Rich(ie), I'm here to help, but it is going to take a while. You write:
I have long indicated that there is a consensus within the scientific community regarding climate change and the rather sober implications thereof. And I read your link where many in the "scientific (read climate) community" wrote a letter supporting climate change.
I. Scientific consensus. There is no consensus in science, which in fact means nothing. If we all agree on something that is wrong, it is still wrong. There is theory which is subject to testing. As they told us in Medical School: "half of what we are telling you is wrong, we just don't know which half." For example, "they" told us clot busting drugs were good for heart attacks until "they" told us they were not. An argument went on for years among various parties with various motivations including pride and finance. Those who had made their careers on "thrombolytics" vigorously resisted the idea as did the drug companies which supported their work. On the other side where the "Interventionalists" who, supported by the "device" companies, said a better way to stop a heart attack was with a balloon. Another interested party were the hospitals, who had to make patient care and financial decisions on two very expensive treatments. This is standard fare in medical (scientific) consensus.
My point here is to debunk what seems to be your quaint idea of "scientists" sitting around smoking pipes and expounding theory for the common good. (more on expounding ie. consensus, theory in a moment).
Scientific consensus is frequently wrong, biased and subject to swirling outside, frequently contradictory, influences.
II Scientific Theory. When making medical decisions, there are levels of evidence which can be used with varying degrees of confidence. The standard is a double blind randomized trial where two treatments are tested against each other where neither the patient nor the doctor is aware what treatment is being used. Next is using un blinded or past studies and the last is "expert" consensus.
Climate change, a theory, should be subject to the same testing as any other scientific endeavor, same as medical decision making. My understanding of the data (which is hard to locate-which therefore brings its accuracy into question) is that using models which are thought to predict the future would not have predicted the past. This means that current scientific evaluation does not pass even the second level used to evaluate theory and when combined with the E-mail issues and the fact that the people in the climate change community depend on its existence for their career (read $) and work in an environment of liberalism which generally support its cause (and therefor biases their opinion)...One cannot, even remotely, accept on blind faith a "consensus" on climate change. OK...now you asked, I gave you an answer, before you start pounding away, read it again.
III Alternatives. There are none. None of the alternative energy sources can stand on their own without heavy subsidies. Wind, solar, nuclear make no economic sense and despite years of support could not stand on their own. The taxes you propose would have a devastating effect on a large segment of the worlds population, now. which brings the next issue.
IV rather sober implications thereof: Words from your post. If in fact man made climate change is in our future (unclear) it is also unclear if it would be of harm or benefit. The main doomsday scenario seems to be the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The probability of such an event is very low and at its worse case is projected to result in 200,000 deaths a year. The reality of now is "dung" fires and poverty and hunger and disease which result in millions of deaths a year. So the rather "sober" implications of climate change INTERVENTIONS would be to condemn millions NOW through continuing poverty, starvation and disease.
V Capitalism. Next time...
Again, you asked, now stop and think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
First, I will note that no numbers were included in your post. You did not indicate the scope of skepticism within the scientific community. That is because the numbers are damning to your do-nothing approach.
So then, Doc, when you see a patient do you throw up your hands and tell him that you can't help him because half of what you learned is incorrect and you do not know which half? Or do you proceed using the best information (science) that you have?
I hold no quaint ideas on this topic. Scientists from all over the globe are separately coming to very similar conclusions. In fact, you may call it a CONSENSUS. No one is sitting around and smoking, save for the old boys at the Country Club.
So - your brilliant idea is simply to ignore the scientists as theories are frequently wrong per se? Do you therefore advocate dithering even if it means that we lose valuable time. Should we ever listen to scientists? How about doctors? Should we ever listen to them? Apparently half of what they know is erroneous. I guess the question is, why should we ever listen to highly educated specialists in their field when we can listen to talk radio and the politicians that call in to same?
I think I have found part of what you learned that is wrong: No alternatives. There are many alternatives and capitalism will plow the most efficient path. If we have a stiff carbon tax, wind and solar will prosper without any subsidy. Right now, investment in alternatives is repressed due to the volatility of energy prices. Investment will pile into new and more efficient energy if we know that gas and oil will remain expensive. If $40bbl oil will ruin a business, it is simply to risky to make the investment. Don't you have faith in capitalism? Isn't it the best allocator of resources? Won't we treat energy with more respect if we price in all of it's real costs (greenhouse gases, pollution, empowerment of bad actors, economic and military vulnerability, "defense" spending equal to the rest of the world combined)? Won't we be better served across the board - environmentally, economically and geopolitically?
So, Dithering Doc, should we just continue down this dangerous path, damn the scientists, until it is clear to the less educated, mediocre minds that we've got a problem? Is that the best you got?
Pearls before swine. Translated: are you really that dumb?
You write: You did not indicate the scope of skepticism within the scientific community.
No you rummy, because as I explained, at length, you rummy, there can be no accurate assessment of opinion. Let me make it simple? Rich, you know when they talk about 9 out of 10 doctors recommend? Buddy sorry...now sit down...they are lying. Which 10 doctors? What question?
There are not accurate polls on Presidential races days before the election. How can one accurately ascertain opinion within the scientific community on a complex, politically charged subject?
If they polled "O" popularity at black churches on Sunday, pretty good, Country Clubs on Saturday, not so much.
So it depends on who and how they are asked. I would suspect there is strong support for climate change in the climate change community. Duh. "OK, everyone working on models of climate change who depends on climate change for a living and works at universities or in government where everybody believes in climate change, stand up if you believe in climate change!"
You are truly drinking cool aid if you cannot view any such endeavor supported by such enthusiasm and intolerance with a great deal of skepticism.
The use of a Polar bear to evoke emotions was one of the first warning signs.
Dear Dithering Doc stuck in Denial,
How convenient! If your view is in the deep minority, then there simply is not a way to measure views, huh? Gosh - so there is no way we'll ever know what the scientific community thinks? It is 2009 and scientist's views cannot possibly be communicated? Wow. Apparently, one of us is just that dumb.
Scientists are united, save for 10% or so, that climate change is real, man made, and subject to mitigation. Facts is facts, no matter what you hear in the anti-science FNC echo chamber. Any rummy knows that...
I give up. I am not trying to have an argument with you about climate change as much as teach you that there can be no consensus in the scientific community without a level of evidence not available for the subject at hand.
It does not work that way.
Dear Daunted Doc facing Damning Data:
I sincerely appreciate your point, however, I disagree. I would much rather rely upon scientists to tell me when enough evidence is in. They say it has been in for some time now, loud and clear.
Your comments regarding polls are also erroneous. Polling provides valuable data and is certainly accurate enough to ascertain an opinion that shakes out roughly 9-1.
If the topic were heart disease and the cardiologist community were reporting a substantial majority with a particular view, I would value it far more than the opinion of MSNBC, CNN or FNC. Your collective opinion - even if a minority of skeptics claimed it was premature - would be AUTHORITATIVE. We would not need to wait until it is too late for the stubborn holdouts to say, "Okay - enough data in - we've got a serious problem."
Post a Comment