Why Climate Science Is On Trial
blogs.the-american-interest.com
blogs.the-american-interest.com
Economists are not scientists.
> Trans-fats were made into margarine and promoted on scientific grounds as healthier than butter.
Scientists don't create products and promote them. Entrepreneurs and marketers do.
> Look at the science of ‘eugenics’ in the light of whose findings judges once condemned people to involuntary sterilization.
Was 'eugenics' ever an agreed-upon scientific consensus? According to Wikipedia: "Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species." How does that definition include the "involuntary sterilization" of people? I'm thinking this reference is less about 'science' and more about trying to slip a Nazi reference in through the back door.
Economists create models of the world and attempt to test those models against reality. Isn't that what makes someone a scientist?
Why do you feel economists are not scientists?
Was 'eugenics' ever an agreed-upon scientific consensus?
Eugenics was and still is part of the agreed-upon scientific consensus.
It has even had some practical success, most notably the creation of very tall athletes (including Yao Ming) and the elimination of Tay-Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews.
we don't have a control china. all economic models are guilty of over fitting.
Which is harder is hard to tell. Climate science has to deal with far more variables (current models still measure their grids in terms of miles, AFAIK) and the data is radically inferior to economic data. On the other hand, climate science does not (yet!) have to contend with people who take the predictions and actively use them to further confound the system.
(I say "yet" because if climate science becomes good enough to use it for engineering, all long-term predictions go out the window once nations start actively engineering outcomes. Note this isn't a criticism of climate science, it would in fact be strong validation, if the interventions worked as predicted. It's just that predictions predicated on the lack of intervention would no longer be valid.)
WTF? Eugenics is a policy proposal, not a fact. How could it possibly be part of the scientific consensus?
So, to be more precise in my language, the scientific fact is this: eugenics can be used to alter future genotypes (with high probability) and to alter phenotypes to the extent that phenotypes are caused by genetics.
It was a proposal for dealing with some "facts" and "theories" about which there was scientific consensus.
BTW - Eugenics in the US was a progressive enterprise.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/08/evidence-mounts-...
Over 90 percent of large predatory fish have been wiped out, the coral
reefs that are home to areas of biodiversity that rivals the Amazon
are dying, and the North Sea has been practically denuded of life.
Shellfish populations that were already heavily fished have been
unable to recover thanks to eutrophication and the spread of dead
zones, not to mention seabed trawling.
[I expect, yet again, a rain of down-votes of disagreement from HN's army of right-wingers who cant write a good argument. Go ahead.]
If you read the article you linked it talks about overfishing, trash,fertilizer, etc -- these have nothing to do with CO2. Yes, acidification is caused be CO2, but there has been lower Ph levels in the past (due to volcanic eruptions etc). Now is this a problem that should be discussed, it certaintly is, but if we are talking about CO2 then only talk about it. Don't mix in all sorts of unrelated claims.
If you want to talk about pollution and over harvesting then talk about each one separately. Muddying issues by combining them in no way makes them easier to solve or easier to understand.
IMHO, it's blatantly a PR campaign to get the masses to distrust all scientists reporting on the current biosphere situation. Do you think NASA is lying about their reports too? Perhaps not you, but you must admit most people don't go beyond reading headlines.
Don't get me wrong, I think Al Gore is a terrible messenger with more show than content and probably risks making more harm than good (just like celebrities.)
And regarding climate science as just reading temperatures over time is at least overly reductionist. The melting of the Arctic probably counter-balances greenhouse-gases, and there are studies about a short ice-age caused by the melting of Greenland's ice sheet. It's much more complex than what the mass media wants to report on their headlines.
And climate science studies, among other things, the impact of pollution on the atmosphere. Are you serious?
So? There are other groups promoting 'Climate Science' with obvious interests behind them (Al Gore's political interests, companies that may benefit from carbon trading, science cliques, companies working on carbon sequestration programmes, etc...). Don't think that those who promote global warming are as pure as the driven snow.
Trying to demonise all those who question the reality of AGW is not conducive to a robust debate on the topic.
HN is really losing it.
CO2 actually is considered a pollutant by the EPA. There are lots of things that are 'natural' but that are still pollutants. For example, fine particulates are considered a pollutant because they cause cancer. Thus construction equipment is not allowed to vent unlimited amounts of diesel fumes, even though much of what is released is basically the same as the stuff that already occurs to a small extent in the natural environment.
So what? The EPA is a regulatory agency. If they define something as a pollutant, they get to issue regulations and control things.
If you're going to take a regulatory agency's word, ketchup is a vegetable....
A political decision, not a scientific one. Made recently by the current administration, and likely to be dropped by the next administration.
I agree on the "natural" bit though. Hell, cyanide is all-natural. For that matter, peanuts are all natural but still deadly to some people.