Re: Something to think on.



Cory Bhreckan wrote:
>
> Deirdre wrote:
> >
> > It occurs to me, Cory, it might be easier for you to
> > lay hands on Senate Appropriations Budget Reports.
>
> Actually, I was referring to the API (and other trade organisations)
> funding. Exon-Mobile isn't the only player in this game.

Of course they aren't...every oil company
in creation is looking for a piece of that
pie although why they couldn't take it out
of their third quarter profits is beyond me.

The oil companies aren't the only ones trade
organisations involved though...power gener-
ation firms, chemical firms, automakers...in
fact most of the Dow Jones widows/orphans
stocks companies are involved in some way,
shape or form. Why not if their research is
sound? They have more money than indivi-
duals and the fact that they're corporations
doesn't mean they aren't stakeholders also.

> > In 2005, $106.6 million was allocated to GEF...the
> > President was pushing for $107.5 in 2006 and a bit
> > of a storm erupted on Capitol Hill last June when the
> > subcommittee suggested the funding be strickened
> > from the budget due to lack of accountability...if you
> > approach it by starting with those headlines, you might
> > find it easier to backtrack to the hard numbers.
>
> What I don't have a grasp on is who benefits from reports confirming
> human assisted GW? What is motivating these otherwise honest scientists
> to submit and peer review studies that they don't really believe?

Why are you saying they are dishonest or
don't believe what they're saying? Some
scientists _do_ believe in it...some believe
it's valid...others don't. The ones who don't
can't be bought...the ones who do and take
the funds aren't being dishonest.

I suspect, some of the motives can be laid
at the feet of the jump-on-the-bandwagon
effect of all "sexy" (read: lotsa funding) re-
search. And to be truthful, when a theore-
tical is still so heavily debated, a scientist
doesn't really harm their reputation (as long
as the data are sound) by saying their results
_support_ the TGW.

You note, however, the use of the word "sup-
port"? A theory can't be "proved" it can only
be supported...reputable scientists don't say
"proof of global warning", it's environmental
activist groups who say that. If you read the
journal articles you can see most of the con-
clusions are presented as "These data would
seem to support..." "The evidence appears to
substantiate..." "Under these conditions we
found that..."

No one, even the so called scientific propo-
nents are saying "This _proves_ it! Eureka!"
because they know as well as anyone else they
are subject to being publically shown to be in
error...and if that's the case? Well, most of
my ilk shrug it off with "That's what happens
with conjecture, but it sure seemed like a good
fit at the time." The gracious ones thank the
person who pointed it out and everyone gets
back to work again. It's not career suicide to
have a paper disproven...and if you're on the
cutting edge or out on a theoretical limb it's
almost to be expected.

> Why
> does the American Academy of Science endorse the idea that man is
> exacerbating GW if the consensus is otherwise?

There is no consensus...that's my point. The
AAS is merely expressing their particular view-
point as they are entitled to do.

> > You're in the Washington area, right? The entire
> > debacle probably played out in your local newspapers.
>
> I do live in the area, I read the local paper and I know a few gummit
> PHDs. This is why I found your previous post puzzling.

<laugh> Yeah, I know a few myself.

I think, Cory, part of the problem stems from the
fact that a "theory" in science is something very
different than a "theory" in rhetoric. In speaking
we use "in theory" without thinking about it and we
use it to mean "if it works as it should." In science
however, a theory is a fairly robust critter and it
has to be able to meet a number of criteria before
it qualifies. Karl Popper, proposed the ones which
tend to be most in use today (mind you, he was
challenged by Thomas Kuhn, but Kuhn's views have
never really caught on since he was basically arguing
for critical mass of anomalies and was more inter-
ested in how theories evolve over time.)

The criteria are based on the initial premise that
it is easy to obtain confirmations for nearly every
theory? if we only look for confirmations, therefore:

1. Confirmations count only if they are the result of
risky predictions; that is to say, an event which would
have refuted the theory.

2. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it
forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory
forbids, the better it is.

3. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable
event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of
a theory but a vice.

4. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to
falsify or refute it.

In short, a scientific theory is known by its falsifi-
ability, refutability or testability. Since this is the
case, and it has been so for quite some time now,
why do the GW folk get so bothered when the theory
is treated like one rather than a belief? Aren't they
the ones saying it's testable and proven? Science
lives and dies by the test...if it's a valid theory why
get worked up at the idea of testing...unless, of
course, the results _aren't_ supporting it?

By the way, I don't know if you have access to the
British journal _Nature_, but if you do, the 1 Dec
issue has an article which reports the ocean cur-
rent responsible for the winds which warm Europe
has _decreased_ by an estimated 30% since 1957.
The headline in the 30 Nov. _New Scientist_ was
?Failing ocean current raises fear of mini ice age.?

How can that be reconciled with GW?

The Nov issue of _Quaternary Science Reviews_ has
a study reviewing the recontruction of a millenium
of global temperatures and concluded variations
?result in a redistribution of weight towards the role
of natural factors in [causing] temperature changes,
thereby relatively devaluing the impact of [manmade]
emissions and affecting future predicted [global cli-
mate] scenarios.?

(I've got all three on my desk at work...assuming it
ever stops snowing and I can get back into work, I
could fax them to you if you're really interested.)

That's three articles in one month...not debunking
the theory, but pointing out holes in it...which is
_exactly_ what science is supposed to do. The
job of the people who support the theory is to
_patch_ those holes with data or evidence to the
contrary, not scream that the ones pointing them
out are meanies and killjoys.

All theories, whether evolution, GW, cold fusion or
the benefits of anti-microbials in the kitchen go
through this process...some are debunked quickly
(cold fusion)...others patch their holes (evolution
and GW)...some just loiter on the fringes waiting
for someone to notice them. The scientific com-
munity _is_ taking the theory seriously, they're
testing it, aren't they? They're simply not saying
it's proven...that's how this business works...you
put forth a theory and your peers do their level
best to demolish it, when they can't, you're on to
something and you get to say "I'd like to thank the
Nobel committee..." and if they do? Well, you get
to start over again and come up with a new expla-
nation of how it works.


Deirdre
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Shouldnt it be all over the news?
    ... groups were put on the editorial boards of Nature and Science the two ... I first made that contention in either 2003 or 2004). ... I am NOT saying global warming isn't happening. ... being honest wouldn't have led to droves of scientists getting into ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Greetings from Nova Scotia
    ... I'm just reporting what respected researchers are saying. ... Governments work very hard to keep the people from revolting. ... Scientists are raising the alarm. ... Science has no say in government at ...
    (uk.local.cumbria)
  • Re: Shouldnt it be all over the news?
    ... groups were put on the editorial boards of Nature and Science the two ... I first made that contention in either 2003 or 2004). ... The scientists that agreed with me ... I am NOT saying global warming isn't happening. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Shouldnt it be all over the news?
    ... For example, I *know* coders would laugh at my code, because ... groups were put on the editorial boards of Nature and Science the two ... The scientists that agreed with me ... I am NOT saying global warming isn't happening. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading