# 18879 byvictoriatangoman on Dec. 18, 2003, 9:21 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>
> The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that
> anthropogenic global warming is a reality.
conclusion that you are an adherent of consensus science. I
understand the point you are making above and I just happen to think
that your use of the consensus argument is appropriate in this forum
where it wouldn't be in a professional forum. Are standards are
laxer here.
Nevertheless, I recalled your use of the consensus argument as I was
reading this lecture this morning and thought that I'd introduce it
into the mix for further consideration and reflection. This is just
a jumping off point for I want to touch on a number of issues raised
in the lecture.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
" the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary,
requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means
that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the
real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is
reproducible results."
Here he speaks to the issue I raised earlier about bad policy based
on popular science.
"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus
is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the
science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists
agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93
million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that
way. "
Here he writes about science as a tool of propoganda.
"Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once
you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything
is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization
against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In
another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you
subvert science to political ends."
Here is our segue back to the evironmental debate we've been having
and the occasional reliance on bad science. Also, the Star Chamber
treatment of Dr. Lomborg and the Scientific American hack-job
without giving him opportunity to confront his accusers.
"Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for
an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by
delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the
isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and
the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics"
in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives,
industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental
nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent
scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done."
"When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a
skeptic require quotation marks around it?"
Just as I've criticized the Poverty of Economics and its quasi-
tautological character and reliance on models that don't refelct
reality, I think that much climate science is suffering the same
fate and too has fallen at the feet of "model worship."
"To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global
warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on
models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were
invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived
with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer
models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are
models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-
increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a
reality."
Look here for another politicized scientific endeavor and the role
of computer models. The unholy troika of perversion of science,
computer modeling, and access to funding from public sources.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?
table=old§ion=current&issue 03-12-13&id=3830&searchText=aids
Back to the lecture text. Here Crichton speaks to the claim you make
above. I'm not in a position to validate or refute because I'm not
current on the literature. I do feel confident though in casting
light into the dark crevices of weakening scientific standards.
Standards must be maintained, even if at great cost and sacrifice,
otehrwise science will become just another opinion, no better and no
worse than religion.
"Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the
uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known,
so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong
limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate
change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive
detection of significant climate change are likely to remain
controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date
has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to
anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their
place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable
human influence on climate."
I have to rely on experts in order to make decisions in my job. So
too with these matters of opinion on the environment and other
beliefs and concerns in my private life. I'm not a global warming
denier, and if you look closely at Crichton's criticism, neither is
he. He's calling for better science on which to base decisions. I
agree with his position. Consider this policy prescription:
"Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in
this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by
private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be
pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The
institute must fund more than one team to do research in a
particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone
requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other
groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will
not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If
we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we
would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much
faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness
we must address this."
Crichton makes some coments about the Lomborg affair. He asks "Is
this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?"
Here is a recent incident that speaks to the McCarthyism:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller121703.asp?p=2
"six editors recently resigned from the journal Climate Research
because of this issue. Their crime: publishing the article "Proxy
Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years," by W.
Soon and S. Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics."
Note the author's comments below:
"Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my
scientist's instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I
am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not
the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be
extra cautious."
Here is a link to a story which illustrates what I think to be good
scietific *process.* I have no opinion on whether the analysis and
conclusions are correct but I applaud the process these scientists
are using. Constrast their position to that of Mann.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-
schulz_x.htm
"In an interview, McKitrick said, "If a study is going to be the
basis for a major policy decision, then the original data must be
disseminated and the results have to be reproducible. That's why in
our case we have posted everything online and invite outside
scrutiny.""
"Mann never made his data available online nor did many of the
earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his research.
That by itself raises questions about the U.N. climate-change
panel's scientific process."
In broad strokes, I see around me an ever growing legion of anti-
technologists and growing mysticism. If you happen to be lucky
enough to move in intellectual circles and have many companions and
colleagues who are good scientists perhaps these observations don't
slap you upside the head as they do me. I just have to look outside
my office window to see protests directed at logging practices,
global warming, fish harvesting, fish farms, and on and on. My
office just happens to be along the protest route :(
I don't know how to reason with these types of people and their
numbers are growing and I find that frighening.
I support mankind spreading beyond the Earth, and the symbiosis
between orbital Habitats and Earth. I fear that the benefits that
could accrue to Earth from orbital development will be actively
resisted by the mystically inclined, technical illiterati who will
pounce on the Disposable Earth rationale and other soapboxes to
thwart development when they see it competing with their agendas.
The only road to salvation I see it the extension of scientific
methodology to public discourse and the refutation of bad science.
I believe that the case for orbital development can be a well
reasoned one but reason but must also be acknowledged as the basis
for decision. This, I believe, is a stark counterpoint to what I see
in so much of environmentalism and the religious fervor of its
adherents. I'm reminded of my younger days when, in my college
dormitory, I would get into all-night debates with the religious
believers about the nature and existence of god. I'll admit it was
fun in a perverse sort of way to keep pounding away at illogical
positions but it was to no avail. As others have pointed out, reason
cannot penetrate faith. Thus, we should make all efforts to
inculcate good reasoning skills in our young citizens and foremost
among such skills should be the application of the scientific method
to realms of life beyond the laboratory.
TangoMan
P.S. Here are a few more links.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?
id=be62d32c-6799-4b84-ab7b-dcb0f93355f3
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
# 18880 byArthur P. Smith on Dec. 18, 2003, 10:28 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> "Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus
>
>is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the
>science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists
>agrees that E=mc2.
>
Um, yes we do. We get several hundred attempts every year by somebody
trying to publish a paper in our journals that claims "Einstein was
wrong", in ways that defy the scientific consensus. If you don't believe
the consensus, you'd better have some really really strong evidence that
puts it in doubt. There are weak anecdotal counters to one issue or
another (for example the much-hyped hockey stick graph, which is
basically irrelevant - the evidence in question is the record of the
last 150 years, which is not in doubt) but NO strong science argument
against human causation of global warming has stood the test of time.
>you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything
>is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization
>against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In
>another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you
>subvert science to political ends."
>
To my interpretation, Crichton is talking about politicization; i.e.
manipulation of science by politicians. Well, what do the politicians in
the US think about, say, global warming? The US senate renounced Kyoto,
as did our current president. The politically powerful in the US are
almost unanimous in their conesnsus against human causation of global
warming; one senator recently called it a great hoax. And yet the
scientists are almost unanimous on the other side. Where's the
"Lysenkoism" here? Much more worrisome on those grounds are what the
Bush administration has been doing to mess with science by stacking
panels with political appointees; the medical community has been
particularly appalled by some of the actions recently taken.
>[...]
>
>The only road to salvation I see it the extension of scientific
>methodology to public discourse and the refutation of bad science.
>
But what are your criteria? Did you read the AGU statement? Did you read
the science behind it? It's a very very strong case. If, after years of
disputation, essentially all the climate scientists have come to
agreement sufficiently to make this statement, why are you so opposed to
it? You say our salvation is in applying scientific methodology - well
let's apply it! Science is not about anecdote, it's about the weight of
the evidence. Exceptions should be looked at and understood, but only in
the context of the big picture. Have you or any of the rest of us read
any substantial part of the climate literature? No, of course not - but
AGU members certainly have. We see in the media highlights of what the
politically powerful want us to see, and here in the US, the politically
powerful very much want us to believe it's a hoax, so any contrary
evidence gets hyped to the skies.
By the way, did you see the AGU statement highlighted in any US media? I
know I didn't - the only place I heard about it was on the BBC.
Arthur
# 18881 byvictoriatangoman on Dec. 18, 2003, 11:08 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
> Bush administration has been doing to mess with science by
> stacking panels with political appointees; the medical community
> has been particularly appalled by some of the actions recently
> taken.
Very troubling indeed! Speaks to the same process I'm criticizing.
Science will end up being just another opinion at the table.
> But what are your criteria? Did you read the AGU statement? Did
you read
> the science behind it? It's a very very strong case. If, after
years of
> disputation, essentially all the climate scientists have come to
> agreement sufficiently to make this statement, why are you so
opposed to
> it?
Perhaps I need to work on my writing skills. I'm not opposed to it
and I'm uncertain of how that message is being conveyed in my
writing.
Look here for my position.
Even the AGU scientists are calling for good science to be used. Why
is that EVEN NECESSARY?
> We see in the media highlights of what the politically powerful
> want us to see, and here in the US, the politically powerful very
> much want us to believe it's a hoax, so any contrary evidence gets
> hyped to the skies.
And as a sophisticated citizen, you should invoke your bullshit
detector and take with a major grain of salt what the media reports.
They want you to believe it's a hoax because it serves the vested
interests of their corporate masters. Account for that in your
analysis.
Same process for the doomsayers in the environmental movement. They
too have vested interests and pervert science to make their case.
I try to latch on to information that has certainty to it and assign
varying value to less certain information.
As for the bullshit detecter, keep in mind how definite everyone was
about global cooling, in fact some of those same people are now
involved in the global warming advocacy.
My life would be simpler if I could count on the scientific
literature to be accurate and not have to sift through it for
qualifications and equivications. These latter I regard as more
opinion than fact.
The Scientific American debacle and now the firing this week of the
editors of a journal because they published a piece that passed
scrutiny but ran counter to orthodoxy are both sullying my respect
for science. This means that I have to scrutinize more and can rely
less on the integrity of the editors.
> By the way, did you see the AGU statement highlighted in any US
> media? I know I didn't - the only place I heard about it was on
> the BBC.
>
> Arthur
No I didn't. Quite frankly, I stopped counting on media being a
reliable source of good information. Too much of what is printed now
are just press releases and gossip. There is too much ideology, both
left and right, for my taste. The media are becoming less reporters
of the truth and more spinners of ideology.
TangoMan
# 18882 byvictoriatangoman on Dec. 18, 2003, 11:31 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"
> reliable source of good information. Too much of what is printed
> now are just press releases and gossip. There is too much
> ideology, both left and right, for my taste. The media are
> becoming less reporters of the truth and more spinners of ideology.
>
> TangoMan
Case in point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3320713.stm
and the analysis:
http://impearls.blogspot.com/2003_12_14_impearls_archive.html#1071671
24781136172
TangoMan
# 18883 byAndrew Case on Dec. 18, 2003, 3:42 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>>
>> The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that
>> anthropogenic global warming is a reality.
>
> Andrew, from our past conversations I have not come to the
> conclusion that you are an adherent of consensus science. I
> understand the point you are making above and I just happen to think
> that your use of the consensus argument is appropriate in this forum
> where it wouldn't be in a professional forum.
detail, it's fundamentally different from when it's between people who
haven't looked at the data and worked through all the analysis. When
it comes to global warming only a wacko could conclude that there is no
human impact or that there is no warming. The data is solid, the
science is rigorous. There is room to argue about relative magnitudes
of impact, but not about the fact of warming or the means by which
human activity contributes.
> Nevertheless, I recalled your use of the consensus argument as I was
> reading this lecture this morning and thought that I'd introduce it
> into the mix for further consideration and reflection. This is just
> a jumping off point for I want to touch on a number of issues raised
> in the lecture.
>
> http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
>
> " the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
> Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary,
> requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means
> that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the
> real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is
> reproducible results."
This means that paleontology isn't a science since it doesn't permit
testing of results. Crichton is incorrect here. What matters is
consistency of observations with theory. A single observation that
cannot be reconciled with a given theory destroys that theory. That is
the reason consensus is important. If scientists can't agree on the
consistency of observation with a given theory, then the theory is on
shaky ground. If scientists independently examining evidence in light
of the theory all agree, then the theory is well supported. Consensus
doesn't mean the theory is right, since everyone may have made the same
mistake. However, in the face of consensus the standard that must be
met in order to overturn the theory is necessarily higher.
>
> Here he writes about science as a tool of propoganda.
>
> "Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once
> you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything
> is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization
> against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In
> another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you
> subvert science to political ends."
This presumes that science tells us something unambiguous. Often it
does not. Strict adherence to what science tells us may give no useful
information about policy decisions. In those cases where it does, the
policy maker has to rely on the scientific consensus. There will
always be a few individuals who disagree, but the scientific consensus
will lie closer to the truth than other options in the vast majority of
cases.
> Back to the lecture text. Here Crichton speaks to the claim you make
> above. I'm not in a position to validate or refute because I'm not
> current on the literature. I do feel confident though in casting
> light into the dark crevices of weakening scientific standards.
> Standards must be maintained, even if at great cost and sacrifice,
> otehrwise science will become just another opinion, no better and no
> worse than religion.
>
> "Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the
> uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known,
> so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong
> limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate
> change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive
> detection of significant climate change are likely to remain
> controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
> of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date
> has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to
> anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their
> place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable
> human influence on climate."
You do know what "the balance of evidence" means, right? It means
merely that there is more evidence in favor than against. It's
trivially true in the case of global warming given the level of
understanding in 1995. 8 years later there is very much more evidence
on the pro side and only a little more on the anti side. The balance
has tilted much more in favor of the pro side. The various
formulations given above are all consistent with one another. It seems
to me Crichton is looking for problems where there aren't any.
Politicization of science is a real problem, in climate studies and
elsewhere, but these examples are lousy.
> Here is a link to a story which illustrates what I think to be good
> scietific *process.* I have no opinion on whether the analysis and
> conclusions are correct but I applaud the process these scientists
> are using. Constrast their position to that of Mann.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-
> schulz_x.htm
From the story: "Mann never made his data available online nor did
many of the earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his
research." This is flatly false. Mann's data has been available online
since July 2002. USA Today was forced to print a retraction, but that
doesn't get the kind of press the original false accusation gets.
>
> "In an interview, McKitrick said, "If a study is going to be the
> basis for a major policy decision, then the original data must be
> disseminated and the results have to be reproducible. That's why in
> our case we have posted everything online and invite outside
> scrutiny.""
>
> "Mann never made his data available online nor did many of the
> earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his research.
> That by itself raises questions about the U.N. climate-change
> panel's scientific process."
Mann made his data available. There is no reason to demand it be
available online - this just gives an excuse for slinging mud. When
called on it McKitrick can point to the word "online" and say that
makes his statement true, even though the only requirement for
scientific integrity is that the data be available to those who want to
verify the results. In fact, since July of 2002 the statement is no
longer true, and prior to that the data was available directly from
Mann. McKitrick is playing a nasty little smear game here. If
McKitrick can't be bothered to pick up the phone and call Mann, that's
no indictment of Mann.
The accusations of bad science are as often as not being thrown by
people who are themselves practitioners of "political science."
......Andrew
# 18884 byvictoriatangoman on Dec. 18, 2003, 6:28 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> When it comes to global warming only a wacko could conclude that
> there is no human impact or that there is no warming. The data is
> solid, the science is rigorous. There is room to argue about
> relative magnitudes of impact, but not about the fact of warming
> or the means by which human activity contributes.
debate nor made any of the the claims you reference. Nor has anyone
argued against your analysis.
> Consensus doesn't mean the theory is right, since everyone may
> have made the same mistake. However, in the face of consensus the
> standard that must be met in order to overturn the theory is
> necessarily higher.
I'm not sure if you're arguing against Crichton's positon or not,
for your statement supports his contention. Falsifiability trumps
consensus. Further, history is repleat with scientific blind alleys.
Crichton is saying absent good methodology and methodological
naturalism, consensus on an incomplete hypothesis is an insufficient
standard on which to proclaim understanding. The understanding is
only tenative.
I don't see your position as being any different from Crichtons.
Either I'm missing your point, I didn't read Crichton's essay
carefully enough, or you're reading more into his essay than is
there. I'm ascribing no motives to Crichton in writing this essay
other than his desire for good process in science.
> This presumes that science tells us something unambiguous. Often
> it does not.
How can that be so? Crichton stressses the importance of
reproducability. If results can be independently verified, then by
definition that are unambiguous. In your commentary you wrote "What
matters is consistency of observations with theory." If the results
are consistent then they are unambiguous.
If the results are open for interpretation then by Crichton's
defintion they're not good science, and by my interpretation of your
comments the theory does not withstand scrutiny.
I can't find a way to reconcile your two statements. You need to
provide more qualification to make them consistent. Maybe I'm just
dense and I'm not seeing the obvious. Either way, I'd appreciate
some clarification.
> Strict adherence to what science tells us may give no useful
> information about policy decisions.
Science isn't designed as a policy analysis tool. It shouldn't be
twisted to serve a purpose if can't do so within the terms of
scientific process. Twisting science only weakens its strengths. Is
this sounding like gibberish or are you getting what I'm trying to
say?
> In those cases where it does, the policy maker has to rely on the
> scientific consensus.
Crichton isn't saying that consensus is bad, in and of itself.
Reliance on consensus absent reproducability or consistency of
observation with theory is dangerous, for the scientific basis of
policy could be overturned in the future when a better hypothesis is
devised to explain the observations. There is wide consensus on
Newtonian physics. Nothing wrong with that. There is no such
consensus on String Theory. The lack of consensus doesn't mean that
given further work the String Theorists may be right. The consensus
is that Pons and Fleischman are wrong. That consensus won't matte a
whit if they produce results that are verifiable.
This whole question can quickly turn into a Popper vs. Kuhn
epistemological analysis with no end in sight. I'm concerned with a
more pragmatic issue - can science still be trusted and how far has
the politicization gone?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/290121.stm
The fact that I ask this question doesn't mean that I deny the
existance of global warming. What it does mean is that I'm a skeptic
and see before me the weakening of standards. The AGU deems it
worthy to include in their statement that:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
"AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and
decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed
research results."
This is telling me that this practice is not necessarily being
followed and the governing body is looking to tighten up standards
in the future. Why is this not a concern to you?
I think Crichton is saying the reliance on computer modeling, which
is continually being tweaked, and the treatment of modeling results
as equivalent to observable results are major problems in the field.
The fact that climate scientists are reaching consensus on using
modeling results does not speak to the correctness of their
consensus and conversely, their consensus doesn't speak to the
correctness of the data nor conclusions. As you yourself pointed out
consensus can lead to error. Verifiable and reproducable data which
fits theory is a better measure of science and a better foundation
for policy.
> There will always be a few individuals who disagree, but the
> scientific consensus will lie closer to the truth than other
> options in the vast majority of cases.
The rise of skepticism in the general public probably correlates
pretty well with the efforts to quash dissent within the
professional bodies. I'm not referring to ideologically driven
skepticism by people who have a vested interest. I've got no dog in
this hunt. I've no industrial vested interests to protect nor do I
have a career in the climate sciences in which I need to appease
journal editors, journal review committees, and funding agencies
which have a stake in the results.
The treatment I'm witnessing of the skeptics who publish results
contrary to the orthodoxy raises troubling questions for me. If the
consensus was so strongly built on a foundation of observations that
fit a theory and reproducable results consistently confirmed the
theory, then Lomborg could have been thoroughly, patiently and
publicly refuted. What happened instead is the Star Chamber. This is
not a ringing endorsement for the position of the consensus.
> > "Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the
> > uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be
> > known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued
> > strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about
> > climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of
> > positive detection of significant climate change are likely to
> > remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural
> > variability of the climate system are reduced." It also
> > said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of
> > observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those
> > statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The
> > balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on
> > climate."
> You do know what "the balance of evidence" means, right? It means
> merely that there is more evidence in favor than against.
Yes, I know that.
> It's trivially true in the case of global warming given the level
> of understanding in 1995.
The two statements in the above paragraph are saying two different
things. The original stated that a claim of anthropogenic causation
would be controversial and *without foundation.* The second
statement tells the reader that the odds favor some *measurable*
human influence.
My questions to you are as follows:
1.) Th IPCC draft report was using the same data and yet reached two
startlingly different conclusions that are incompatible with each
other. How is that possible? Is science now a popularity contest
where the conclusions are determined by a popular vote of ideology,
absent factual basis?
2.) How can the balance of evidence support human causation when
there is no evidence of human causation? Normally this question
would be meaningless, for it reads like gobblygook, but it is a true
summation of the IPCC situation. Where is the science?
3.) The level of understanding in 1995 is what is at issue, not the
level 8 years later. Given the understanding at the time, how is it
that the conclusion could be supported by the science known at the
time?
> 8 years later there is very much more evidence on the pro side and
> only a little more on the anti side. The balance has tilted much
> more in favor of the pro side. The various formulations given
> above are all consistent with one another.
Given that there is ample evidence that the environmental science
field is rampantly politicized and that funding agencies have a
stake in the results, I hold a high degree of skepticism on whether
objective science is being done. I would expect that the favored
results would be the results that are sought after in the
experimentation design and computer modeling algorythms (which I
will restate are not the same thing as observable and reproducable
data.)
> It seems to me Crichton is looking for problems where there aren't
> any.
Actually, I surprised at your criticism. I'm leery of engaging in
this debate with a physicist for your resources in marhalling data
will be greater than mine but why you're not taking the side of
advocating good scientific practice in light of evidence to the
contrary is beyond me. Actually the burden is easier on me for all
I have to do is produce evidence of suppression of dissent to
falsify your position that good science is being done. Your
hypothesis will not stand. It seems odd to me that I'm arguing that
position against you. What's going on here? (I hope it's clear to
you and Arthur that I'm not denying global warming, just shoddy
science.)
Crichton is saying there is shoddy work going on that is being
passed off as fact. The IPCC report is prima facia evidence of just
that. The AGU statment calls for a process of solid science and is
thus a tacit acknowledgement of previous transgressions.
Don't shoot the messenger and assign to him motives which are not
elucidated within the article.
> Politicization of science is a real problem, in climate studies
> and elsewhere, but these examples are lousy.
So you agree with Crichton but wished he used better examples to
make his case. OK, I think that that's a valid criticism of his
article. To me, the examples were sufficient to make the case.
> > Here is a link to a story which illustrates what I think to be
> > good scietific *process.* I have no opinion on whether the
> > analysis and conclusions are correct but I applaud the process
> > these scientists are using. Constrast their position to that of
> > Mann.
> Mann's data has been available online since July 2002. USA Today
> was forced to print a retraction, but that doesn't get the kind of
> press the original false accusation gets.
You'll note that my concern was with process and not the results. In
light of your information I have no issue with Mann's process.
> McKitrick is playing a nasty little smear game here. If
> McKitrick can't be bothered to pick up the phone and call Mann,
> that's no indictment of Mann.
You're correct. I don't know what is the story behind the scenes
between these two but this type of acrimony is unsettling to the
integrity of the process.
It seems to me that there has recently been a more concerted effort
to get out the science that is bucking the orthodoxy. We'll see in
short order whether that science will get repudiated. The battles
the public have witnessed have been nasty and I wonder what has gone
on behind the scenes and what careers have been threatened or
damaged.
Just a very bad scene.
> The accusations of bad science are as often as not being thrown by
> people who are themselves practitioners of "political science."
>
> ......Andrew
That is Crichton's point! Smears, suppression, political favoritism,
pandering to special interests for funding, etc are all doing a
disservice to the scientific method.
TangoMan
# 18885 byAl Globus on Dec. 19, 2003, 11:49 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>> Much more worrisome on those grounds are what the
>> Bush administration has been doing to mess with science by
>> stacking panels with political appointees; the medical community
>> has been particularly appalled by some of the actions recently
>> taken.
>
> Very troubling indeed! Speaks to the same process I'm criticizing.
> Science will end up being just another opinion at the table.
is, in fact, nothing more (or less) than the consensus of most (never
all) of the current crop of scientists. What makes the scientific
tradition so effective at finding truth is that the current set of
facts and theories can be overturned by very high quality experiment or
observation. This has happened several times, the classic example
being relativistic physics. However, as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.
With regard to Bush: according to 'Science,' the AAAS journal, one
scientist being interviewed for a low-level scientific governmental
panel was asked who she voted for in the last election. When she said
Gore, the caller asked her why she didn't support the president. 'Nough
said.
The International Space Station's (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was a terrific space
station, but by the time of Tito's trip it was also old, smelly,
crowded and probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shiny,
much more roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts
of how great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
# 18886 byLucio de Souza Coelho on Dec. 19, 2003, 1:38 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> Case in point:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3320713.stm
>
> and the analysis:
>
> http://impearls.blogspot.com/2003_12_14_impearls_archive.html#1071671
> 24781136172
whatsoever that the BBC Article was putting the Wright Brother's flight
in doubt; actually, my feeling was that the article portrayed the
Santos-Dumont cult as a kind of exotic phenomenon of mass delusion. In
fact, the BBC article adds to the negative tone by even saying that
Santos-Dumont was "disillusioned" by the Wright Brothers flights -
something that I have never heard of and that smells of dramatization.
Santos-Dumont was an "open source" guy - the blueprints of his
inventions were published in technical magazines at the time with no
worries about patents and secrecy - and was always described as a very
reserved person a bit averse to all the prizes and celebrations in his
honor, so there seems to be little reason for personal envy or
commercial rivalry with the Wright. Anyhow, maybe I am wrong about this
last critique - I would better first read a serious biography about
Santos-Dumont, preferably something written from some "neutral"
(non-Brazilian) point of view, like "Wings of Madness"
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786866594/qid71861607/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5627780-7143239).
The rant in the second link proceeds when Mr. McNeils writes "even if it
took place" about the flight of the 14-Bis (Santos-Dumont's first plane
- the one in the 1906 flight) - as if he were casting doubt about this
well-documented, film-registered
(http://www.aeromania.com.br/IMAGEM/materias/dummont/filme.mov, link
extracted from the article
http://www.aeromania.com.br/ART_SantosDumont.aspx) fact.
More to the point, what would BBC gain by supposedly "casting shadows"
over the Wright Brothers? Mr. McNeil should provide a reason, like in
any "good" conspiracy theory ("Aliens mutilate cattle because they want
beef" or "Elvis simulated his own death because he did not want to be
remembered as a fat middle-age guy", and so on).
Lucio Coelho
# 18887 byValens Agnitio on Dec. 19, 2003, 1:43 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>More to the point, what would BBC gain by supposedly "casting shadows"
>over the Wright Brothers? Mr. McNeil should provide a reason, like in
>any "good" conspiracy theory ("Aliens mutilate cattle because they want
>beef" or "Elvis simulated his own death because he did not want to be
>remembered as a fat middle-age guy", and so on).
>
>Lucio Coelho
>
Elvis and aliens in the same paragraph... What are you trying to say? And
what will Paul think! :)
Val
# 18888 byAndrew Case on Dec. 19, 2003, 2 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>
>> Consensus doesn't mean the theory is right, since everyone may
>> have made the same mistake. However, in the face of consensus the
>> standard that must be met in order to overturn the theory is
>> necessarily higher.
>
> I'm not sure if you're arguing against Crichton's positon or not,
> for your statement supports his contention. Falsifiability trumps
> consensus. Further, history is repleat with scientific blind alleys.
> Crichton is saying absent good methodology and methodological
> naturalism, consensus on an incomplete hypothesis is an insufficient
> standard on which to proclaim understanding. The understanding is
> only tenative.
>
> I don't see your position as being any different from Crichtons.
> Either I'm missing your point, I didn't read Crichton's essay
> carefully enough, or you're reading more into his essay than is
> there. I'm ascribing no motives to Crichton in writing this essay
> other than his desire for good process in science.
things I'm objecting to. Science never produces definitive answers.
Theories gain credibility by not being falsified despite repeated
testing. There is no black and white in science, just varying shades
of grey. The issue isn't bad science, it's poor public understanding of
science.
>
>> This presumes that science tells us something unambiguous. Often
>> it does not.
>
> How can that be so? Crichton stressses the importance of
> reproducability. If results can be independently verified, then by
> definition that are unambiguous. In your commentary you wrote "What
> matters is consistency of observations with theory." If the results
> are consistent then they are unambiguous.
>
> If the results are open for interpretation then by Crichton's
> defintion they're not good science, and by my interpretation of your
> comments the theory does not withstand scrutiny.
It's possible for a fact to be unambiguous and still open to
interpretation. Joe is observed with a gun in his hand, Bob lies dead
at his feet. These are the facts. Is Joe a murderer? Not enough
information to decide. There may be other facts which lend weight to
one or other interpretation (Bob is a well known violent criminal, Joe
is a police officer, ...) but unless all the facts are known we cannot
come to a solid conclusion. In fact, we can most likely never know all
the facts, unless a totally trustworthy person videotaped everything
that happened.
>> Strict adherence to what science tells us may give no useful
>> information about policy decisions.
>
> Science isn't designed as a policy analysis tool. It shouldn't be
> twisted to serve a purpose if can't do so within the terms of
> scientific process. Twisting science only weakens its strengths. Is
> this sounding like gibberish or are you getting what I'm trying to
> say?
It sounds a lot like you're expecting much clearer answers than science
can reliably give in many cases. Policy decisions do have to be made,
one way or another. In some cases we have only poorly supported
theories on which to base policy decisions, decisions which nonetheless
have to be made. There is no way to avoid this problem. Under these
circumstances people will try to argue for their side, and will use
science to make their arguments. It's a fact of life. In the long
term good science drives out bad, but there is no scientific process
that gives fully formed rigorous results right off the bat. It takes
time and hard work, and in the process incorrect theories are
propounded and argued for. That's not bad science, it's the way
science works - we need different theories attempting to explain data,
and we can't know a priori which ones are going to turn out to be able
to explain new data as it comes in. As science is building better
theories, there is a great deal of messiness. The fact that this
messiness allows for politicization isn't particularly troubling,
because science is self correcting in the long run. Bad science comes
not from politicization as such, but from outright fraud or from
extreme sloppiness on the part of individual scientists. The real
problem is in the political realm, not the scientific one.
>
> This whole question can quickly turn into a Popper vs. Kuhn
> epistemological analysis with no end in sight. I'm concerned with a
> more pragmatic issue - can science still be trusted and how far has
> the politicization gone?
You can never trust results that are hot off the press. Until there
has been enough time to examine them in detail they have to be treated
as provisional. The politicization problem is not new, and it's not
serious. Crichton is overreacting, and looking at science as having
been corrupted when in fact the problem lies with policy makers failing
to understand what they are dealing with.
> "AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and
> decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed
> research results."
>
> This is telling me that this practice is not necessarily being
> followed and the governing body is looking to tighten up standards
> in the future. Why is this not a concern to you?
Yes. I read this as being a warning to policy makers, not scientists.
The scientists are doing fine. The political use of their work-product
is what's troubling. In some cases the people doing the politicization
are scientists themselves, and they should be opposed.
>
>>> "Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the
>>> uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be
>>> known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued
>>> strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about
>>> climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of
>>> positive detection of significant climate change are likely to
>>> remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural
>>> variability of the climate system are reduced." It also
>>> said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of
>>> observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those
>>> statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The
>>> balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on
>>> climate."
>
>> You do know what "the balance of evidence" means, right? It means
>> merely that there is more evidence in favor than against.
>
> Yes, I know that.
>
>> It's trivially true in the case of global warming given the level
>> of understanding in 1995.
>
> The two statements in the above paragraph are saying two different
> things. The original stated that a claim of anthropogenic causation
> would be controversial and *without foundation.* The second
> statement tells the reader that the odds favor some *measurable*
> human influence.
No. The first statement says that the basis for anthropogenic
causation has not been established to a degree of certainty exceeding
the uncertainty in the relevant measurements. That's not without
foundation, it's just a requirement for more data. The second
statement says that the balance of the data in hand (which is not
sufficient for a rigorous conclusion) favors the anthropogenic
causation hypothesis. Evidence can be suggestive without being
conclusive, and that is what both statements imply. The language used
to describe this fact is different between the two formulations, and I
suggest that this is due to the likelihood that the first formulation
would be interpreted as saying there is no evidence when in fact there
was copious evidence.
> My questions to you are as follows:
>
> 1.) Th IPCC draft report was using the same data and yet reached two
> startlingly different conclusions that are incompatible with each
> other. How is that possible? Is science now a popularity contest
> where the conclusions are determined by a popular vote of ideology,
> absent factual basis?
See above. The exact same state of verification can be described in
different ways. Some descriptions lend themselves to certain political
uses, others lend themselves to other political uses. The IPCC clearly
favored taking anthropogenic warming seriously, so they changed their
description of the state of verification to one less likely to be
misinterpreted by non-scientists.
> 2.) How can the balance of evidence support human causation when
> there is no evidence of human causation? Normally this question
> would be meaningless, for it reads like gobblygook, but it is a true
> summation of the IPCC situation. Where is the science?
There is plenty of evidence. The fact that the error bars are large
just means that the evidence isn't sufficient for rigorous conclusions.
Nonetheless, it may be suggestive without being rigorous. It's not a
black and white situation, it's shades of grey.
>
>> It seems to me Crichton is looking for problems where there aren't
>> any.
>
> Actually, I surprised at your criticism. I'm leery of engaging in
> this debate with a physicist for your resources in marhalling data
> will be greater than mine but why you're not taking the side of
> advocating good scientific practice in light of evidence to the
> contrary is beyond me. Actually the burden is easier on me for all
> I have to do is produce evidence of suppression of dissent to
> falsify your position that good science is being done.
I'm not claiming good science is being done, just that science isn't
somehow threatened by total political corruption. There are robust
self correcting mechanisms that are still working. Individual problems
don't threaten the whole. Just look at the news: Lomborg just got the
finding of scientific dishonesty thrown out. It took time, but it
happened. In due course the truth will come out about these other
issues, too. The real problem is not that science is being corrupted,
it's that it's being misused. Scientific theories and facts take time
to develop the level of verification needed to justify making policy
based on them, and people don't want to wait.
Merry nondenominational solstice-associated festivities to you and
yours :-)
......Andrew
# 18889 byPaul D. Fernhout on Dec. 19, 2003, 3:24 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>>"Aliens mutilate cattle because they want beef"
>>remembered as a fat middle-age guy"
> And what will Paul think! :)
It's obvious -- Elvis was an alien who must have eaten organic beef! :-)
By the way, we just started getting our organic grass fed beef from:
http://www.lgbeef.com/
"Lasater Grasslands Beef is great tasting and full of flavor because
our cattle are finished on grass; they spend their entire lives grazing
in open pastures and are never confined in feedlots and fed grain. They
are not given growth hormones, are not fed low-level antibiotics and are
not treated with pesticides. That means the goodness of nature comes
through in the taste of our beef. Lasater Grasslands Beef is better for
the environment because our cattle are raised with a 100-percent
environmentally sustainable process. They harvest the energy of the sun
in the form of native forages. Their carefully managed grazing provides
the hoof impact and fertilization vital to the Great Plains, mimicking
what once was provided by the herds of migrating bison. Land is damaged
by continuous grazing and overgrazing- things our grazing plan seeks to
avoid. Lasater Grasslands Beef is better for you. The native grasses of
the open plains and our cattle's quality of life combine to produce beef
that is leaner, higher in omega-3 fatty acids and completely free of
man-made additives."
They can ship forty pounds or so at a time two-day overnight in a cooler
frozen with dry ice. We otherwise try to eat lower on the food chain --
I guess we somehow feel intelligence per pound is lowest with beef.
I might point out grass fed beef might be a possible industry to have
under a SSPS rectenna. :-) Don't know if it would get away with being
certified "organic" though.
--Paul Fernhout
# 18890 byHuebner, Jay on Dec. 19, 2003, 3:35 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Cows that graze the open range eat what ever meteorite dust falls on the grass, which includes iridium, etc. Space colonies would have cleaner grass. But why are you trying to sell animal flesh on this e-mail list? Does eating this meat give you bad manners? Jay Huebner
By the way, we just started getting our organic grass fed beef from:
# 18891 byRyan Z on Dec. 19, 2003, 3:41 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Since everyone is way off topic i might as well join
in.
>
> >>"Aliens mutilate cattle because they want beef"
>
> >>"Elvis simulated his own death because he did not
> want to be
> >>remembered as a fat middle-age guy"
>
> > And what will Paul think! :)
>
> It's obvious -- Elvis was an alien who must have
> eaten organic beef! :-)
>
Forget organic beef, go with Kobe beef. Why bother
with stupid grass fed cows when you can have the best,
a cow who is fed beer and massaged with Sake
(http://www.kobe-beef.com/qanda.html).
Just remember, happy cows make happy beef!
Ryan Z
(who hates the term organic as it implies all other
material not with the label are inorganic which is
simply not true)
# 18892 byPaul D. Fernhout on Dec. 19, 2003, 7:08 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> Cows that graze the open range eat what ever meteorite dust falls on
> the grass, which includes iridium, etc. Space colonies would have
> cleaner grass.
under rectennas are realistic (although this is sometimes cited as one
compatible use). Won't metal pieces from the assembly (loose bolts and
odds and ends of metal and such) end up on the rangeland? And won't
pillar supports get in the way of groups of cattle (like if they
stampede)? Perhaps rectennas could be geodesic domes to avoid having
interior supports?
> But why are you trying to sell animal flesh on this e-mail list? Does
> eating this meat give you bad manners?
Not especially, just mostly gas. :-) But another good point. I'll try to
keep things more on-topic in the future.
--Paul Fernhout
# 18893 byValens Agnitio on Dec. 19, 2003, 10:28 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
And just think, that beef would be preheated for you (by microwaves!).
By-the-way, as far as food is concerned, I had read some figures indicating
that beef (and other large animals) is an inefficient food source - using a
lot of arable land for a given amount of calories/nutrition, as opposed to
crops. Have you heard that? I ask while thinking about what would be the
most efficient food source for space habitats, or even moon or martian ones,
where space and resources are at a premium.
Val
P.S. I think that you could call it organic, since microwaves are
non-ionizing, and therefore shouldn't change the molecular structure from au
natural. Also, you could graze them in much colder climes due to microwave
heating :)
# 18894 byDonald Brewer on Dec. 19, 2003, 10:53 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Having grown up on a farm (as some of you might have noticed from some of my
postings), I can tell you that cows eating lost bolts and such are not a big
deal. While they can die of "hardware," it is common for them to be force
fed magnets that do a fair job of cleaning them out. Therefore, that aspect
of it should not be an issue. As for the posts, cattle will simply treat
them as trees. Stampedes won't happen unless they are not kept in a mostly
confined area.
> > Cows that graze the open range eat what ever meteorite dust falls on
> > the grass, which includes iridium, etc. Space colonies would have
> > cleaner grass.
>
> Good point. And as I think more about it, I'm not sure cattle grazing
> under rectennas are realistic (although this is sometimes cited as one
> compatible use). Won't metal pieces from the assembly (loose bolts and
> odds and ends of metal and such) end up on the rangeland? And won't
> pillar supports get in the way of groups of cattle (like if they
> stampede)? Perhaps rectennas could be geodesic domes to avoid having
> interior supports?
>
> > But why are you trying to sell animal flesh on this e-mail list? Does
> > eating this meat give you bad manners?
>
> Not especially, just mostly gas. :-) But another good point. I'll try to
> keep things more on-topic in the future.
>
> --Paul Fernhout
>
"He turns not back who is bound to a star."
Leonardo da Vinci
# 18895 byPaul D. Fernhout on Dec. 20, 2003, 6:40 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> And just think, that beef would be preheated for you (by microwaves!).
> By-the-way, as far as food is concerned, I had read some figures indicating
> that beef (and other large animals) is an inefficient food source - using a
> lot of arable land for a given amount of calories/nutrition, as opposed to
> crops. Have you heard that? I ask while thinking about what would be the
> most efficient food source for space habitats, or even moon or martian ones,
> where space and resources are at a premium.
calories/nutrition" and so growing grain and feeding it to animals is
not a good environemntal proposition in terms of resource use -- except
that in a water deprived area like rangeland where cattle feed directly
on grass they may still be the best use as far as producing human food
with minimal impact (because you can't grow crops on rangeland without
depleting aquifers, reducing biodiversity, etc.) and planting and
harvesting grains may also lead to unsustainable levels of soil erosion
from cultivation using conventional farm tractors. Of course, people
like Wes Jackson have a vision of self-reseeding grains for prairies...
http://www.landinstitute.org/
It is often a case of matching the proposed use (or non-use) to the
characteristics of the environment. In the case of technologically
advanced space habitats, I'd expect if people want beef, they would
mainly grow some genetically engineered version it from cell cultures
growing on a structured matrix in vats (and to keep Ryan happy, perhaps
fed on a growth medium of beer and with automatic systems for massaging
in Saki? :-). The same is likely on Earth as well at some point.
IIRC there is a sci-fi story with this premise -- Earth's major
royalties after contacting advanced aliens came from licensing human
cell cultures from the intial contact astronauts which the aliens used
for growing "beef" (headless, of course. :-) I don't think the
astronauts were very happy about this.
> Of course, the good Dr. Atkins may have other ideas...
>
> Val
>
> P.S. I think that you could call it organic, since microwaves are
> non-ionizing, and therefore shouldn't change the molecular structure from au
> natural. Also, you could graze them in much colder climes due to microwave
> heating :)
Now you have the beginnings of an idea -- trying to make multiple uses
of the microwave heating to increase the cost and environmental
effectiveness of rectenna farms (maybe in the Arctic?). That is the
basis of concepts like for "bioshelters".
http://biorealis.com/bioshelter/BioshelterNarr.html
Or the latest proposal for replacing the WTC in NYC which involves an
office tower with a wind turbine on top to produce 20% of the needed
power and also reduce pedestrian level wind gusts:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/20/freedom_tower_reaches_for_sky/
(all competing with SSPS in some respects).
Of course, Thor Olson's point in his post related to global dimming
suggest that heating up an Arctic area will expose the ground and may
just cause more encvironmental problems... Maybe there could be an
aquatic rectenna farm? Either under water? Or maybe floating on
"Aquarius" type seacrete systems (from the Millennial project )?
http://www.distant-star.com/issue8/3dimages.htm
--Paul Fernhout
# 18896 byMichael Edward McNeil on Dec. 21, 2003, 10:44 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>victoriatangoman wrote in Message 4775:
>> Case in point:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3320713.stm
>>
>> and the analysis:
>> http://impearls.blogspot.com/2003_12_14_impearls_archive.html#1071671\
>> 24781136172
Thanks, Victoria, for the link to the BBC article, which I hadn't seen. What I'd viewed was the BBC broadcast, and since I didn't tape it at the time, nor (since I hadn't initially planned to respond to it) did I think to take notes, reviewing the BBC written piece provides a good sanity check. It's clear that the indicated article in Impearls was in essense correct (the Brazilians/BBC considered the Wrights' flight to be invalid for two reasons similar to what was described), with a minor difference: Impearls' piece said they regarded of the Wrights' flight as invalid in the second instance because the flight took place under "ideal conditions" (i.e., taking off into a headwind), whereas the BBC article actually said "favourable weather conditions" -- not a significant distinction.
Having the BBC article allows its words to be considered in detail. Here's the gist of their argument: "Others accept that the Wrights probably did fly in 1903. But they say take-off was only possible because of favourable weather conditions.
"The Americans got off the ground because there were strong headwinds," says Rodrigo Moura. "Santos Dumont took off, flew and landed without any outside help. His was the first truly autonomous flight." As mentioned before, it's true the Wrights' first flights in December 1903 took off into a headwind -- just as all airplanes try to do today. It's still flight. (The Wrights did take off from a stationary start though; compare with the Smithsonian's funded attempt at flight: launching from a powerful catapult!) Beyond that, however, as previously noted, during 1904 the Wright brothers performed *105* flights, including takeoffs into still air, and in one case flew 5 minutes 4 seconds over a circular course of 2.75 miles (or 4.43 km). The Wrights performed further experiments in 1905. During that same time period (up to 1905, according to Eneyclopaedia Britannica), Alberto Santos-Dumont worked in France on gasoline-powered airships. When he did migrate to heavier-than-air craft, his first flight (in October 1906) according to the BBC spanned a mere 60 meters, and while Britannica reports the next month he managed 220 meters in 21 seconds, that's still far short of the 2.75 miles in 5 minutes 4 seconds that the Wrights had already accomplished more than two years earlier. It's no contest.
Lucio de Souza Coelho wrote in Message 4801:
>The second article seemed a bit ranty in the sense
>that I got no feeling
>whatsoever that the BBC Article was putting the Wright Brother's flight
>in doubt; actually, my feeling was that the article portrayed the
>Santos-Dumont cult as a kind of exotic phenomenon of mass delusion.
I quite disagree. The BBC piece gave no indication of the slightest criticism or condescension towards Santos-Dumont or his modern-day Brazilian enthusiasts. Rather it's the Wright brothers who are implicitly criticized for deigning to work in secret, as indeed Lucio buys into in his argument below. This aspect of the development and demonstrated capabilities of the Wrights' aircraft is irrelevant to the question of "Who flew first?"
>In fact, the BBC article adds to the negative tone by even saying that
>Santos-Dumont was "disillusioned" by the Wright Brothers flights -
>something that I have never heard of and that smells of dramatization.
According to the BBC piece itself, in 1908 Wilbur Wright flew rings around Santos-Dumont, i.e.: "He proceeded to break many of the Brazilian's aviation records." As author Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith puts it in Britannica: Wilbur made the first public flight of the new machines at a racecourse near Le Mans, France, on Aug. 8, 1908; he continued his exhibition flights at Auvours nearby, to the end of 1908. In those five months Wilbur made more than 100 flights, was airborne for more than 25 hours, took passengers up on some 60 occasions, and made 7 flights exceeding an hour's duration, ending with a record flight of 2 hours and 20 minutes. Such achievements, plus the Wrights' clear priority in time, possibly did dishearten Alberto somewhat -- but not so much, as Britannica notes, to prevent him from producing, in 1909, "his famous 'Demoiselle' or 'Grasshopper' monoplanes, the forerunners of the modern light plane."
One discrepancy in the BBC's account: Whatever Santos-Dumont's reasons for going back to Brazil (whence he'd hardly lived his whole life), Encylopaedia Britannica indicates that his return to that country didn't occur until 1928, whereas the BBC article in question says he went back in 1914. Doesn't look good for the BBC's accuracy in reporting!
>Santos-Dumont was an "open source" guy - the blueprints of his
>inventions were published in technical magazines at the time with no
>worries about patents and secrecy -
Santos-Dumont was also, as the BBC article notes, "The flamboyant son of a coffee baron"; he was educated and lived in France nearly his whole life -- while the Wrights were a pair of self-taught bicycle mechanics. The kind of selfless, apparently magnanimous gesture "progressives" delight in is oh, so much easier when you're independently wealthy, and not trying to make a living (around the turn of the 20th century yet) *along with* realizing one of mankind's oldest dreams.
>and was always described as a very
>reserved person a bit averse to all the prizes and celebrations in his
>honor, so there seems to be little reason for personal envy or
>commercial rivalry with the Wright. Anyhow, maybe I am wrong about this
>last critique - I would better first read a serious biography about
>Santos-Dumont, preferably something written from some "neutral"
>(non-Brazilian) point of view, like "Wings of Madness"
>(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786866594/qid71861607/sr=2-1/ref=sr_\
>2_1/002-5627780-7143239).
There's also a fictionalization of Alberto Santos-Dumont's life by Welsh novelist Richard Llewellyn, entitled _A Night of Bright Stars_ (1979).
>The rant in the second link proceeds when Mr. McNeils writes "even if it
>took place" about the flight of the 14-Bis (Santos-Dumont's first plane
>- the one in the 1906 flight) - as if he were casting doubt about this
>well-documented, film-registered
>(http://www.aeromania.com.br/IMAGEM/materias/dummont/filme.mov, link
>extracted from the article
>http://www.aeromania.com.br/ART_SantosDumont.aspx) fact.
It's true I wasn't familiar with Alberto Santos-Dumont, and lacking a reference then yes, there is initial room for doubt. Now I realize he was an authentic aeronautical pioneer -- just not yet, however, even in the heavier-than-air flight field during the years the Wrights were performing their critical experiments. And that's why the wording Lucio objects to above is still appropriate: because if Santos-Dumont's feat follows the Wrights' chronologically in time -- as it evidently does; and if the Wrights' accomplishment is authentic -- as it indubitably is; then it doesn't matter how real Alberto's results might be, he's not first! Ultimately it's not even necessary to consider the reality of his flights, which is why I didn't look into that aspect of the matter further at the time.
>More to the point, what would BBC gain by supposedly "casting shadows"
>over the Wright Brothers? Mr. McNeil should provide a reason, like in
>any "good" conspiracy theory ("Aliens mutilate cattle because they want
>beef" or "Elvis simulated his own death because he did not want to be
>remembered as a fat middle-age guy", and so on).
Oh ho, so we're "conspiracy theory" mongering here, are we? Rather, it's the claim the Wrights weren't first and the real pioneer's story has somehow been covered up that's the conspiracy theory -- which the BBC (by its own abdication of any journalistic investigation) is implicitly buying into. As with many extant conspiracy theories, this one's disprovable, at least to the mind of intelligent observers, merely by examination (as demonstrated before), no big investigation required.
As for the BBC's reason for buying into the story, or at least pretending they did, that too isn't difficult in the answering. The orgy of anti-Americanism the leftist-dominated European and British media, including especially the BBC, have indulged in since the run-up to the Iraq war has been noted by many observers, European as well as American. It fits perfectly into this syndrome for them to try and stick it to American admirers of the Wright brothers on the one hundredth anniversary of the Wrights' famous first flight. Why else run it on this particular day: the BBC didn't just discover the story last week! Brazilians celebrate Santos-Dumont's birthday on July 20; Alberto's first flight took place sometime in October, and since this is very old news, either of the foregoing would have been appropriate dates, from the merits of the case, on which to broadcast such a story. Anybody who believes the BBC broadcast this piece exactly 100 years after December 17, 1903 just by accident, please raise your hand!
Beyond that, the story wonderfully illuminates leftists like the BBC's multicultural, postmodern paradigm: "Everything's relative, every culture has its own 'truth' (don't forget the scare quotes), each of which has its own validity independent of any factual or historical verification. You silly Americans, you just *think* your Wright brothers were the first to fly. Brazilians have their own idea, and their hero has as much right and 'truth' behind him as *your* myth." Add to this mix the modern leftist's distain for all technological developments since the stone age (no matter that flight's been a dream of humanity since long before Daedalus and Icarus), plus their hatred of everything miliary -- the Wrights built planes for the United States Army; Santos-Dumont apparently committed suicide over military use of aircraft (though being disheartened during the long run-up to World War II makes a certain sense) -- and you arrive at the contemporary leftist myopic fantasy world. How could the BBC resist?
As I say, broadcasting such a story on the centennial of flight is offensive (as it was intended to be, I believe), but nicely illustrates the BBC's ideological proclivities.
Think I'm reading too much into it? I don't.
Michael McNeil
# 18897 byLucio de Souza Coelho on Dec. 22, 2003, 12:20 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> Thanks, Victoria, for the link to the BBC article, which I hadn't seen.
> What I'd viewed was the BBC broadcast, and since I didn't tape it at the
> time, nor (since I hadn't initially planned to respond to it) did I
> think to take notes, reviewing the BBC written piece provides a good
> sanity check.
while I read the article but didn't saw the broadcast. That possibly
accounts for our very different perceptions; perhaps, had I seen the
thing in television, I would also notice some negative tone toward the
Wright Brothers. I have often seen (at work, for instance) trouble
caused by people who misinterpret emotional undertones in e-mails, and
that kind of thing applies to any situation involving voice versus
written messages.
Anyhow, welcome to the SSI List. Even though you arrived in a
quasi-flame-war-ignition situation arranged by myself (sorry). :-)
> There's also a fictionalization of Alberto Santos-Dumont's life by Welsh
> novelist Richard Llewellyn, entitled _A Night of Bright Stars_ (1979).
Interesting, I was not aware of that. Is it a fiction with a good
"suspension of disbelief" or is it some wacky fantasy a la "League of
Extraordinary Gentlemen"? I can find almost nothing about this
out-of-print book in the Internet...
> As for the BBC's reason for buying into the story, or at least
> pretending they did, that too isn't difficult in the answering. The
> orgy of anti-Americanism the leftist-dominated European and British
> media, including especially the BBC, have indulged in since the run-up
> to the Iraq war has been noted by many observers, European as well as
> American. It fits perfectly into this syndrome for them to try and
> stick it to American admirers of the Wright brothers on the one
> hundredth anniversary of the Wrights' famous first flight.
I don't know the BBC in depth to know its political positions; I just
assumed that, since it is British and (AFAIR) government-operated, it
would be pro-American as the English government usually is. If the
actual situation is more complex than that and my assumption was nave,
then I apologize.
> Why else run
> it on this particular day: the BBC didn't just discover the story last
> week!
> Brazilians celebrate Santos-Dumont's birthday on July 20;
> Alberto's first flight took place sometime in October, and since this is
> very old news, either of the foregoing would have been appropriate
> dates, from the merits of the case, on which to broadcast such a story.
> Anybody who believes the BBC broadcast this piece exactly 100 years
> after December 17, 1903 just by accident, please raise your hand!
> As I say, broadcasting such a story on the centennial of flight is
> offensive (as it was intended to be, I believe), but nicely illustrates
> the BBC's ideological proclivities.
I don't think that it was an accident, but the date alone would not
suffice for declaring the BBC "anti-Wrights". For instance, during the
celebration of the 500th anniversary of the discovery of America, there
were several TV pieces from various sources remembering that America was
in fact "discovered" several times by several kinds of explorers
(Vikings, Chinese, etc). But at the time I don't remember anyone saying
that the mere mention of that at that specific occasion was casting a
shadow on Columbus memory. (But then, the Internet was not that popular
in 1992. Were the 500th anniversary in 2002, I am sure there would
plenty of flame wars with offended Spanish and Italian internauts loudly
complaining. :-)
Lucio de Souza Coelho
# 18898 byClaudio on Dec. 22, 2003, 1:19 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
yeah man, you're right!
Europe is all a nest of damn commies and the press is dominated by
anarco-leftist environmentalists (secretly sponsored by Syria), especially
in Britain. They all hate you because they're evil. Now finish to take the
rest of your medications and rest, everything is going to be ok...
Cheers,
Claudio
# 18899 byMichael Edward McNeil on Dec. 23, 2003, 6:35 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
My comments below.
> novelist Richard Llewellyn, entitled _A Night of Bright Stars_ (1979).
Interesting, I was not aware of that. Is it a fiction with a good "suspension of disbelief" or is it some wacky fantasy a la "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"? I can find almost nothing about this out-of-print book in the Internet... I haven't read the book, just noted its existence in Britannica's short biography of Richard Llewellyn. I did see that it's available for as little as about $2 on the Advanced Book Exchange (world's best used bookstore, IMHO). I don't know the BBC in depth to know its political positions; I just assumed that, since it is British and (AFAIR) government-operated, it would be pro-American as the English government usually is. If the actual situation is more complex than that and my assumption was nave, then I apologize. (Choke! gasp.) Prime Minister Tony Blair wishes the BBC were pro-British, much less pro-American. That's not much exaggerated, I'm afraid, as I suspect Blair would ruefully admit in a moment of candor. The BBC is pretty much completely independent of government control, and shows it by attacking the government vigorously. It used to be expected they would treat Conservative governments that way; now they do it to Labour too, more or less coming from the far left. During the aftermath of the Iraq war the media furor reached such a crescendo in attempting to depose Blair as to resemble an attempted coup by this pseudo-governmental agency. > Why else run it on this particular day: the BBC
> didn't just discover the story last week!
> Anybody who believes the BBC broadcast this piece exactly 100 years
> after December 17, 1903 just by accident, please raise your hand!
I don't think that it was an accident, but the date alone would not suffice for declaring the BBC "anti-Wrights". I agree with you on that. For instance, during the celebration of the 500th anniversary of the discovery of America, there were several TV pieces from various sources remembering that America was in fact "discovered" several times by several kinds of explorers (Vikings, Chinese, etc). But at the time I don't remember anyone saying that the mere mention of that at that specific occasion was casting a shadow on Columbus memory. (But then, the Internet was not that popular in 1992. Were the 500th anniversary in 2002, I am sure there would plenty of flame wars with offended Spanish and Italian internauts loudly complaining. :-) No doubt. And you're right -- in the case of a Columbus' discovery anniversary, for instance, just running an alternative discovery of America feature at the time wouldn't qualify that as being "anti-Columbus" at all. (Let's continue the Columbus analogy a little longer, I think it's instructive.) When one looks at recent Columbus-day anniversaries (not just the 500th, but annual), that's not what's happening. I haven't tried to accumulate statistics, mind you, but what I recollect seeing in recent years is media piece after media piece -- not showing alternatives who might have gotten to America before, that would be interesting -- instead they typically rake Columbus over the coals: he's a slaver, he's a terrible administrator, he's held personally responsible for the large die-off of native Americans (mostly due to disease) following European contact (darling of the left Venezuelan president Chavez made that accusation recently), etc. etc. It's even gotten to the point where Columbus is called a lousy navigator.
This is very different from what historians were saying only a few decades ago. Renowned historian Samuel Eliot Morison, for example, wrote a fascinating two-volume history on the European Discovery of America, as well as another book on Columbus himself. Besides being a respected historian, Morison was a deep-water sailor who followed Columbus' and some of the other New World explorers' routes in his own sailing ship. Morison points out that Columbus was not only a master mariner but was personally responsible for discovery of more territory (miles of land and coastline explored) than any other explorer, including Magellan, in history. As Morison wrote: A glance at a map of the Caribbean may remind you of what he accomplished: discovery of the Bahamas, Cuba, and Hispaniola on the First Voyage; discovery of the Lesser Antilles, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and the south coast of Cuba on the Second, as well as founding a permanent European colony; discovery of Trinidad and the Spanish Main, on his Third; and on the Fourth Voyage, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia. No navigator in history, not even Magellan, discovered so much territory hitherto unknown to Europeans. None other so effectively translated his north-south experience under the Portuguese flag to the first east-west voyage, across the Atlantic. None other started so many things from which stem the history of the United States, of Canada, and of a score of American republics.
And do not forget that sailing west to the Orient was his idea, pursued relentlessly for six years before he had the means to try it. As a popular jingle of the 400th anniversary put it: What if wise men as far back as Ptolemy
Judged that the earth like an orange was round,
None of them ever said, "Come along, follow me,
Sail to the West and the East will be found." Columbus had his faults, but they were largely the defects of the qualities that made him great. These were an unbreakable faith in God and his own destiny as the bearer of the Word to lands beyond the seas; an indomitable will and stubborn persistence despite neglect, poverty, and ridicule. But there was no flaw, no dark side to the most outstanding and essential of all his qualities -- seamanship. As a master mariner and navigator, no one in the generation prior to Magellan could touch Columbus. Never was a title more justly bestowed than the one which he most jealously guarded -- Almirante del Mar Oceano -- Admiral of the Ocean Sea. You see what I'm talking about. Coverage of Columbus in the last few decades has changed -- almost like a bright light being turned off, and a dark light darkly illuminating him and his times turned on. Is this new paradigm constantly being preached any more likely to be correct, or true, than the old? Considering what I see as the change originating more or less in intellectual fashion (an anti-exploration fashion) rather than scientific historical results, I have severe doubts about that.
Getting back to the Wright brothers, had the BBC done a show on the pathos of Santos-Dumont as an aviation pioneer who did his work thinking (before the Wrights' flights had become widely known) that he was first to fly, then I could have had no complaint. Had they shown how Alberto's aircraft compared with the Wrights' and how he solved the same problems as they but in a decidedly different way, that would have been fascinating. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't recall the BBC showing what Santos-Dumont's airplane even looked like; instead they displayed the box Alberto's heart is supposedly locked up in. More significantly, rather than showing him figuratively standing alongside, and a little behind, the Wrights' achievement, they explicitly tried to knock the Wright Brothers out of the way by claiming that their achievement was invalid, erroneous, for a couple of different (spurious) reasons -- as if the Wrights ought to be disqualified like an athlete who'd used steroids. And then the BBC showed nothing of the (convincing) other side of the story.
That's what, in my view, turns the BBC piece into an anti-Wright Brothers slam. The "coincidence" of the date merely adds reason to believe it's no accident.
Michael McNeil
Reference
Samuel Eliot Morison, The European Discovery of America: The Southern Voyages (1492-1616), 1974, Oxford University Press, New York; p. 267.
# 18900 byValens Agnitio on Dec. 24, 2003, 12:08 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:19:22 -0000
>
>yeah man, you're right!
>Europe is all a nest of damn commies and the press is dominated by
>anarco-leftist environmentalists (secretly sponsored by Syria), especially
>in Britain. They all hate you because they're evil. Now finish to take the
>rest of your medications and rest, everything is going to be ok...
>
>Merry xmas and Happy New Year to all, even to the sad paranoids! :)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Claudio
Val
P.S. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get
you... :-)
# 18901 byJJ on Dec. 28, 2003, midnight
Member since 2022-08-22
--- In ssi_list@... "Valens Agnitio"
> And just think, that beef would be preheated for you (by
microwaves!).
> By-the-way, as far as food is concerned, I had read some figures
indicating
> that beef (and other large animals) is an inefficient food source -
using a
> lot of arable land for a given amount of calories/nutrition, as
opposed to
> crops. Have you heard that? I ask while thinking about what would
be the
> most efficient food source for space habitats, or even moon or
martian ones,
> where space and resources are at a premium.
>
> Of course, the good Dr. Atkins may have other ideas...
>
> Val
That is vegian retoric. The truth is in areas with very good soil
and climate such as Illinois and Indiana, your vegitarian friends are
largly correct. But, on less good land such as areas in upstate New
York, New England or out west, you are better off growing grass wich
can be used for animals such as cows, sheep and goats.
As far as space habitats are concerned, space for the animals becomes
an issue. Plants can be grown in climate controled areas that have
only limited radiation protection. Cows on the other hand, will need
radiation protection equal to humans. I don't see large areas of
pasture in first generation habitats. However, animals can be raised
in confinements...so much for space-grass-fed beef.
One important note is... people in the space habitats will want
meat. They will prefer chicken to high protine algal slime.
# 18902 byvictoriatangoman on Jan. 10, 2004, 7:02 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> Science never produces definitive answers. Theories gain
> credibility by not being falsified despite repeated testing.
> There is no black and white in science, just varying shades of
> grey. The issue isn't bad science, it's poor public understanding
> of science.
epistemology. I've read the seminal works on the subject, and
quickly looking at my bookshelf the titles range from the early
thinkers like Galileo (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems), Copernicus (On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres), Isaac
Newton (The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy), Jacob Boehme (Science, Meaning, & Evolution) (he builds
on the work of the ancient Greeks and their twin concepts of
negation, mh on and ouk on, to develop the concept of ungrund, and
this concept in turn worked its influence on Newton), David Hume (An
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) to the latter day
philosophers of Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery),
Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), and Paul
Feyerabend (Against Method) and even some failed attempts at
advancing the field, e.g. Sandra Harding (The Science Question in
Feminism.)
For those who are interested in pursuing their studies into this
history, look here for an excellent resource:
http://www.indiana.edu/~libsalc/hps/etexts.html
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/view/subjects/confirmation-
induction.html
POPPER, KUHN, LAKATOS AND AIM-ORIENTED EMPIRICISM
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000251/00/MaxwellA.txt
I fully appreciate the process as it should work and to misapply a
phrase from the work of Joseph Schumpeter (Capitalism, Socialism and
Democracy) the "creative destruction" of scientific method is the
best way to insure, again misapplying another phrase this time from
Charles Darwin, the "survival of the fittest" in the arena of
supremacy of ideas and knowledge.
Unfortunately, the way that science should work is, not often, but
sometimes, not what is found in its sub-disciplines. It is from this
point that I base my critique. This is not a blanket indictment of
all of science. I'm sure that plasma physics is sacrosanct and that
the peer-review process in incorruptable. Unfortunately, I don't
hold the environmental sciences in the same high regard. I'm not
sure why the field has become rampantly political and ideologically
rigid and intolerant of dissent but the evidence of all these
characteristics is plainly before us. This is not to say that there
are no scientists in the field who practice good science and produce
rigorous knowledge, there are, but the field is tainted and the
taint affects all.
Just as many observors point to the need for an internal Reformation
in the Islamic world, there too needs to be a return to good process
within the environmental sciences field.
Perhaps it is the ideological inclination of the practioners that
draws them to the field in the first place. They may owe first
allegience to the world-view of environmentalism and second
allegiance to the scientific method. This would in part help explain
why dissent is not tolerated and why politiking is so rampant.
The reformation needs to establish the primacy of scientific method
before all other interests.
Just what passes for science in the environmental sciences these
days? What do prestigious journals like "Nature" publish? Why don't
we look at this recently published article that's been getting a lot
of press.
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html
Here's the press coverage:
Study Warns of Global Warming Extinctions
tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040107/ap_on_sc/global_warming_2
In a nutshell, this *science* consists of using a computer model and
predicting how global warming (as modeled by computer) will affect
different populations.
Consider this quote: "The researchers concede that there are many
uncertainties in both climate forecasts and the computer models they
used. But they said their prediction could come to pass if
industrial nations do not curtail emissions of greenhouse gases that
trap heat in the atmosphere."
The researchers are saying that there are many unknowns in their
forecasts and they don't even know if the computer models accurately
reflect numerous global environmental processes and their
interactions and their conclusion is that their prediction could
come to pass but their prediction is built on speculation.
This is science? You'll note that the editors of "Nature" weren't
forced to resign for publishing speculation but the editors
of "Climate Research" were forced to resign for publishing an
article that many criticized for poor methodology.
http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/storch/CR-problem/Chronicle%20of%20Higher%
20Education.030904.pdf
The key areas of criticism had to do with Soon and Baliunas mis-
using data from other studies and with poor modeling constructs.
Well, I'm not trying to defend Soon and Baliunas but I will go this
far by stating that those who live in glass houses shouldn't cast
stones. Soon and Baliunas used proxy data for their study and the
originators of that data didn't like it. The data is not propreitory
and it's simply too bad if the original authors have an ideological
dispute with Soon and Baliunas. Further, the critics point to the
arbitrariness of the Soon and Baliunas model yet as the "Nature"
article points out, many in the field have no issue with publishing
results that are based on untested computer models. If the computer
model does not represent reality then it is as arbitrary as the one
that Soon and Baliunas used.
This whole incident is emblamatic of the problems in the field.
Consider a counter example. A physicist working in the field of
plasma physics comes across some data on heat conduction within a
plasma and wonders what effect an implosive shock would have on the
heat conduction within a microdroplet. He uses the data from the
other researcher in a new way and develops some results that are
useful to nuclear weapons researchers. Does anyone in the plasma
physics community give credence to the criticism of the original
researcher, who disapproves of nuclear weapons, that his data was
misappropriated?
If the example above is gobbly-gook, please take my point about the
process, and be kind with the criticism about the experimental
design, for I ain't no plasma physicist :) LOL
The reliance on computer models in the environmental sciences
shouldn't pass as science, IF those computer models aren't tested
against reality and IF they don't have reliable predictive value.
These models haven't been subjected to the process of falsifiability
as stringently as good process warrants.
Rather than reading about these Garbage In, Garbage Out predictions
within "Nature" I'd rather see environmental models subjected to
rigorous testing and falsification and see those results published.
That would at least tell me something useful, and wouldn't be pure,
and admitted, speculation, as is the case in point with the "Nature"
article.
Too many environmental scientists subscribe to the precautionary
principle and I think that this principle has no place within the
realm of science; it belongs in public policy.
Here is a good overview of the precautionary principle:
http://www.sirc.org/articles/beware.html
Here is a book on the topic that is critical. You'll note that one
reviewer disparages the book because it was published by the Cato
Institute. This is an ad hominem attack and surely the reviewer
doesn't expect Greenpeace to publish a book that is critical of a
central tenet of their philosophy. If there is to be a criticism I'd
rather read the substance of an argument rather logical fallacies.
http://www.self-help-
hub.com/The_Precautionary_Principle_A_Critical_Appraisal_of_Environme
ntal_Risk_Assessment_1930865163.html
"Read properly, the precautionary principle compels regulators to
look, but then to let people leap when the evidence indicates that a
technology will yield net benefits. In Goklanys interpretation, the
precautionary principle insists that both the risks of adopting a
new technology and the risks of technological stagnation be examined
in regulatory decision making."
"These negative consequences are so common and so expensive as to
suggest that the principle itself is lacking or applied wrongly. I
like to call it, "unprincipled precaution," rather than
precautionary principle, because its mindless application has been
so destructive."
"devotees of this "principle" typically see only Type 1 Errors and
are blind to Type 2 Errors. Type 1 Errors are errors of commission.
Type 2 Errors are errors of omission."
"Goklany avoids preaching, but it is hard to escape the conclusion
that many of the devotees of the precautionary principle are zealots
with an ax to grind. Otherwise it is hard to understand their
unwillingness to consider the effects Type 2 Errors that accompany
they regulatory actions they seek."
> It's possible for a fact to be unambiguous and still open to
> interpretation. Joe is observed with a gun in his hand, Bob lies
> dead at his feet. These are the facts. Is Joe a murderer? Not
> enough information to decide. There may be other facts which lend
> weight to one or other interpretation (Bob is a well known violent
> criminal, Joe is a police officer, ...) but unless all the facts
> are known we cannot come to a solid conclusion. In fact, we can
> most likely never know all the facts, unless a totally trustworthy
> person videotaped everything that happened.
Look, I know that we're engaged in a friendly debate here, and that
our fingers often type faster than our minds would like, so I won't
hold you to the position that what you wrote above is analogous to
science.
The example has to do with logic, argumentation and probability.
This is really the realm for lawyers, philosophers and
politicitions, not scientists, for where is the hypothesis which can
be tested, and can the experiment be falsified, and if so what does
it tell us?
> It sounds a lot like you're expecting much clearer answers than
> science can reliably give in many cases.
No, I'm quite content to let the creative destruction of science
work to the greater good. Let scientists continue to falsify the
work of their colleagues, to build on the work that withstands
scrutiny and to add to our knowledge.
> Policy decisions do have to be made, one way or another. In some
> cases we have only poorly supported theories on which to base
> policy decisions, decisions which nonetheless have to be made.
And here is the crux of the matter. If science, and/or scientists,
are to lend their credibility to a policy decision, then they should
stand on what is known, not on what is speculated. If they go beyond
that line and offer speculation, then debate is fair game and
consensus based on speculation should be called politiking, as
Crichton rightly does. Dissenting opinions to the speculation
shouldn't be suppressed even if they pose a danger to the political
goals of the speculating scientist(s). Instead those dissenting
opinions should be *scientifically* invalidated, and if the opinions
can't be invalidated, then let's call a spade a spade and not dress
the pig up and call it *science.*
Back in the 80's, while visiting my girlfriend at Dartmouth Medical
School, I attended a Science Court symposium on the Strategic
Defense Initiative convened by Dr. Arthur Kantrowitz. Since then,
I've held to the opinion that when science and public policy
intersect, and the imprimatur of science is used too advance a
public policy, then the science should be vetted through an
adversarial process similar to a legal court, where facts and values
are separated and where advocates for opposing views present their
evidence before an impartial judge and jury, who in turn are most
commited to the integrity of the process, rather than the results of
the trial.
http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol4/spring/field.htm
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dujs/2000W/04-Science%20History.pdf
http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0197/11785.html
Such a process could be as time consuming as necessary and many
expert witness could be called and all of the minutia could be
debated, challenged and rebutted. This simply cannot be accomplished
with a peer-review process.
The end result could be a statement of known fact and one which is
devoid of political motivation and philosophical values.
> There is no way to avoid this problem.
See above.
> Under these circumstances people will try to argue for their side,
> and will use science to make their arguments. It's a fact of
> life.
They'll often overstep the bounds of science and thus falsely use
the imprimatur of science. This cheapens the value of what we know
and makes it more difficult to trust statements of scientists for
fear of their personal bias.
> In the long term good science drives out bad, but there is no
> scientific process that gives fully formed rigorous results right
> off the bat. It takes time and hard work, and in the process
> incorrect theories are propounded and argued for. That's not bad
> science, it's the way science works - we need different theories
> attempting to explain data, and we can't know a priori which ones
> are going to turn out to be able to explain new data as it comes
> in. As science is building better theories, there is a great deal
> of messiness.
I've got absolutely no problem with this process. This is the
creative destruction that I'm referring to.
> The fact that this messiness allows for politicization isn't
> particularly troubling, because science is self correcting in the
> long run.
But it is troubling when the bad science forms the basis for policy
decisions that then take on a life of their own.
You mentioned you're concern about DDT and the resultant
controversy. That's an excellent case in point.
Here are some issues with the science of the DDT bans and an early
application of the precautionary principle.
Junk Science on DDT
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
Here is a more reasoned analysis on the matter.
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb010704.shtml
The science has indeed self-corrected but the policy decisions from
the early, tenative, and in some cases wrong understanding of the
problem, have now taken on a life of their own.
> Bad science comes not from politicization as such, but from
> outright fraud or from extreme sloppiness on the part of
> individual scientists.
Case in point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/290121.stm
> The real problem is in the political realm, not the scientific one.
And here the problem is with non-scientists mis-labeling opinion as
science, scientists acquiescing to the farce, and even scientists
present conjecture, or political consensus, as science. Simply the
overextending of authority to tenative understanding while
suppressing dissent.
> No. The first statement says that the basis for anthropogenic
> causation has not been established to a degree of certainty
> exceeding the uncertainty in the relevant measurements. That's
> not without foundation, it's just a requirement for more data.
It's more than a call for data. It's a call for understanding of the
processes involved, which IPCC's computer model didn't encompass.
Further, data absent understanding won't lead to knowledge.
> The second statement says that the balance of the data in hand
> (which is not sufficient for a rigorous conclusion) favors the
> anthropogenic causation hypothesis. Evidence can be suggestive
> without being conclusive, and that is what both statements imply.
You've completely neglected the inconsistency between the two
statements. I don't require a translation of what IPCC wrote but
your effort is much appreciated :) What I request is an explanation
for the foundation on which the final conclusion is based for it is
incompatible with the prelimary conclusion. The first conclusion is
guided by the proper application of science, state what you know,
state what you don't know, and state what you're specualting on.
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed
climate changes to anthropogenic causes."
The final conclusion is interjected with political/ideological bias
and fails the *science* threshold test by speculating.
"The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on
climate."
The balance of evidence (which is inconclusive and we don't know
which direction it can go) suggests (this is guess work on our part
for we can't test, falsify, or verify what we're telling you here) a
discernable human influence on climate (which the prelimary
conclusion states can't be postively attributed, so we can't point
to any study to back us up on this claim.)
> Nonetheless, it may be suggestive without being rigorous. It's
> not a black and white situation, it's shades of grey.
Then it should be presented as such, errors and doubt included in
the analysis. To do otherwise corrupts the process and hence all the
hullaballu.
> I'm not claiming good science is being done, just that science
> isn't somehow threatened by total political corruption.
Oh yeah! Check this out.
Politics in the lab hits US scientific integrity
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0106/p11s02-coop.html?entryBottomStory
> There are robust self correcting mechanisms that are still
> working. Individual problems don't threaten the whole.
Yes, I agree with you here. When science is conducted and advocacy
is not required, then the process works. Mostly.
There are problems with peer-review, as any working scientists can
attest to. Yes, I know the old addage about democracy also applies
here, to wit, democracy is the worst form of government except for
all the others.
There is certainly ideological bias in the process, as well as
vanity and vested interests. Not to mention vogueism. Look here for
insight on the process of peer-review politicization:
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/peerreview/
> In due course the truth will come out about these other issues,
> too.
True as well, but in the interim policy decisions will be made on
the basis of voodoo masquerading as science.
> The real problem is not that science is being corrupted, it's that
> it's being misused.
The most egregious instances are when scientists do the mis-using,
for thier allegiance should be to the scientific method before their
political philosophy.
> Scientific theories and facts take time to develop the level of
> verification needed to justify making policy based on them, and
> people don't want to wait.
Then call a spade a spade and make the policy decision on the best
available information and be prepared to reverse the tenative
decision when more reliable information becomes available. But do
not dress up the pig and present it as science and don't have a
witch hunt for those who expose the charade for what it is. Debate
and refute them instead or retreat to a scientifically defensible
position if you still want to claiim science on your side.
TangoMan
# 18903 byvictoriatangoman on Jan. 10, 2004, 7:21 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> yeah man, you're right!
> Europe is all a nest of damn commies and the press is dominated by
> anarco-leftist environmentalists (secretly sponsored by Syria),
especially
> in Britain. They all hate you because they're evil. Now finish to
take the
> rest of your medications and rest, everything is going to be ok...
>
> Merry xmas and Happy New Year to all, even to the sad paranoids! :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Claudio
evidence for your consideration on the matter of bias in the press,
specifically the BBC for that is the organization we're referencing.
Look here for a blog that tracks said bias:
http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
Entry for December 20, 2003:
"BBC News Online journalists have been banned from referring to
Saddam Hussein as a former dictator. Instead, they must call
him "the deposed former President of Iraq". With 501 instances of
Chile's former dictator, Augusto Pinochet, being referred to as
exactly that on the BBC's website, one cannot help but wonder why
such a double standard has come to pass at the BBC. What makes one
former dictator more deserving of respect than another?
As the song says, the trouble with the truth is that it always begs
for more truth. Exactly why a news organisation should wish to
prevent the truth from being spoken by its journalists is, in this
case, a total mystery."
Exactly how is Saddam more deserving of the title President than
Pinochet?
Because you deny bias, I'd be very interested in hearing your
analysis on this matter.
TangoMan
1 (current)
2