what science is all about.
>
> But if your belief system is based on faith, you're not willing to
> listen or open your eyes to OBSERVATION. If one of your beliefs
> happens to be that you can fly, Nature (which is not required to take
> cognizance of your beliefs), is liable to smite your between the eyes.
I don't know why you're screaming the word "OBSERVATION" all the
time at me. I don't reject empiricism nor have I put forth any
faith-based thoery of anything. I've simply noted that within the
world of hard sciences we find observations which appear to contridict
the claim that all one need do is formulate a "better" theory and
the old theory is jetisoned. It's just not that simple and it doesn't
appear to be due to purely objective aspects or non-personal interests
driving the process.
> >One reason resistence to considering an alternative theory
> >might be so strong is that people have a lot of intellectual
> >capital invested in the dominent theory and, should it be
> >displaced, risk losing a great deal of prestege,
>
> Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a theory which
> proves to be inconsistent with FACTS and OBSERVATIONS is discarded.
Which facts and observations are you talking about? Physical
data is largely irrelevant if we are talking about the resistence
of theorists to accept a new theory which is displacing the one
these people have so much time, energy and funding tied up in.
Put differently I'm not making any claims about the truth or
error of the global warming hypothisis. From what I hear it's
going to be centuries before we really have a suitable sample
of data to evaluate. Therefore anyone taking either side must
be doing so on the basis of faith or risk profile. That being
the case, how do we explain the observed behavior regarding
this question?
> >Then there's the whole research funding aspect and flow of
> >money to consider.
>
> But you didn't, did you?
> Another "conspiracy" theory.
> Doesn't mean there's nothing to it, but absent a cogent argument based
> on real evidence, totally meaningless.
No conspiriacy theory. A good does of public choice education
and the recognition that I've not explicitly looked into the
situation close enough to give any useful details.
JMH
JMH
Anonymous wrote:
>
> On 2 May 1998 12:31:26 -0400 g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >Yes, indeed. In this case we seem to have a vision of
> >priestly scientists in the temple of Nature, taking
> >dictation _verbatim_. Or does the goddess write on their
> >notebooks herself?
>
> If the facts don't fit the theory, the theory gets modified or
> abandoned.
Someone eralier made a comment that deserves repeating.
Let's not confuse science, the the scientific method, with
scientists. Scientists should apply the method as it is ideally
formulated but being mere humans will fail to varying degrees.
> Remember the flat earth theory? Cold fusion? Lysenko?
> Does *anyone* believe in them now?
And who here is arguing that knowledge don't grow? The issue
in this subthread is more about how easily those flawed theories
get replaced.
JMH
JMH
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
. . .
> there is always active debate at the forefront of research. Care to
> tell us what has happened to those that proposed cold fusion or
> polywater?
I'm not sure which aspect of my post the above is directed at,
so I won't bother leaving irrelevant lines.
I seem to recall a flurring of interest, a flurry of skeptism,
some accusations of data fixing--I don't recall how this played
out, i.e., was the experiment intentionally rigged--and finally
the conclusion that something other than cold fussion was causing
the observations which started the whole affair.
Does think mean that cold fussion is immopssible? I don't have
a clue. Does this mean that those who don't believe cold fussion
is possible will readily come around the munite it's actually
accomplished? Does that mean that all the costs associated with
existing nuclear technologies will good naturedly taken as sunk
costs and simply forgotten?
JMH
JMH
> making babbling idiots out of those that thinks its a social process
> or let their biases show through.
I think when we talk about the search for truth in the
physical world, the scientific method and the social
institutions and factors influencing these activities
a separation between simple phenomenon and complex
phenomenon is in order.
The simple reproducable experiment which isolates some
specific factor or question doesn't produce any fundamental
truth about the nature of the universe. The experiment
is conduced by controlling fro all sorts of influences in
the attempt to identify one specific interaction. To claim
this produces some truth, other than a rather trival and
highly contextual one, is to claim that the interaction
studied is in fact independant of the factors which were
controlled for. I true, however, there would be little need
to control for those other factors and reproductin of the
experimental results should not require exact duplication of
the experimental conditions.
In cases where it's reasonable to expect that outside factors
will affect results then the question of what controls to
establish in the search for truth and how to integrate the
results from various experiements, which inveriably will
produce some contriditory finding across the set of experiments,
is needed. That's going to be a subjective effort by the
very nature of the situation. The premutations and combination
of controls imposed is infinite and until we do them all
we cannot be certain how to proritise influential factors.
JMH
JMH
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> | >| >And is peer review not a social process?
> | >
> | >It's not a social process?
>
> Anonymous <anon...@netassist.se>:
> | No, it is not.
> |
> | Are you repeating the same question (which has been asked and anwered)
> | over and over in the hope that you will get *someone* to give the
> | answer you want?
>
> Actually, I'm astonished at the answers I'm getting.
In all fairness, I think the basic claim being made in the
denial of science as a social process is the claim that the
"stars and electrons don't care what people think", or
however your statement went.
JMH
EandorY
Hokey Wolf wrote:
> In article <354AE164...@zianet.com>, ehu...@zianet.com wrote:
>
> ?gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> ?
> ?> hard science doesn't depend upon social or economic outcomes. The data
> ?> either supports the theory or refutes the theory. There is zero
> ?> evidence to refute the theory and a host of evidence whne taken
> ?> together as a whole provides support.
> ?
> ?To which theory are you refering when you say, "the" theory? There is
> ?plentyof evidence to refute the rising sea level theory *and* the rising
> ?temperature
> ?theory. Earlier in this thread, someone said that the theory predicts
> ?exponential
> ?temperature rise - no data supports that theory (I think that theory may have
> ?been devised for newsgroup consumption, and has not been put forward by
> ?atmospheric physicists).
>
> As long as we procede as if global warming is occuring, we'll be fine.
> Erring the other way invites the big tragedy.
"The big tragedy"? Neither of these statements is useful, because of the
way inductive logic (the scientific method) works. It is difficult or impossible
to **prove** a negative, such as "Global warming is not occurring," which is
why you usually find statements from scientists along the lines of, "The
evidence supporting the hypothesis is nt satisfying," or something along those
lines.
Your first statement indicates that we should accept any apocalyptic scenario
as true until it is disporved (which cannot happen). For instance, we should
"procede as if" Loch Ness inhabits a lake in Scotland, Bigfoot inhabits the
Northwest, and mermaids inhabit the oceans. While these seem quite silly,
you can't prove they don't exist. More realistically, should we have acted
when the *same scientists* declared that industrial activity was causing a
premature Ice Age, twenty years ago? Should we have taken your advice
and "proceded as if" it were already occurring, then?
"Erring the other way" does not invite tragedy. As I've asked elsewhere
in this thread, why are we assuming that the consequences will necessarily
be bad? Many of the indications are that global warming would be good.
Global warming would manifest itself mainly at night and in the winter,
which means less exposure to extreme cold, longer growing seasons,
and diminished tropical storms. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere means
plants require less water.
Eric
EandorY
G*rd*n wrote:
> msi...@tefbbs.com:
> | All the hysteria assumes humans are unable to adapt to extreme changes
> | in climate. An assumption not justified by the available facts.
> |
> | Of course there will be changes.
> |
> | Innovate, adapt, overcome. Still good advice.
>
> It will especially good advice if the oceans rise a few
> feet. Good adaptations would be high ground and plenty of
> ammunition.
Good point. Unfortunately, it seems that you are not awarethat some
research indicates that global warming seems to
be coincident with falling sea levels, or at least a decline in
the rate of rise.
> --
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
> sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
Eric
EandorY
G*rd*n wrote:
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> | > >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
> | > >| >> hard science ...
>
> gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> | > scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
> | > lasting long.
>
> ehu...@zianet.com:
> |Is this just a bold assertion? In fact, many scientists that let their bias get
> |in theway enjoy long careers. Paul and Anne Ehrlich, to name two. Stanton
> Glantz,
> |to name another. Is Jeremy Rifkin a scientist, or just a busybody? For a great
> | introduction to a career in bias-based research, check out Steven Milloy's
> | Junk Science homepage (All that junk that's fit to debunk), or Milloy's book,
> | _Science Without Sense_, or Michael Fumento's book, _Science Under Siege_,
> | or Ronald Bailey's book, _EcoScam_, or Bennett & DiLorenzo's book,
> | _CancerScam_. You just need to pick the right science, find some way
> | to associate "the children" with it, and voila! Instant career.
>
> It seems improbable that only biases filtering science and
> reports of it are "leftist" given the money and power in the
> hands of major corporations and those who own and operate
> them -- including power over the governments and academic
> systems that supposedly oppose them.
Not sure what you mean. By "leftist", do you mean, "anti-business"?If so, this is
certainly not what I mean. The scares over global warming
have certainly been exploited by, say, ADM, in their quest to obtain
never-ending subsidies for ethanol. But the scientists that are usually
at the forefront of these scares are usually scientists who don't have
to prove their results, which would certainly be a requirement of a
corporate R&D program. Instead, they are people like the Ehrlichs
or the VP who make their money selling their Apocalyptic Visions
through books and lecture tours, or like Glantz, who makes a living
off of public health grants.
In that respect, yes, there is a decidedly leftist slant to the doom-and-
gloomsayers. Walter Williams calls them "watermelons": green on
the outside, red on the inside. They are using false scenarios to
exert control over people and industry by using the environmental
back door, rather than the democratic front door.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
gor...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| >| >| you are getting desperate if you are now going to call any process
>| >| >| that involves a human, a social process.
>| >| >| Guess that was a social process in a Ark school too.
>G*rd*n:
>| >| >Recognizing the simple facts of a situation is "desperate"?
>| >| >This conversation is getting stranger all the time. What do
>| >| >you think science is, if not a human social process?
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| >| a search for the truth in the physical world. ....
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >Okay; and who or what makes that search?
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| to bad the physical world doesn't give a shit who makes the search.
>No, it mostly doesn't, but this is irrelevant because it is
>the search which we have been discussing, not (the rest of)
>the physical world. Now, who or what makes that search?
and when the data supports the theory the search is over, the theory
is valid, you already have agreed to the fact that the phyiscal world
doesn't give a shit who does the search. Now you have to argee that
the phyiscal world doesn't give a shit who writes the theory as long
as it is correct.
>--
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
__________________________________________________
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
JMH <x.xjm...@erols.com> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>. . .
>> a search for the truth in the physical world. Nature has a way of
>> making babbling idiots out of those that thinks its a social process
>> or let their biases show through.
>I think when we talk about the search for truth in the
>physical world, the scientific method and the social
>institutions and factors influencing these activities
>a separation between simple phenomenon and complex
>phenomenon is in order.
>The simple reproducable experiment which isolates some
>specific factor or question doesn't produce any fundamental
>truth about the nature of the universe. The experiment
nuts, you don't know much about science if that is your belief.
Theories are built from simple little facts. Like the speed of light,
the mass of an electron....
>is conduced by controlling fro all sorts of influences in
>the attempt to identify one specific interaction. To claim
>this produces some truth, other than a rather trival and
>highly contextual one, is to claim that the interaction
>studied is in fact independant of the factors which were
>controlled for. I true, however, there would be little need
>to control for those other factors and reproductin of the
>experimental results should not require exact duplication of
>the experimental conditions.
>In cases where it's reasonable to expect that outside factors
>will affect results then the question of what controls to
>establish in the search for truth and how to integrate the
>results from various experiements, which inveriably will
>produce some contriditory finding across the set of experiments,
>is needed. That's going to be a subjective effort by the
>very nature of the situation. The premutations and combination
>of controls imposed is infinite and until we do them all
>we cannot be certain how to proritise influential factors.
>JMH
__________________________________________________
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
JMH <x.xjm...@erols.com> wrote:
yes old theories are jetision at times when theyare grossly wrong.
Tell us how many theories of the atom has been proposed. Other times
the orginal theory is modified. The quantum extension of Newton's laws
of motion.
>> >One reason resistence to considering an alternative theory
>> >might be so strong is that people have a lot of intellectual
>> >capital invested in the dominent theory and, should it be
>> >displaced, risk losing a great deal of prestege,
>>
>> Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a theory which
>> proves to be inconsistent with FACTS and OBSERVATIONS is discarded.
>Which facts and observations are you talking about? Physical
>data is largely irrelevant if we are talking about the resistence
>of theorists to accept a new theory which is displacing the one
>these people have so much time, energy and funding tied up in.
>Put differently I'm not making any claims about the truth or
>error of the global warming hypothisis. From what I hear it's
>going to be centuries before we really have a suitable sample
>of data to evaluate. Therefore anyone taking either side must
oops you just revealed your bias, your mind is already made up.
>be doing so on the basis of faith or risk profile. That being
>the case, how do we explain the observed behavior regarding
>this question?
>> >Then there's the whole research funding aspect and flow of
>> >money to consider.
>>
>> But you didn't, did you?
>> Another "conspiracy" theory.
>> Doesn't mean there's nothing to it, but absent a cogent argument based
>> on real evidence, totally meaningless.
>No conspiriacy theory. A good does of public choice education
>and the recognition that I've not explicitly looked into the
>situation close enough to give any useful details.
>JMH
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
JMH <x.xjm...@erols.com> wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>. . .
>> there is always active debate at the forefront of research. Care to
>> tell us what has happened to those that proposed cold fusion or
>> polywater?
>I'm not sure which aspect of my post the above is directed at,
>so I won't bother leaving irrelevant lines.
>I seem to recall a flurring of interest, a flurry of skeptism,
>some accusations of data fixing--I don't recall how this played
>out, i.e., was the experiment intentionally rigged--and finally
>the conclusion that something other than cold fussion was causing
>the observations which started the whole affair.
discredited. It could have been said in one word.
>Does think mean that cold fussion is immopssible? I don't have
>a clue. Does this mean that those who don't believe cold fussion
>is possible will readily come around the munite it's actually
>accomplished? Does that mean that all the costs associated with
>existing nuclear technologies will good naturedly taken as sunk
>costs and simply forgotten?
>JMH
EandorY
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
<snip>
> >Okay; and who or what makes that search?
>
> to bad the physical world doesn't give a shit who makes the search.
I guess it's safe to assume that there are no Gaia theorists in this thread.
> > }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> > Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
> >sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
> http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
> gdy weasel
Eric
EandorY
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> Travis Hestilow <hestilo...@txdirect.net> wrote:
> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> >> tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin) wrote:
> >>
> >> >-*--------
> >> >Fitch writes:
> >> >> ... I said that, in order to understand the evidence and the theories,
> >> >> one needs to know where they came from and take that into consideration.
> >> >> Because a scientific conclusion has been bought doesn't mean it's wrong,
> >> >> but it does mean we have to scrutinize its sociological factors more
> >> >> closely than we would if it came out of a more neutral procedure.
> >>
> >> >Most people who are educated in the sciences will disagree.
> >>
> >> >The simple fact of the matter is that *everyone* is biased. On the
> >> >basis of sociological origin, there are NO neutral sources. We
> >> >naturally tend to be more believing of claims that come from sources
> >> >familiar and comfortable to us. And in this we fool ourselves, because
> >> >coming from a familiar and comfortable source does not make a claim
> >> >true, nor does coming from a disagreeable source make a claim false.
> >> >"Scrutinizing the sociological factors" will merely amplify this bias.
> >> >The only solution to this problem lies in ignoring the sociological
> >> >factors, and instead, in attending to the evidential issues. Who says
> >> >what about global warming and from what motive may make a great
> >> >political article, appropriate to _Rolling_Stone for example, but it
> >> >provides absolutely no insight into what physical changes in the
> >> >environment are actually occurring. For that, one must attend to the
> >> >meteorological and environmental evidence, and to the relevant physical
> >> >and metereological arguments.
> >>
> >> nuts, nuts and more nuts. Scientists may spend years developing a
> >> theory and then the rest of their lives trying to debunk their own
> >> work. Social bias is a figment of the right wing's imagination. They
> >> can't argue with hard data and facts, so they attempt to destroy the
> >> researchers as biased in the same manner that they have attacked the
> >> press as being biased and for that matter public education as being
> >> poor quality. Hmm I see a trend there.
>
> >Social bias is a fact, exemplified by you on every post. There is a wealth of
> >data that is equivocal as to what exactly is happening in our atmosphere. Any
> >data or scientist that disagrees with you is labeled "corporate whore". THAT is
>
> because they have not been objective, they have chosen to ignore data
> that opposes their employer views. I'll note that all of you little
> ditto critters have given up on trying to discredit ozone depeletion,
> at least there the data finally won out over your desire to protect
> some damn corporation.
Although I can't speak for these "little ditto critters", I can say that many
people are still quite skeptical as to the extent of the anthropogenic depletion.
In light of the ban on Freon, though, it seems to be a moot argument. BTW,
were you aware that DuPont began calling for a complete phaseout of CFC's
in 1988 because they achieved a beakthrough in the development of a
replacement? Sometimes it is in some corporation's interest to seek
environmental regulation, as in the case of ADM (and ethanol) and companies
like WMX. So your hypothesis that corporations and money will always
oppose such regulations is full of holes; interests will lie on both sides of an
issue.
Unfortunately, the political arena is *not* the best place to decide whose
science is more correct, since politicians have little to lose if they are wrong.
> The same will happen to the global warming
> arguement. The wealth of data that now exists supports the theory,
> there is no data that disputes or discredit that theory.
Nice assertion, but wrong. See, for instance, the body (not the executive
summary) of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
report WG-I 1996, p. 434; the solar effect reorted by Lassen and
Friis-Christensen 1991; "...it will be hard to say, with confidence, that
an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected" from
_The Holocene_, Barnett, Santer, Jones, Bradley, and Briffa, 1996;
satellite observations indicating a slight cooling since 1977 made by
Spencer and Christy, 1992, Christy, 1997); independent confirmation
of the satellite data by balloon data in the World Climate Report, 1996;
skew of land-based observations by the UHI (urban heat island) effect
shown by Goodridge, 1996; findings that the 1940's were the warmest
years in the century in the US by Karl and Jones, 1989, and in Europe
by Balling, 1997, etc. These and more are all cited in _Hot Talk, Cold
Science_ by S. Fred Singer.
If you stand by the assertion that social processes influence the data,
then you would be hard-pressed to show how you can intimidate balloons
into corroborating satellite data.
> All the attempts to label it as a natural cycle or variations in
> solar output are nothing more than a thinly disquise attempt to muddy
> the issue.
So scientists who agree with you are arriving at the "correct" conclusion,
while scientists who are generating questions are attempting to "muddy
the issue"? Silly me, I thought that asking questions and being skeptical
*was* science. I guess the reason you are sticking with your theory that
all science is sociological is because this is how you perform scientific
inquiries? In other words, you determine the answer, find a theory that
might give the answer plausibility, dredge for data to support it, and then
smear anyone who disagrees as not being a "serious scientist", and
disregard their theories and data. Silly me, I thought that was the logical
fallacy, "ad hominem".
> The same can be said for the so called heat islands, you
> fail to realize there are many reporting stations that are in the
> middle of god damn nowhere and the temps there show a increase in
> temps as well.
Yes, but far, far lower than those near urban areas. Goodridge showed
this in a 1996 report. After realizing this, you should get yourself a globe
and note how much of it has any land at all.
> While I'm at lets get rid of the silly arguement that
> 90% of the green house gasses are natural.
Because ... it doesn't fit into **your** model? The largest contributing
greenhouse gas is water. Water. Hands down. Another large contributor
is methane, produced by termites, swamps, and anything that rots. Cows,
too, but these pale in comparison to the methane produce by termites and
things rotting in rain forests. Insects vastly outweigh ruminants.
> Yes the most potentnatural
> green house gas is water vapor, but then you like to ignore a little
> physical fact that there is a natural fixed maximum level of water
> vapor in the atmo.
What does a maximum have to do with anything? It still constitutes
the majority of the energy absorption and re-radiation (the greenhouse
effect), and therefore changes in CO2 concentration, which constitues
very little of the GH effect, will have very little overall effect. If I fill a
glass 90% of the way with tea, and add a sugar cube, that doesn't mean
that the water becomes an insignificant contributor to the properties of
tea.
Also, why does the weatherman always make a point of reporting
barometric pressure? Could it be that the maximum amount of water
vapor is related to it?
> If its exceded it starts raining or snowing.
Depending on other conditions. And the fluctuation has little to
do with its total heat-absorbing mass.
> The
> point is these greenhouse gasses both natural and man caused are a
> minor component of the atmosphere.
You just said that water vapor is "the most potent natural
greenhous gas", now you say it is "a minor component"?
What is the total mass of water vapor in the atmosphere?
What is the total mass of CO2? What is the total mass
of the atmosphere? When you get the answers to these
questions, you will see that *CO2* is a minor component.
> A large change in one can exert a
> extreme effect on overall climate.
Luckily, even a large change in the CO2 concentration will pale in comparison
to water vapor (and methane, etc.), so may not be of much concern to us.
> The best evidence that proves the theory are still the geological
> indicators of rapid climate change, which I doubt you could even list.
> Note the emphasis is on the word rapid, that alone should be enough of
> a hint to dispense with changes due to the so called natural cycle.
Tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, to name 3. The indications
are that rapid shifts have occurred both in the Holocene, and during
past glacial maxima. The Global Climate Models (GCM's) have
not been able to account for them, which is a pretty good refutation
of those models: if they cannot explain what has happened, how can
they be counted on to explain what *might* happen?
BTW, many of the scientists tweaking on their GCM's seem to practice
science the same way you do. They assume that bad things will happen
to the environment because of man, and then try to build a model that
fits their answer. They have to do things like make the sun much larger,
or move it closer to the earth, just to get today's temperature. Moreover,
their models cannot even predict the existing temperature variance from
one pole to the other, much less tomorrow's rainstorm, or the temperature
50 years from now.
> >social bias----you have no scientific discipline whatsoever.
>
> you would be wrong in that assessment. I didn't reach my conclusions
> overnight. I only reached my views after being trained as a chemist
> and reading many peer reviewed articles specifically dealling with
> global warming. First off you do not know my full views on global
> warming nor will you find much in the literature detailing those
> views.
> But then here is a brief discription. I view all deposits of
> hydrocarbons, dolimite deposits and the ice caps and glaciers as an
> attempt by the earth to reach a thermo equilibrium. You can find some
> support for that view in the past geological cycles, as the cycles
> have became shorter and less extreme in the recent past as would be
> expected from a reaction overshooting its end point less the closer it
> gets to equillibrium.
>
> >To fgo back to an earlier post----it is you who are lying about the basics. Any
> >"scientist" who throws away data because it doesn't fit his politics is no real
> >scientist. Just a hack.
>
> now try listing some data that the globaal warming theorists have
> thrown away. Go ahead I dare you, because it does not exist.
Some of it is listed at the top. Your denial that it exists is not the
same as it's non-existence. I suspect that you have only sought
out those that agree with you, and therefore completely overlooked
anything else. So here's a counter-dare: what was the
Leipzig Declaration? Who issued it?
> >Or, maybe "whore" would be a better word. You seem to like it a lot.
> >> >Russell
G*rd*n
Anonymous <an...@ecn.org>:
| ...
| Why don't you let us know what brought this on? I know the thread
| started with global warming, a theory which has a lot of evidence
| supporting it but is anything but an accepted fact.
Here are some of the things I said at the beginning
of the discussion:
The problem with global warming is that huge amounts of
money and power are already tied up in processes that might
cause it or might be affected by any moves to discern and
control it. Hence, we must assume that this money and
power are flowing towards the production and distribution
of opinions favorable to their various owners and
manipulators.
... What I wrote could apply to government-bureaucratic as well
as corporate interests (assuming there's any profound
difference, which I doubt; more likely, there are competing
corporate interests which show up in bureaucracies.)
...[I]t's necessary to look at money and other power
relationships surrounding scientific reports. Because a
scientific opinion has been bought doesn't mean it's wrong,
but we should be aware of the transactions when we're
evaluating the theories.
In other words, I see scientific research and the reporting
of it as something carried on as a social process by human
beings, and therefore something which is neither infallible
nor incorruptible. If it is fallible, it is in our
interests to look critically at the process, especially
when powerful interests and influences may be involved.
All of this seems like common sense to me.
By contrast, you and gdy appear to be arguing that science
is not social -- which means it is carried out by isolated
individuals -- and is somehow infallible and incorruptible.
I don't agree with this view, which appears quasi-religious
to me, and has in fact been supported, not by evidence and
logic, but by iterated reaffirmation, much as many
religions are.
| Are you by any
| chance one of the folks who found human bones mixed in with dinosaur
| bones, decided that that disproved evolution, and got shot down by the
| peer review process?
| ...
A curious question. What has it got to do with anything
we've been discussing?
--
G*rd*n
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| >| >| >| you are getting desperate if you are now going to call any process
| >| >| >| that involves a human, a social process.
| >| >| >| Guess that was a social process in a Ark school too.
G*rd*n:
| >| >| >Recognizing the simple facts of a situation is "desperate"?
| >| >| >This conversation is getting stranger all the time. What do
| >| >| >you think science is, if not a human social process?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| >| >| a search for the truth in the physical world. ....
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >| >Okay; and who or what makes that search?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| >| to bad the physical world doesn't give a shit who makes the search.
gor...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >No, it mostly doesn't, but this is irrelevant because it is
| >the search which we have been discussing, not (the rest of)
| >the physical world. Now, who or what makes that search?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
| and when the data supports the theory the search is over, the theory
| is valid, you already have agreed to the fact that the phyiscal world
| doesn't give a shit who does the search. Now you have to argee that
| the phyiscal world doesn't give a shit who writes the theory as long
| as it is correct.
The physical world doesn't care whether the theory is
correct or not, either. It just does its thing, and the
theory works or it doesn't or it sort of works.
Now, are you going to answer my question, or continue to
evade it? Who or what makes that search?
G*rd*n
| ... [ science as searching for truth in the physical world ] ....
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > >Okay; and who or what makes that search?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
| > to bad the physical world doesn't give a shit who makes the search.
| I guess it's safe to assume that there are no Gaia theorists in this thread.
I haven't seen any, but you're welcome to assume the role.
It hasn't been my impression, though, that even if the the
Earth is an intelligent being, it cares much what people
think of it.
I suppose the Gaia hypothesis could be used to argue against
doing anything about global warming, since the Earth at
some point would simply restore the conditions desired,
perhaps by rolling a time or two on those whom it, excuse
me, _she_ determined to be excessively forward in this
regard.
G*rd*n
| >> hard science ...
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
| > | > scientists that let their bias get in the way, have a habit of not
| > | > lasting long.
ehu...@zianet.com:
| > |Is this just a bold assertion? In fact, many scientists that let their bias get
| > |in theway enjoy long careers. Paul and Anne Ehrlich, to name two. Stanton
| > Glantz,
| > |to name another. Is Jeremy Rifkin a scientist, or just a busybody? For a great
| > | introduction to a career in bias-based research, check out Steven Milloy's
| > | Junk Science homepage (All that junk that's fit to debunk), or Milloy's book,
| > | _Science Without Sense_, or Michael Fumento's book, _Science Under Siege_,
| > | or Ronald Bailey's book, _EcoScam_, or Bennett & DiLorenzo's book,
| > | _CancerScam_. You just need to pick the right science, find some way
| > | to associate "the children" with it, and voila! Instant career.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > It seems improbable that only biases filtering science and
| > reports of it are "leftist" given the money and power in the
| > hands of major corporations and those who own and operate
| > them -- including power over the governments and academic
| > systems that supposedly oppose them.
| Not sure what you mean. By "leftist", do you mean, "anti-business"?If so, this is
| certainly not what I mean. The scares over global warming
| have certainly been exploited by, say, ADM, in their quest to obtain
| never-ending subsidies for ethanol. But the scientists that are usually
| at the forefront of these scares are usually scientists who don't have
| to prove their results, which would certainly be a requirement of a
| corporate R&D program. Instead, they are people like the Ehrlichs
| or the VP who make their money selling their Apocalyptic Visions
| through books and lecture tours, or like Glantz, who makes a living
| off of public health grants.
|
| In that respect, yes, there is a decidedly leftist slant to the doom-and-
| gloomsayers. Walter Williams calls them "watermelons": green on
| the outside, red on the inside. They are using false scenarios to
| exert control over people and industry by using the environmental
| back door, rather than the democratic front door.
The list looked a bit right-wing to me. In fact,
corporations have trillions of dollars and millions of jobs
at stake, and are notoriously interested in the short run
("in the long run you're dead," as the proverb goes). So I
must suspect a list which focuses only on "leftist"
wrongdoing. I have to assume there's plenty of pro-business
fudging going on.
Democratic procedures have pretty much been vitiated by
plutocracy, which is why I noted awhile back that there
wasn't any people's science even though it's the people who
in effect own the atmosphere and the general environment.
We have to do the best we can through various elites, but we
should remember that they often have interests different
from those of the people in general. We should demand full
disclosure of those interests.
JMH
> >error of the global warming hypothisis. From what I hear it's
> >going to be centuries before we really have a suitable sample
> >of data to evaluate. Therefore anyone taking either side must
>
> oops you just revealed your bias, your mind is already made up.
And what bias is revealed here?
The only thing I've made up my mind about is that
there are others who know a great deal more about the
issue than I, environmental scientists, one of whom
I've talked with. It was his position that the current
data base is an insufficient sample. No perhaps you
have other data or some rationale for claiming we have
enough information to actual know the facts of the matter
on the issue of global warming.
I'm taking an agnostic stance and claiming ignorance
and the need for more information.
JMH
JMH
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> >> tell us what has happened to those that proposed cold fusion or
> >> polywater?
>
> >I'm not sure which aspect of my post the above is directed at,
> >so I won't bother leaving irrelevant lines.
>
> >I seem to recall a flurring of interest, a flurry of skeptism,
> >some accusations of data fixing--I don't recall how this played
> >out, i.e., was the experiment intentionally rigged--and finally
> >the conclusion that something other than cold fussion was causing
> >the observations which started the whole affair.
>
> discredited. It could have been said in one word.
But what was discredited?
I think the experiment was ultimately repeated with the
same results. So the experiment seems to work.
The fact that it's not cold fusion causing the result,
which if I recall--not being a physicist or chemist I'm sure
details escape my notice--the particular tell-tale observation
had been thought only possible if fusion occurred, says
nothing about the possibility of cold fusion.
Moreover, none of my contribution here has been about
rejecting theory which is already questionable within the
dominant mindset or scientific opinion or theories but
displacement of those that are accepted as accurate or
"true".
So, it's not clear just what the import of the particular
instance you bring up here has to do with what I've been writing.
JMH
JMH
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>
> JMH <x.xjm...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> >. . .
> >> making babbling idiots out of those that thinks its a social process
> >> or let their biases show through.
>
> >I think when we talk about the search for truth in the
> >physical world, the scientific method and the social
> >institutions and factors influencing these activities
> >a separation between simple phenomenon and complex
> >phenomenon is in order.
>
> >The simple reproducable experiment which isolates some
> >specific factor or question doesn't produce any fundamental
> >truth about the nature of the universe. The experiment
>
> nuts, you don't know much about science if that is your belief.
> Theories are built from simple little facts. Like the speed of light,
> the mass of an electron....
And the basic approach you are articulating here goes by the
name Fallacy of Composition. Just because we manage to understand
all the little pieces in isolation doesn't mean that we understand
the sum of the parts.
However, to give you a more favorable reading, I'll consider
you claim to be that scientist formulate theory based on
a collection of observations and seek to make some sense of
the generral picture by theorising, and observing where
possible, the relationship among the parts. If so, you should
have read a bit farther as that's not inconsistent with what
I wrote. The problem comes in when we have to make choices
regarding which parts will be attended to and which will be
either ignored or purposefully controlled so as not to affect
the outcome of the hypothesis testing or clutter up, unduely
complicate, the theory.
JMH
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| >| >| >| you are getting desperate if you are now going to call any process
>| >| >| >| that involves a human, a social process.
>| >| >| >| Guess that was a social process in a Ark school too.
>G*rd*n:
>| >| >| >Recognizing the simple facts of a situation is "desperate"?
>| >| >| >This conversation is getting stranger all the time. What do
>| >| >| >you think science is, if not a human social process?
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| >| >| a search for the truth in the physical world. ....
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >| >Okay; and who or what makes that search?
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| >| to bad the physical world doesn't give a shit who makes the search.
>gor...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >No, it mostly doesn't, but this is irrelevant because it is
>| >the search which we have been discussing, not (the rest of)
>| >the physical world. Now, who or what makes that search?
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com):
>| and when the data supports the theory the search is over, the theory
>| is valid, you already have agreed to the fact that the phyiscal world
>| doesn't give a shit who does the search. Now you have to argee that
>| the phyiscal world doesn't give a shit who writes the theory as long
>| as it is correct.
>The physical world doesn't care whether the theory is
>correct or not, either. It just does its thing, and the
>theory works or it doesn't or it sort of works.
>Now, are you going to answer my question, or continue to
>evade it? Who or what makes that search?
as we already agreed it doesn't matter a tinkers damn to the physical
world who or what is doing the search with an understanding of the
Hiesenberg uncertainty principle.
>--
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
>sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
__________________________________________________