Science under attack

[Brundah1 (David)]

Peter wrote:

Then the opposite happened - EVERYTHING was bad, from the perfectly benign preservatives in your tinned spaghetti to, of all things EGGS!
Eggs for god sake!
I've never heard of anyone dying from eating an egg.

Well Peter now you have!

Our youngest grandchild was rushed to hospital with a severe reaction to egg. She has been diagnosed as strongly allergic to egg, her parents and my wife now all have "pens" in case she accidentally consumes egg.

No intention to highjack this thread into a debate on children's diet problems and increasing allergies.


Alex wrote;

Then the hypocracy... politicians see problems as opportunity for votes rather than actually providing a fix... the hypocracy (on both sides)surrounding the management of the percieved climate problem by politics is clear... but finally it all comes back to the poor scientist who simply did his job ..researched etc... so incorrectly the science is seen as hypocritical rather than the politics.

On the positive real science can take examination and review ..emotion is irrelevent ..

AND why is this show on anyways... one side or the other has caused it to be so... we will come away with a perception of reality created by the producers of this show... it will be interesting to see if they are grinding anyones axe in particular...

Will it change minds..I doubt it..each side will select the parts suitable to their current stand.

alex

Well put Alex.



Otherwise some thoughtful comments expressed. Science has always progressed because inquiring minds challenged the status quo.

I agree that statistics dressed up as new scientific facts, should be taken for what they are.

David

[netwolf]

First of all lets remove the words Truth and Faith from the sphere of Science. Science is neither a vehichle for finding truth nor is it a faith. Scince is an evolving understanding of the world around us. It evolves with the human element. The strong theories prevail and week fall to the side.

The scientific method is about proposing theories and testing those theories by observation and amending them to fit what we observe to draw conclusssions. These conclussions are not truth, because they rely on human observation and limits that go with that. But with the Scintific method it is a given that the theories will change with time, as we observe more and our understanding grows. It will provide a better model to approximate the evolving truth at that point in time.

However as I said before the limiting factor is the human element. That is unavoidable. There are vices and virtues to human nature. Unfortunately therfore the strong theories may not neccesarly be the best. Because one must consider, what are the influnce's behind the theory. For example Newtons particle theory ruled for 100 years simply because he was British, he was better known etc etc. Even when Einstien proposed relativity the British scientific community did not want him to be right simply because he was German. And we all know how that turned out.

The problem today is weeding out the best is more complex. Because we must also examine what is the agenda behind the theory. While this may seem paranoid, it is nevertheless true. This is the perhaps the only truth. The human element is influcned by factors outside the scientific method. Those can be political, captilist, religious etc etc. But they are there. And even if the theory is complelty without the above bias, some one will no doubt claim there is.

In the world today we have agendas set to drive profits. Can we really say the outcome of this will be truth? or even a close aproxmiation of the truth? Do you think big pharmcuiticals want you to know the truth? or chose there medicine?

The problem today is in being able to see that Bias. It is not simply about remvoing the dark frames from the light, we need Bias and Flat frame removal too

Science has been turned on itself to serve the influential. As such it is inevtiable that people will turn away from the theories. But I dont think people will ever turn away from the endevou of Science. This is the virutous side of the human element, that which is better will eventually surface and carry forward. We just need to be perecevere and be paitent. Keep putting forward new and invoitaive theories and keep chalenging that evolving understanding. That will not change and that is the Scientific method. Indeed the very exisitnace of this thread is proof of that.

[rat156]

Originally Posted by netwolf

First of all lets remove the words Truth and Faith from the sphere of Science. Science is neither a vehichle for finding truth nor is it a faith. Scince is an evolving understanding of the world around us. It evolves with the human element. The strong theories prevail and week fall to the side.

The scientific method is about proposing theories and testing those theories by observation and amending them to fit what we observe to draw conclusssions. These conclussions are not truth, because they rely on human observation and limits that go with that. But with the Scintific method it is a given that the theories will change with time, as we observe more and our understanding grows. It will provide a better model to approximate the evolving truth at that point in time.

However as I said before the limiting factor is the human element. That is unavoidable. There are vices and virtues to human nature. Unfortunately therfore the strong theories may not neccesarly be the best. Because one must consider, what are the influnce's behind the theory. For example Newtons particle theory ruled for 100 years simply because he was British, he was better known etc etc. Even when Einstien proposed relativity the British scientific community did not want him to be right simply because he was German. And we all know how that turned out.

The problem today is weeding out the best is more complex. Because we must also examine what is the agenda behind the theory. While this may seem paranoid, it is nevertheless true. This is the perhaps the only truth. The human element is influcned by factors outside the scientific method. Those can be political, captilist, religious etc etc. But they are there. And even if the theory is complelty without the above bias, some one will no doubt claim there is.

In the world today we have agendas set to drive profits. Can we really say the outcome of this will be truth? or even a close aproxmiation of the truth? Do you think big pharmcuiticals want you to know the truth? or chose there medicine?

The problem today is in being able to see that Bias. It is not simply about remvoing the dark frames from the light, we need Bias and Flat frame removal too

Science has been turned on itself to serve the influential. As such it is inevtiable that people will turn away from the theories. But I dont think people will ever turn away from the endevou of Science. This is the virutous side of the human element, that which is better will eventually surface and carry forward. We just need to be perecevere and be paitent. Keep putting forward new and invoitaive theories and keep chalenging that evolving understanding. That will not change and that is the Scientific method. Indeed the very exisitnace of this thread is proof of that.

A couple of semantic points here.

Firstly you, and a lot of others in the wider community, have their theories and hypotheses mixed up. What you have described in the first part of your post is a hypothesis. It is largely unknown as to it's relation to fact, but is usually under some sort of experimental testing. A theory on the other hand is a hypothesis that has undergone extensive testing and still fits the observable results, not fact, but accepted as so until contrary evidence comes to light.

Your post also touches on the perception that Science is untrustworthy, hey, it's even implied in the thread title. I think that the show on SBS exposed this as a myth, usually trotted out by someone with a vested interest in saying so. If you read the published, peer reviewed, literature from reputable journals then you get no bias. Large pharmaceutical companies do what every other company does, they look for the most lucrative target, not the one that will save the most lives, why are they criticised for this when every other company does the same thing? Most of us would be dead if it wasn't for the research undertaken by large Pharmaceutical companies, so give them some credit.

The show also exposed the bloke who broke "climategate" for the fraud he is. Unresearched, online "journalist" who took a couple of words out of context, never asked the person for a reasonable explanation, and is now on the lecture circuit peddling his trash. Do you think he's going to admit that it was all mountain out of molehill stuff? Who has the vested interest in this case? Perhaps if he was as scrupulous about HIS research as the scientist then there would be no such thing as "climategate".

An excellent show, showing that the climate change denialists are underinformed. I have to agree with Mike on this one. I didn't always, but have been swayed by the overwhelming evidence. Also I trust NASA and the Royal Society.

Hence the 3kW on the roof.

Next weeks show on at the same time looks good as well, might tell me whether the 3kW is worth it?

Thanks SBS.

Cheers
Stuart

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Really when it comes down to the nut of the argument I couldn't care whether it is human caused or not (I believe it is human induced) but it is happening and we have to deal with it the argument as to if it is human caused or not is just a way to gain power for the climate change deniers.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

I was just watching the recording of the program and the bit where the Climategate reporter was being interviewed and the analogy to cancer and the concensus view was put to him he looked completely befuddled and didn't want to or couldn't argue it so asked to only talk about climategate hardly a reliable position when you can't respond to a sensible argument.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

It is very clear that anyone still doubting the science and consensus on climate change and our significant hand in it is just being obstinate and unyielding for the sake of..?..well I dunno

Or perhaps they don't have the intellect and powers of scientific reasoning they thought they had...?

Or maybe they do have the brains to question some of the things they're told on today blatant TV propaganda.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I was just watching the recording of the program and the bit where the Climategate reporter was being interviewed and the analogy to cancer and the concensus view was put to him he looked completely befuddled and didn't want to or couldn't argue it so asked to only talk about climategate hardly a reliable position when you can't respond to a sensible argument.

The question was fairly biased though .. if one chooses to believe that Climate Change is lethal, then adopting recommended correctives measures would seem reasonable.
If on the other hand, one chooses to not believe that Climate Change is lethal, then the corrective measures would seem irrelevant.

This comment is more a reflection on the impartiality (or otherwise), of the documentary .. more than the issue at hand, mind you. Clearly the documentary was never really intended to present a completely impartial view ...

Cheers

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Or maybe they do have the brains to question some of the things they're told on today blatant TV propaganda.

So, The Royal Society partakes in propoganda..? Sorry but on this issue, you clearly need another eye Marc

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The question was fairly biased though .. if one chooses to believe that Climate Change is lethal, then adopting recommended correctives measures would seem reasonable.
If on the other hand, one chooses to not believe that Climate Change is lethal, then the corrective measures would seem irrelevant.

This comment is more a reflection on the impartiality (or otherwise), of the documentary .. more than the issue at hand, mind you. Clearly the documentary was never really intended to present a completely impartial view ...

Cheers

If you think that climate change is not lethal then why don't you move to one of these five nations under immediate threat right now.

"The first line of coconut trees has disappeared" - Kiribati inhabitant

While the world dithers about tackling climate change, in some parts of the world people are running out of time. In Florida sea level rises can be worked around to some extent - condos can be put on stilts and moved away from the shoreline. But on some islands you can only move back so far before you have to start worrying about the water at your back door as well as the water in front.

Here are five islands whose inhabitants are going to need a new home soon:

1. The Guardian reports today that the new president of the Maldives will be putting part of the country's profits from tourism into a very special - and unusual - fund: one that will be used to buy a new, climate-change-friendly home. With its highest point reaching only 2.4 metres, the Maldives is one of the lowest-lying nations in the world and risks being submerged by rising sea-levels.

2. Tuvalu is another small pacific island state, and after the Maldives the second-lowest nation in the world. At its highest, it is 5 metres above sea-level and could be gone by the middle of this century. In 2002, the government was said to have hired two international law firms to look into suing polluting nations for effectively evicting its citizens.
3. Kiribati is a group of 32 atols and one island that peaks at 6.5 metres above sea-level. The World Bank has been involved in assessing the nation's vulnerability to climate change. I attended a talk by one of the project leaders some years ago in Paris. She quoted a few of the changes which the islanders were noticing. The one that has always stuck with me was "the first line of coconut trees has disappeared". Salt-intrusion was killing off the trees that were closest to the water.

4. The inhabitants of the Carteret Islands of Papua New Guinea may be among the first climate refugees - their home lies just 1.2 metres above the waves. The government of Papua New Guinea adopted a plan in 2005 to evacuate the locals to the neighbouring island of Bougainville. The relocation was initially scheduled for 2007, then delayed. According to this report, there was a trial earlier this year, which created some tension as relocated citizens were used as labourers in coconut plantations on Bougainville.

5. In 1995, 500,000 inhabitants on Bangladesh's Bhola Island were forced to move in when half their island was permanently flooded. Some claim they were the first climate refugees. Scientists predict that 20 million Bangladeshis could suffer the same fate by 2030.

And the above nations will need somewhere to go or die so that causes more problems with refugees another hot topic doing the rounds

[TrevorW]

Regardless of what science says by my own observation what I believe is that both man and nature play a part in climate change

whatever man does to lessen his impact on the environment can only be good to both man and nature in the long run,

nature was here a long time before us it's timetable long established, so we should try and not disrupt the natural course of events

However in saying that as long we are driven by the pursuit of the almighty $$$ IMO little will be done to resolve this

[xelasnave]

I enjoyed the show.

Seeing the books in the library did it for me... they could have been dealing with any subject matter but the prospect of touching Newton;s book made me feel warm and fuzzy.

I think we have a clue that points to problems of scientists communicating valid ideas in a "non scientific" and presumably a non frightening way.(GM example).

I am still unconvinced a tax will have any impact on behaviour. That is a political view point and it doesnot matter for me who presents it as a solution..if Libs were in they would be grabbing at a tax also I suspect.

I spent 3 hours on Sunday whatching the car races,the truck races and the drag races...did you know a top fuel dragster uses 3inch fuel line to burn 60 litres of fuel for a 4.5 second race?
It seems odd that we will tolerate a tax which wont change this wasteful behaviour...Tax wont change those who want to use cars, trucks boats or planes as toys...

If we are smart enough to determine we have a major problem why is it we are not smart enough to take affirmative action that produces real change in behaviour. I feel my personal effort to maintain a 200 acre forest and live with only a solar panel for power is taken away in one run of a top fueler dragster.

If we subscribe to the arguement that we can set an example for others to follow cant we come up with something better than a consumption tax.

Further the debit/credit approach to carbon simply suggests to me that you can do what you like just pay for it..or off set it...if we are in crisis the goal must be reduction not a shuffling of credits tax etc to achieve a token result.

If the problem is as serious as presented tuff action is called for.

After the second world war goods were rationed to meet a problem less than the one we are told we will face because of climate change.

I think there is a consensus that the planet will warm more..the arguement as to what is responsible is somewhat irrellevant ...because if man induced a consumption tax or trading in carbon credits wont see the reduction needed to achieve change... it is the moving the deck chairs on the sinking ship approach.

One small point I do think calling anyone a "denier" is a terrible thing to do ...no one deserves the implication that they are in the same boat as those who deny you know what...the word should be confined to that aspect of history out of respect....it is a cruel and uncalled for insult that decency should cause you to abandon the use of the term. Its use is unhelpful to meaningful debate which will benefit from not resorting to emotional name calling.

This is a rush job please excuse my poor spelling etc.

alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

If you think that climate change is not lethal then why don't you move to one of these five nations under immediate threat right now.

And the above nations will need somewhere to go or die so that causes more problems with refugees another hot topic doing the rounds

Not a particularly good example of freedom of choice there, Warren.

A choice is made for no reasons .. freedom of being driven by thoughts or concerns from anywhere, or anything, thus demonstrating no bias. Moving to one of those places for reasons of not thinking climate change to be lethal, would not be an example of choice.

It would be an example of a decision.

A decision is made for reasons ..out of concerns and considerations coming from anywhere or anything, thus an active demonstration of one's bias.

Bias was an unashamed, yet invisible point behind this documentary .. which is OK .. just notice that, is all I'm saying.

Cheers

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I enjoyed the show.





If we subscribe to the arguement that we can set an example for others to follow cant we come up with something better than a consumption tax.

Further the debit/credit approach to carbon simply suggests to me that you can do what you like just pay for it..or off set it...if we are in crisis the goal must be reduction not a shuffling of credits tax etc to achieve a token result.

If the problem is as serious as presented tuff action is called for.


I think there is a consensus that the planet will warm more..the arguement as to what is responsible is somewhat irrellevant ...because if man induced a consumption tax or trading in carbon credits wont see the reduction needed to achieve change... it is the moving the deck chairs on the sinking ship approach.

One small point I do think calling anyone a "denier" is a terrible thing to do ...no one deserves the implication that they are in the same boat as those who deny you know what...the word should be confined to that aspect of history out of respect....it is a cruel and uncalled for insult that decency should cause you to abandon the use of the term. Its use is unhelpful to meaningful debate which will benefit from not resorting to emotional name calling.



alex

Well the government tried to do more than this but the opposition changed leader and sanity went with the old leader.

And as to calling people deniers and they are denying that it is real. I think that is much less offensive than calling people communist and commrade which seems to be the norm for people against what the government is doing

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Not a particularly good example of freedom of choice there, Warren.

A choice is made for no reasons .. freedom of being driven by thoughts or concerns from anywhere, or anything, thus demonstrating no bias. Moving to one of those places for reasons of not thinking climate change to be lethal, would not be an example of choice.

It would be an example of a decision.

A decision is made for reasons ..out of concerns and considerations coming from anywhere or anything, thus an active demonstration of one's bias.

Bias was an unashamed, yet invisible point behind this documentary .. which is OK .. just notice that, is all I'm saying.

Cheers

The people on those islands don't have the freedom of choice you are talking about their land is disappearing where is their choice which is what I am trying to demonstrate the world is taking these peoples choices away and will then try to refuse them refugee status when they have nowhere to go.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

The people on those islands don't have the freedom of choice you are talking about their land is disappearing where is their choice

Yet another point … just not the point I was making.

Cheers

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Yet another point … just not the point I was making.

Cheers

I was asking you to put yourself in these peoples place and try to look at the problem from their viewpoint only then can you say you have looked at all sides of the debate. To them Global warming is lethal if they stay where they are and possibly lethal if they try to escape to somewhere else

[xelasnave]

Hi there Supernova........you said....

And as to calling people deniers and they are denying that it is real. I think that is much less offensive than calling people communist and commrade which seems to be the norm for people against what the government is doing

I have stated my view on name calling you have stated yours I dont think we need argue about degrees of offensiveness ...name calling is offensive and just because your opponent uses such base tactics there is no need to lower ones self... no matter how you feel about the matter one should give respect to others irrespective of their position and avoiding name calling is a great place to start.

I have enjoyed reading your comments and the others here.

alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I was asking you to put yourself in these peoples place and try to look at the problem from their viewpoint only then can you say you have looked at all sides of the debate. To them Global warming is lethal if they stay where they are and possibly lethal if they try to escape to somewhere else

They too, have been exposed to the same presentation biases, as us.
They too, have beliefs shaped by those biases.

Cheers

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

They too, have been exposed to the same presentation biases, as us.
They too, have beliefs shaped by those biases.

Cheers

Their beliefs are shaped by the water washing over their homes and land not by what is in the media

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Their beliefs are shaped by the water washing over their homes and land not by what is in the media

Their beliefs have been shaped by presentation of the causes and predictions into the future.
(Amongst many other beliefs).

Cheers