[Winstonm]

A science author, Maggie Koerth-Baker, makes the case that it is not really science but the way we are taught science in the U.S. that is our downfall in understanding and accepting the science of climate change: http://worldsciencef...and_uncertainty

Quote

What we have here is not a failure to communicate and accept the obvious effects of climate change. Instead, it’s a failure to communicate and accept a critical point of how science works, without which scientific literacy is reduced to mere talking points. This is about nuance and uncertainty, and if the American public doesn’t get those things, then we’ll never get climate change.

[kenberg]

I think, fundamentally, science is a way of looking at the world. It's a way of looking at the search for truth. It's one of those "You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think" sort of things. (Supposedly this was Dorothy Parker's response to a challenge to use "horticulture" in a sentence. I doubt this.)

As the man said, I have given up the search for truth and am now looking for a good fantasy.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2011-May-29, 15:40, said:

A science author, Maggie Koerth-Baker, makes the case that it is not really science but the way we are taught science in the U.S. that is our downfall in understanding and accepting the science of climate change: http://worldsciencef...and_uncertainty

IMO calling it the science of climate CHANGE comes across as partisian not the study of science.

We dont call it the study of Physics CHANGE or Chemistry CHANGE.

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2011-May-30, 09:35, said:

IMO calling it the science of climate CHANGE comes across as partisian not the study of science.

We dont call it the study of Physics CHANGE or Chemistry CHANGE.

Not really, to me "Climate change" is to climatology what physical chemistry is to chemistry, just a part of the whole, climate changes over time, that is not in doubt, what is in doubt is whether man has anything to do with it, there are lots of other things you can study in climatology as well.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2011-May-30, 09:35, said:

IMO calling it the science of climate CHANGE comes across as partisian not the study of science.

We dont call it the study of Physics CHANGE or Chemistry CHANGE.

Mike, your stupidity is showing

1. A wide number of scientific disciplines incorporate the word "kinetics".

Pharmocokinetics
Chemical kinetics
Enzyme kinetics

2. Strangely, I don't recall seeing all that much discussion of the "Science of Climate Change"

The expression climate change gets used all the time, however, its used to describe a hypothesis rather than a field of study.
The people who study this are typically described as

Climate scientists
Physicists
Meteorologists

[helene_t]

My guess would be that intellectuals just don't have the same amount of authority in the US as they have in other developed countries.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on 2011-May-30, 10:36, said:

My guess would be that intellectuals just don't have the same amount of authority in the US as they have in other developed countries.

maybe it's because the intellectual authority of "nuance and uncertainty" is so nebulous... then again, the authority given to these non-US intellectuals doesn't seem particularly favorable

[nigel_k]

I agree with Helene. The difference between the US and other countries is not understanding of science, but willingness to believe claims made by intellectuals. A good understanding of science in general is not enough to reach a conclusion about the magnitude of the threat posed by human induced carbon emissions. It would take a lot of study and even then, a definite conclusion might not be reached.

More than 99% of people with a definite opinion have formed it by deciding who to believe. The believers are typically people who have a lot of respect for academics and other intellectuals and/or have a pre-existing desire for more taxes and regulation, especially on big business. The non-believers are typically the opposite. The media fall mainly into the first category so that is of course a big factor as well.

[Winstonm]

In her article, the author used the recent spate of Southeastern U.S. tornadoes to illustrate the uncertainty of climate sciences, but with this she made IMO her best point.

Quote

The big question—Are tornadoes caused by climate change?—is made up of lots of little questions. And we don’t know all the answers to the little questions yet. This is still good science. We still have enough information to say something about how the world works. But that statement comes with a lot of caveats. It’s not really just a “yes” or “no” answer. It doesn’t follow party lines. And it doesn’t tell us what we should expect in the future.

This is scientific uncertainty—where the things we know and the things we don’t know collide, and we are left to figure out how to use what we have to make decisions anyway.

The issue is not a yes/no issue, but we will treat it as a yes/no issue. However, I'm not certain if that is due to our misunderstanding of the nature of science or whether it's because basically we are a bunch of bigoted asshats.

[barmar]

That's one of the most common problems people have with understanding science. When they hear that scientists are debating something (or worse, when a new theory replaces an old one), the conclusion they reach is "See, science doesn't really provide the answers." And anti-scientists pounce on these uncertainties, of which science has plenty: Creationists/IDer use them to support their claims; fossil fuel companies and the politicians in their pockets latch onto uncertainties in the precise proportion that natural causes and human activities contribute to global warming.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2011-May-30, 09:35, said:

IMO calling it the science of climate CHANGE comes across as partisian not the study of science.

We dont call it the study of Physics CHANGE or Chemistry CHANGE.

IMO complaining about calling it "the science of climate change" shows a bias that borders on fanatacism.

[hrothgar]

More like "Inventing a claim that people are using the expression 'the science of climate change'"

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on 2011-May-30, 16:05, said:

The issue is not a yes/no issue, but we will treat it as a yes/no issue.

do i take it from this that you think, for example, agw should not be viewed as a yes/no issue?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-May-31, 08:14, said:

do i take it from this that you think, for example, agw should not be viewed as a yes/no issue?

I don't recall anyone claiming that AGW is a "Yes /No" issue.
For that matter, I don't think that anyone claims that any scientific hypothesis is a "Yes / No" issue.

With this said and done, I do think that its possible to decide that it is prudent to accept AGW as a working hypothesis and take steps to mitigate the results (Even if that means, gasp, paying more taxes)

I also think that its possible to reach an informed decision to marginalize *****tards like the Heartland Institute.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on 2011-May-31, 08:14, said:

do i take it from this that you think, for example, agw should not be viewed as a yes/no issue?

What part of AGW? I think it is a misconception to talk about AGW as a single entity when it is a complex interaction of many variables. I kind of pointed that out in the original posting, I thought. But maybe not.

AGW is very much an issue of probabilities and likelihoods, not yeahs/nays. At this point as I understand it there are three pretty solid data points (perhaps more): 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2) Since the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 trapped in the atmosphere has risen 3) Global temperatures have risen.

Now, the issues are to determine if these data show correlations, causation, or coincidence. With something this complex, yes/no answers are far from clear and probably are impossible to determine.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2011-May-30, 10:36, said:

My guess would be that intellectuals just don't have the same amount of authority in the US as they have in other developed countries.

I believe that this is correct, and on balance I think that it is a good thing. But really we had better get moving on climate change.

[blackshoe]

Yes, let's change the climate. Too damn hot around here these days, and too damn cold in the winter. Let's fix that.

[phil_20686]

Post-Modernists talking about the cultural construction of meta-narratives, and the `fact' that `thinking' is controlled by language have ruined academia for all of us.

Now, if they are right, there is no truth, and academics can't be trusted.
If they are wrong then academics also fall into bizarre fallacies, and can't be trusted.
OF course, I used logic to reach this conclusion, so it can't be trusted.

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-31, 20:36, said:

Yes, let's change the climate. Too damn hot around here these days, and too damn cold in the winter. Let's fix that.

mate, just be glad we have a magnetic field, or it could be much worse. Mars has an 600C difference in temp according to lattitude!

[cherdano]

luke warm, on 2011-May-31, 08:14, said:

do i take it from this that you think, for example, agw should not be viewed as a yes/no issue?

Maybe it's a complicated question with many possible answers, but the only correct answer is a simple "YES"?