> 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.

I don't know about environmental sciences in general, but I know
personally a few atmospheric physicists and chemists whose
devotion to science above other matters is unimpeachable. Unfortunately
to many of them it seems the deniers of human causation of global warming
can't be debated rationally - every time they debate, they lose,
just like the old creation vs. evolution debates. Or with physicists
who I know have tried arguing with people who claim to have
perpetual motion machines, or who have disproved Einstein, etc. It's not
worth it, the scientists would rather spend their time studying the science.
Of course there are still a few who can't resist debating about
it, and not making any headway.

Unfortunately, this is our world's future we're talking about,
and the real scientists should be more engaged, somehow, not less.

> 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.
>
> [...]
>
> 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.

If you're expecting certainty from science, you're barking up
the wrong tree. Certainty comes from religion. Science brings
only measurements and tentative explanations of those measurements,
which may (if those explanations are accurate) predict the future
with some degree of uncertainty. The back and forth of peer
interaction determines how firm scientists in general are about these
models and predictions - but they're always only models, never certainty.
That's why scientific consensus is critically important - it
tells you what the likelihood of a particular model (and its
associated predictions) being accurate. The stuff published
in "Nature" is generally bleeding-edge, no-consensus, 50% likely to be
untrue; it's the review papers you should be really looking at
for the current state of a field.

> 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.

Uh, more like, were embarrassed into resigning, from what I heard.
Speculation is par for the course, but out-and-out lying and
misrepresentation, which seems to be what happened in the Climate
Research article, is rather a bit worse.

> > 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.

Calling computer models "speculation" is akin to calling
evolution only a "theory", or claiming Einstein was wrong. Most of
physics these days is heavily dependent on computer models. Models
are simply an aid to pencil-and-paper thinking - the issue
is how widely supported are the assumptions the model is based on;
that's where the scientific consensus comes in. Fine if you disagree,
but do you really think policy makers should listen to you,
or to people who have spent years studying the basis for this stuff?

Now, the other big principle here is "follow the money". There's actually
very little money in environmental fear-mongering: Greenpeace
and Sierra Club and their ilk soak up most of it. Energy companies,
on the other hand (oil, gas and coal), have trillions of dollars
in capital investments and hundreds of billions in yearly sales;
these guys are clearly threatened by the science here. Any scientist
who needed funding could easily do very well by promoting an
anti-global-warming stance; fortunately there are only very few
sufficiently lacking in integrity to do that sort of thing.

Remember the "scientific debate" over whether cigarettes
cause cancer? Same money principle applies here.

We're obviously not qualified to debate the science in
this forum. Let the scientists figure out the facts. Looks
to me like they already have, in fact:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

Time to give up the fight, tango,

Arthur

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"

> > 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.
>
> I don't know about environmental sciences in general, but I know
> personally a few atmospheric physicists and chemists whose
> devotion to science above other matters is unimpeachable.
Unfortunately
> to many of them it seems the deniers of human causation of global
warming
> can't be debated rationally - every time they debate, they lose,
> just like the old creation vs. evolution debates. Or with
physicists
> who I know have tried arguing with people who claim to have
> perpetual motion machines, or who have disproved Einstein, etc.
It's not
> worth it, the scientists would rather spend their time studying
the science.
> Of course there are still a few who can't resist debating about
> it, and not making any headway.

There's not much to disagree with here. I'm not sure if you're
implying that I'm a global warming denier despite my repeated
statements of my position to the contrary.

> > 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.
>
> If you're expecting certainty from science, you're barking up
> the wrong tree.

No, I'm expecting more substance to be attached to what is published
and then dissemenated. Sloppiness like this feeds the very deniers
that more solid arguments and presentations would suppress.

> Certainty comes from religion. Science brings
> only measurements and tentative explanations of those measurements,

What measuresments are recorded from running a computer model that
doesn't accurately correspond to the actual climatic process? What
are they measuring? GIGO.

> That's why scientific consensus is critically important - it
> tells you what the likelihood of a particular model (and its
> associated predictions) being accurate.

How's that again? Correctness is determined by popular vote! Hmm, I
must have missed that in my studies. I always thought evidence,
method and falsifiability were more central to accuracy and
understanding rather than political posuturing.

Oh well, I guess because I'm not a scientist I really don't know the
secrets of the temple.

> > 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.
>
> Uh, more like, were embarrassed into resigning, from what I heard.

Oh, I'd be interested in reading this account for it would allow me
to partially revise my opinion on the intellectually stagnant state
of the discourse within the environmental field. Do you have a cite
you can provide?

> Speculation is par for the course, but out-and-out lying and
> misrepresentation, which seems to be what happened in the Climate
> Research article, is rather a bit worse.

I agree, and as I stated I'm not setting out to defend the authors
of the Climate Research article, but I hadn't heard that there was
outright lying. Can you provide me with a citiation that alleges
this and demonstrates that this was indeed the case?

I'd also be interested in news of other editor resignations that
resulted from publishing scientific papers that contained lies and
misrepresetnation. I don't recall these witch hunt tactics being so
visible to the public before.

As I hope is evident, my concern about healthy debate is what drives
my commentary. For those who are anti-Global Warming, simply refute
their case and don't overstate yours. Let the evidence do the work.
Let the models withstand falsifiability. If they can't, then do not
claim the moral high ground.

I don't like monoculture. I don't like rigid perspectives. I want to
see vigorous debate and let the chips fall where they may.

> Calling computer models "speculation" is akin to calling
> evolution only a "theory", or claiming Einstein was wrong.

Ah, no. Perhaps you want to expand on this statement and actually
make a case for it.

> Most of physics these days is heavily dependent on computer
> models.

Yes, I know.

> Models are simply an aid to pencil-and-paper thinking - the issue
> is how widely supported are the assumptions the model is based on;
> that's where the scientific consensus comes in.

Consensus backed by evidence is one thing. Consensus in place of
evidence is another thing. There is a substantive difference that
you seem to be ignoring.

I try to write in detail to convey the nuance of my concern and
instead I find myself responding to caricatures of my positions on
the basis for scientific consensus, the issue of anthropogenic
causation of global warming, and now the use of computer modeling in
the sciences.

There is a reason why we're not seeing nuclear testing anymore.
Computer modeling of the test process is sufficiently sophisticated
to replace the need to actually detonate bombs underground.

Why is the computer modeling sufficient? Because the models have
been tested against reality and the results and the operation of the
model accurately reflect reality.

Furthermore, the aging nuclear stockpile is modeled by computer.
There is already a call starting that there should be some future
limited testing to verify the accuracy of the models, for the error
of the models increases over time.

Bravo.

Bravo to other scientific disciplines that verify their models
against reality.

Run for the bomb shelter if the quality of environmental models is
substituted for the nuclear testing models.

The environmental models don't follow the same rigor as described
above and models aren't subjected to the same criteria of
falsification. Yes, the climate is a very complex system and it is a
daunting task to accurately model it, and if we're not up to the
task, then don't pretend that the rigor is there when it's not. Yes,
do your modeling runs and then embark on an experiment to see how
well the results reflect reality and then publish your results.
Don't just publish results of a modeling run.

I fully understand the use of models within sciences and I can
ascertain the difference between good models and poor models. If you
wish to label me a global warming denier and someone who doesn't
understand the utility of computer models, there is little I can do
to dissuade you. I simply hope others can see the point, which seems
to be lost on you, that I am trying to make without caricaturizing
it.

> Fine if you disagree, but do you really think policy makers should
> listen to you,

Nice rhetorical trick, but I've never sought to influence policy
makers on this matter.

> Time to give up the fight, tango,
>
> Arthur

Why? As I see it I'm upholding the right of free inquiry and healthy
debate. I'd rest easier if I saw healthy debate in the field and if
the deniers weren't suppressed and lynched but rather humiliated
through refutation. Biologists were able to do it with respect to
creationists because they could marshall the evidence rather than
invoking the tactics I've witnesses recently.

I see the same tactics used when I visit leftist blogs and websites.
Dissent and inquiry are suppressed and everyone is expected to get
with the program. That type of mentality scares me to the core.

TangoMan

Welcome back from vacation, TangoMan, I trust you had a good time. I would
love to reply in detail to many of your posts, but, as I have mentioned
before, I am severely disadvantaged in the time department :-). I addition,
I feel sleezy not being able to provide all the references you do in support
of my own statements, due to the same issue.

However (my favorite word):

>
> > 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>
>TangoMan
>

Having read the article from the Christian Scientist Monitior, I it occured
to me that the checks and balances are, in fact working. The article itself
rang somewhat alarmist, as such articles are wont to do, perhaps even being
designed as such (ya think?). Such an adminstrative purge also occured
during the Clinton/Gore administration, during which the less than rigorous
politicized environmental sciences gained a great deal of their strength,
and arguably became burdened to a much greater extent with the
aforementioned qualities. A reverse purge (of a sorts) by the Bush
administration can be viewed as a reactoin to this, a balance if you will,
with some fresh politicizations of its own (like abortion). The checks and
balances of science are in place I think, and the politiks will always try
to subvert them to their own agendas. However, science has no inherent
temporal resolution, or if it does, there are many and diverse ones in
operation all the time. Politiks has unwittingly become just such a one, I
think, due to the fact that its own resolution is in a four year lock step.

In short, though the current events may alarm us, it seems that stepping
back form the time lline a bit and observing history, one can be confident
that the science will stay the course. Compare it to a graph of the markets
:-), and will look the same: ups and downs, with no apparent rhyme or reason
without scale, but gaining these qualtities when one chooses to look at the
larger scales to reveal the inevitable upward movement of the long term
numbers.

In my own opinion, I would like to see science dominate the poilicy making
world, if only for the reason that it provides more reason to the results,
instead of mob rules democracy, or just plain decision making from ignorance
which provides a great deal of friciton to our goals of becoming a space
race. What a waste of time and energy the politiking of science is! If only
there were a way to distill the essence of the latter...

Val

> --- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>> If you're expecting certainty from science, you're barking up
>> the wrong tree.
>
> No, I'm expecting more substance to be attached to what is published
> and then dissemenated. Sloppiness like this feeds the very deniers
> that more solid arguments and presentations would suppress.

Scientific publication should be understood as more like an interoffice
memo than like a final press release. This is what I mean when I refer
to public lack of understanding of how science works - lots of stuff
gets published that is later shown to be wrong, not just based on new
results, but merely on more careful analysis. You publish when you
reach a point where you feel that you have something new to contribute
to the ongoing scientific conversation, and peer review exists to make
sure that your contribution is original and not trivially falsified.
The next stage is more careful critical examination, which takes place
*after* publication.

When the press or politicians lock onto some recently published paper
as guidance for policy they are making a serious error. The theories
and findings which hold up under critical examination make it into
books and review papers, and these are the places to look for more
rigorously verified science. That's why consensus is important - the
consensus *is* science, more so than any individual paper. Scientific
truth emerges out of the interaction of many individual scientists, and
papers are the medium of that interaction. It's quite possible that
the consensus is wrong, but more often than not (much more often) it's
right.

>> That's why scientific consensus is critically important - it
>> tells you what the likelihood of a particular model (and its
>> associated predictions) being accurate.
>
> How's that again? Correctness is determined by popular vote! Hmm, I
> must have missed that in my studies. I always thought evidence,
> method and falsifiability were more central to accuracy and
> understanding rather than political posuturing.

Popular vote among people who understand the issues involved and who
have something to lose by being wrong. That's why over time the truth
tends to be ferreted out. In the short term there may be serious
errors (and "short term" varies from months to decades, depending on
the subject area).

> Oh well, I guess because I'm not a scientist I really don't know the
> secrets of the temple.

There are real, systematic distortions within the system, including
political ones. We'd be better off if more people understood the
system, its' strengths and weaknesses, but most people have such a
primitive model of human nature (and are so deeply wedded to it) that
there's no real hope of widespread understanding in practice.

Politicization of science is a real problem, but it's a problem in
large part because people don't want to wait until conclusions are
firmed up. Even with moneyed interests actively working to subvert the
system, the truth will eventually come out. The problem is that the
more active and aggressive the interests are in subversion, the longer
the timescale before the truth eventually emerges, and in some cases
that's just too long.

I don't see a clear and simple solution other than to try to be aware
of the various interests attempting to push conclusions one way or
another.

......Andrew

>
> > --- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
> >> If you're expecting certainty from science, you're barking up
> >> the wrong tree.
> >
> > No, I'm expecting more substance to be attached to what is
> > published and then dissemenated. Sloppiness like this feeds the
> > very deniers that more solid arguments and presentations would
> > suppress.
>
> Scientific publication should be understood as more like an
> interoffice memo than like a final press release. This is what I
> mean when I refer to public lack of understanding of how science
> works - lots of stuff gets published that is later shown to be
> wrong, not just based on new results, but merely on more careful
> analysis. You publish when you reach a point where you feel that
> you have something new to contribute to the ongoing scientific
> conversation, and peer review exists to make sure that your
> contribution is original and not trivially falsified. The next
> stage is more careful critical examination, which takes place
> *after* publication.

This is a very concise summation and this is the creative
destruction I referred to in my earlier post. I agree. The point as
I see it isn't to publish a magnum opus but to advance the art,
defend your position and contribute to the effort of falsifying
other's work. The goal is to weed out the weak arguments and I
suppose scientists shouldn't have thin skins if they're going to be
opening themselves to such a process of criticism.

My point has more to do with a subjective call about standards. The
study I referred to in "Nature," IMHO, doesn't meet the conditions
(as you note above) of "something new to contribute to the ongoing
scientific conversation, and peer review exists to make sure that
your contribution is original and not trivially falsified."

I don't see the utility in presenting results from running a
computer model and then predicting species extinction if the
conditions in the model come to pass. Why even bother running the
model and instead just come out and say if these conditions come to
pass species will become extinct. The error laden computer model
doesn't add any authority to the statement. So why does the
inclusion of the computer model make the predictions *scientific*?
I'd much rather see results on how closely the model represents the
climatic cycle.

Perhaps this has to do with the urgent need to publish in order to
advance one's career. A market always expands to fill a demand.
There certainly are a heirarchy of journals for every science
discipline and I'd be surprised if most scientists can stay abreast
of ALL the published work pertinent to their field (marginal
journals included.)

As the signal/noise ratio decreases, standards fall and even though
there is peer review at each journal, what passes muster does a
disservice to the very standards you describe above.

For those scientists who are employed on a university campus, they
must in their heart of hearts wonder about some of the disciplines
they see being practiced on campus. Most social sciences aspire to
the rigor of the physical sciences, and they do follow the same
publishing paradigm, so doesn't much of that activity seem like
useless spinning of the wheels?

I contend that across the spectrum of human knowledge there is no bi-
modal distribution of rigor with all of the physical sciences
clustered together at one end on a scale of rigor and standards and
all the other fields of study clustered together at a lesser level.
Rather, I think there is some type of linear distribution to this
application of rigor and standards. My impression is that
environmental sciences, due in large part to the difficulty in
understanding the complexity of the systems that are the focus of
their study, fall far short of the rigor found in physics and
chemistry and are down at the level of, let's say, clincial
neuropsychology and macroeconomics, but above the level of sociology
and cultural anthropology. If this is indeed the case, then the
predictive value of their work should be held to the same standards
as comparative fields. I don't think that this is currently the case
and that they are afforded more respect than they've earned from
demonstrating the predicitive value of their science.

Simply, ISTM that the environmental sciences are punching above
their weight.

> That's why consensus is important - the consensus *is* science,
> more so than any individual paper. Scientific truth emerges out
> of the interaction of many individual scientists, and papers are
> the medium of that interaction. It's quite possible that the
> consensus is wrong, but more often than not (much more often) it's
> right.

What backs the consensus? That's the important distinction. Maybe
you've got your back up about this consensus issue because you have
to deal with cranks (I hope I'm not one :-) who use Crichton's
consensus argument as justification for their outlandish theories.
If there is evidence that withstands attempts at falsification and
the comunity reaches consensus on its utility, then I contend that
the need for the community to stress its consensus is minimal
because the facts and data can speak for themselves and the
consensus is that scientists are saying "we all agree on the
thoroughness of our understanding". Conversely, I'm leery when
consensus is trotted out front and center to substitute for the lack
of rigor in the field. This form of consensus is a political
statement.

Here is an excellent essay on consensus that examines the role of
cranks and their attacks on consensus and puts them in their place.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-consensus.htm

Perhaps that is where you think I'm coming from. I'm not. You'll
have to parse my argument in more detail to understand my concern. I
think consensus is too widely bandied about and should be reserved
for matters that are solidly supported. There is compelling evidence
of anthropogenic causation of human causation in global climate
change thus a position of consensus is supportable. The extent of
the causation and its long range effects are less supportable, thus
when consensus is trotted out it is a political statement.

There was wide spread consensus that homosexuality was a mental
disorder and then "In 1973, the Board of Trustees of the American
Psychiatric Association voted to delete homosexuality as a mental
disorder from the seventh printing of the second edition of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-II."
http://www.priory.com/psych/disparat.htm

The case above is illustrative of a field lacking the rigor of
physics and thus more reliant on subjective standards and therefore
the field is more prone to political basis for reaching consensus.
The same is the case for environmental sciences. Measuring levels of
pollution and observing a relationship between such levels and
demonstrable effects on the environment is one thing. Determining
the carrying capacity of the environment and the ability of numerous
and disparate environmental cycles and their various interactions to
ameliorate our negative influence is wholly another. In the former
case a position of consensus is supportable, in the latter case, we
simply don't know enough and to posture as though we do and to
advocate the adoption of the precautionary principle becomes a
consensus based on ideology and politics and is absent specific
evidence that can support the consensus.

Now, having said the above that doesn't mean that there should be no
public policy to ameleorate our impact on the environment. We should
be taking such measures and we should acknowledge many different
approaches that each seek in their own way to address the issue.
Lending a scientific imprimatur to a political compromise is what
I'm uncomfortable with. Science should clearly acknowledge what it
knows, what is doesn't know, and what it speculates on. The
environmental sciences have abandoned such clarity.

I wonder if the religous aspects of environmentalism, which I think
we on this list have all acknowledged do exist, has a spillover
effect on environmental sciences. Perhaps an affintiy to such a
world view serves to guide some people into the field. I'm not aware
of any other scientific discipline that has this type of related
religious movement as a close parallel that sits across the
epistomological divide. Perhaps in days of yore, people would study
astronomy so that they could search for the face of god, but do
teenagers today hold plasma as being a wonderous state of matter and
then strive to study plasma physics so that they can achieve a more
spiritual bonding with this different state of matter. I'm curious
about the polluting *sub-conscious* influence of mysticism on the
scientific method and tolerance for dissenting opinion that
challenges the orthodoxy. Yes, there are cranks and industry hacks
that launch spurious attacks, but surely shining a bright light on
such idiocy should solve that problem. More problematic for me is
when there are people of good conscience who point out that
consensus is advancing faster than warranted by the evidence and
they are attacked rather than debated. That rings more true of
religious behavior and lends support to the hypothesis that, when
push comes to shove, the primary allegiance may be to philosophy
rather than method.

> Politicization of science is a real problem, but it's a problem in
> large part because people don't want to wait until conclusions are
> firmed up. Even with moneyed interests actively working to
> subvert the system, the truth will eventually come out. The
> problem is that the more active and aggressive the interests are
> in subversion, the longer the timescale before the truth
> eventually emerges, and in some cases that's just too long.

You know, from my reading of this debate I don't think we're that
far apart in opinion. I think I'm just doing a poor job at conveying
the point I'm trying to make but I'm unsure of how else I can get my
point across. Oh well.

I'm sure you've come across the Science Court idea before. I'd be
interested in your, and others', opinions on its usefulness for
science that is to be used to guide public policy?

TangoMan

> What backs the consensus? That's the important distinction.

The consensus is only backed up by the self interest of the various
scientists involved in (1) desiring to avoid being shown wrong at a
later date, and (2) desiring to make a name for themselves if they are
able to show that the consensus is wrong.

Seems a little tenuous as a basis for a modern technological
civilization, doesn't it?

On the other hand, it's brought us this far...
The same basic principle of emergent self-organization underlies market
economies, so it certainly works in some situations. The big problem
is that there is a transient period surrounding times of change during
which large deviations from ideal behavior can occur. It's important
that policy not be made based on science associated with these
transients (just as it's important not to make policy based on the
assumption that market transients represent genuine new trends). The
case in environmental science appears to be that the basic timescales
for the science are long, but the policymaking timescales are short.

......Andrew

>
> Biologists were able to do it with respect to
> creationists because they could marshall the evidence rather than
> invoking the tactics I've witnesses recently.

No, actually, creationists are still around. The tactics
biologists have used to win their case to the public (evolution is now
the foundation of just about every field of biology) resembles very closely
the "consensus-based" thinking in climate science. You've probably
read Thomas Kuhn on paradigm shifts and revolutions in science
- if you haven't, I'd recommend it, though it's not a completely
accurate description of the process. It does indicate exactly
how development of scientific consensus, even when previous
"paradigms" cannot be directly (at least easily) refuted, is a key
in scientific progress. Philip Kitcher's book on the conduct of science
(don't have title to hand here) is also very instructive in explicitly
modeling this process of communication and convincing that goes
on among scientists, to the point a consensus develops. It's
a very sound process, though it can sometimes be slow to act (the
worst recent example is the consensus among geologists against
continental drift until the 1960's). But there are none of the indicators
of an impending paradigm shift in climate science - the consensus
is very solid.

>
> I see the same tactics used when I visit leftist blogs and websites.
> Dissent and inquiry are suppressed and everyone is expected to get
> with the program. That type of mentality scares me to the core.

Uh, cliquishness is not confined to the left. Science, at least, has
a lot of mechanisms to suppress that defect of human nature.

Here's one link on the Climate Research case:

http://www.stopesso.com/coverage/00000058.php
"``They submitted a flawed paper,'' said Hans von Storch, editor-in-chief
of the journal, Climate Research. He said that the journal's peer review
procedure failed to identify methodological flaws in the study.

However, owners of the magazine, which is published in Germany, refused
to allow him to write an editorial saying the paper was flawed, Von Storch
said in an e-mail to Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt. Cox Newspapers reported
in May that the paper was underwritten by the American Petroleum
Institute and promoted by nonprofit organizations that receive support
from energy interests, primarily ExxonMobil Corp. "

"three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over the journal's
handling of the review process that approved the study; among them is
Hans von Storch, the journal's recently appointed editor in chief.
""It was flawed and it shouldn't have been published," he said."

Here are the words of the journal's editor in chief himself, who
resigned over the fact that the PUBLISHER OF THE JOURNAL WOULD NOT
LET THE EDITOR IN CHIEF PUBLISH AN EDITORIAL!!!

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm

"After a conflict with the publisher Otto Kinne of Inter-Research I
stepped down on 28. July 2003 as Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research;
the reason was that I as newly appointed Editor-in-Chief wanted to make
public that the publication of the Soon & Baliunas article was an error,
and that the review process at Climate Research would be changed in order
to avoid similar failures. The review process had utterly failed;
important questions have not been asked, as was documented by a comment
in EOS by Mann and several coauthors. (The problem is not whether the
Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, or if Mann's hockey
stick is realistic; the problem is that the methodological basis for
such a conclusion was simply not given.) It was not the first time that
the process had failed, but it was the most severe case. However, my
authority as Editor-in-Chief did obviously not cover the publication
of an editorial spelling out the problem. The publisher declined the
publication, and I cancelled my task as Editor-in-Chief immediately
on 28 July 2003.

I withdrew also als editor because I learned during the conflict that
CR editors used different scales for judging the validity of an article.
Some editors considered the problem of the Soon & Baliunas paper as
merely a problem of "opinion", while it was really a problem of severe
methodological flaws. Thus, I decided that I had to disconnect from
that journal, which I had served proudly for about 10 years.

Today I am not longer related to the journal Climate Research in any
way. Only the review process of those manuscripts, for which I initiated
the review process, will be completed by me. After that I will be
completely detached.

Three more editors withdrew namely Clare Goodess, Mitsuru Ando and Shardul
Argawala. In mid September 2003 Andrew Comrie resigned as well."

As to computer modeling - it's getting pretty good. Sufficiently so that the
fastest computer in the world is devoted not to nuclear weapons
studies, but to climate modeling - Japan's "Earth Simulator", when deployed
faster than the 20 fastest US computers combined:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/20/tech/main506797.shtml

Obviously it's very hard to test a climate model prediction for future
change against the future, because it hasn't happened yet. And the
time scales on which you can even measure "climate" (as opposed to
yearly weather variations) are really decades, which makes direct
comparison of prediction and result difficult.

But climate models are routinely calibrated against tons of past
data - here for example is one comparison:
http://www.geo.brown.edu/georesearch/esh/QE/Research/PaleoClm/DataMode/DataMode.htm

which compares past data on plant types (from pollen counts) and lake levels
with climate model results for the past 20,000+ years. Lots of good
science is done this way.

But I'm really no expert - I truly fail to see why there seems
to be such mistrust of the real experts here. What direct evidence
do you have, other than "attitude", and the various rumors you've
traded on, that climate scientists have done anything at all dishonest?

Arthur

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
> > Biologists were able to do it with respect to
> > creationists because they could marshall the evidence rather than
> > invoking the tactics I've witnesses recently.
>
> No, actually, creationists are still around.

Cranks are always around. Look at the essay I included on consensus
and cranks in a previous post.

> Here's one link on the Climate Research case:
>
> http://www.stopesso.com/coverage/00000058.php
> "``They submitted a flawed paper,'' said Hans von Storch, editor-
> in-chief of the journal, Climate Research. He said that the
> journal's peer review procedure failed to identify methodological
> flaws in the study.

Where to start? You wrote "but out-and-out lying and
misrepresentation, which seems to be what happened in the Climate
Research article, is rather a bit worse." This piece from a StopEsso
website doesn't seem to support your assertion. First off, I'll read
the material fairly but I wonder why you have to pull this from a
anti-oil website. These types of sites are what Claudio objected to
earlier. We really should look for less biased sites.

I'm still looking for evidence of lying and misrepresentation and
all you've provided is a report of methodological flaws. If that's
the new standard for creating intellectual firestroms and editors
losing their jobs I'll expect many positions to be opening up soon.
You know, come to think of it, John Rennie is still Editor-in-Chief
of Scientific American after publishing the disgraceful attack on
Lomborg.

http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=masthead

Yet I hear no peep about lying and misrepresentation from the forces
of truth, justice and the American way. Hmhh. Yet, an article that
goes against orthodoxy creates this stir. Then the article is
expanded and more co-authors join in the submission. Why would they
do that? Why the fuss? Why not simply refute it? Point by meticulus
point.

Some scientists tried, to which this news release attests.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/agu-lcs070703.php

"A group of leading climate scientists has reaffirmed the "robust
consensus view" . . . In so doing, they refuted recent claims . ."

Interesting how a reaffirmation now is equivalent to a refutation.
OK, cheap shot I know, this afterall is the press release. I surely
hope that the standards within the article itself are more rigorous.

"Climate model simulations cannot explain the anomalous late 20th
century warmth without taking into account the contributions of
human activities, the authors say."

Hmm. Simulations don't explain the issue. Look to this heavy
reliance on computer models as accurate models of global climatic
systems for a possible source of error. Why aren't the obvious
sources of error eliminated before looking for other causal factors?
Such as modeling error. Because these errors can't be eliminated yet
and to wait for better models would be a career-killing tactic so
it's better to issue error-laden output and call it science.

"First, in using proxy records to draw inferences about past
climate, it is essential to assess their actual sensitivity to
temperature variability. In particular, the authors say, Soon and
Baliunas misuse proxy data reflective of changes in moisture or
drought, rather than temperature, in their analysis."

For this critique to be wholly valid, the critics need to
demonstrate that the error inherent in the proxy data is less than
the error to be expected from the causal relationship between
moisture/drought and temperature.

The second and third points look to me to be critical on the
methodological *differences* rather than *flaws*.

Overall this rebuttal seems to be covered with *cover your ass*
conditional statements (may, possibly, could, etc.) that I wouldn't
expect from a more firmly grounded discipline.

My issue isn't to defend Soon and Baliunas but to criticize this
whole circus and the intolerance I see.

> As to computer modeling - it's getting pretty good. Sufficiently
> so that the fastest computer in the world is devoted not to
> nuclear weapons studies, but to climate modeling - Japan's "Earth
> Simulator", when deployed faster than the 20 fastest US computers
> combined:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/20/tech/main506797.shtml

You're conflating two concepts here. If I take my copy of Windows
VERSION 1.0 and run it on the same supercomputer referenced in this
link, that won't make the buggy piece of crap "pretty good."

Yes, the Japanese have done something newsworthy by creating this
supercomputer and dedicating it to climate modeling but all this
tells us is that they have speed on their side. What is crucial is
the elegance of the model.

This is the same thing as a farmer putting a jet engine on his
tractor. WOW. GEE WHIZ. How useful is that to him though?

> But climate models are routinely calibrated against tons of past
> data - here for example is one comparison:
>
http://www.geo.brown.edu/georesearch/esh/QE/Research/PaleoClm/DataMod
e/DataMode.htm

Yes they are. There is nothing *inherently* wrong with this approach
but the scientists must always be cognizant of the post hoc, ergo
propter hoc fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

Did you actually read this link in detail?

"Global climate models are now being enlarged to earth-system
models . . " They're being enlarged, but then how did we come to
our understanding if the models are only now being enlarged?

I want statistical correlation coefficients not ". . . may have
affected regional and continental climate and environmental patterns"

Look at this graphic from the link you provided.
http://www.geo.brown.edu/georesearch/esh/QE/Research/PaleoClm/DataMod
e/climat2.gif

Look at the variation from the different models they tested. It's
all over the map.

Don't get me wrong, I think that they're doing something very
valuable, which is testing the models, and not running to publish
results from those models and claiming it to be science.

> Lots of good science is done this way.

Perhaps therein lies the problem. I don't consider publishing GIGO
results to be *good science* and it disturbs me that it passes for
such and that the vaunted peer review process considers it as adding
constructively to the dialogue.

> But I'm really no expert - I truly fail to see why there seems
> to be such mistrust of the real experts here.

If you truly fail to see what is going on I fear I can't make the
case any better than I've attempted to thus far. I've provided links
and support for all of my concerns. I've drawn parallels that the
treatments the environmental apostates are receiving may have
religious undertones and offered that up as a possible working
hypothesis. I simply don't know why this intolerance is taking place
but I see it.

Rather than refutation of the controversial material, I witness ad
hominem attacks such as those on Lomborg, double standards on
methodological constructs, and generally a very closed minded
approach.

I came across the same material you provided, and more, on the
Climate Research debacle in the process of forming my opinion. Soon
and Baliunas received 5% of their funding from a foundation
connected to an oil company. Knowing this, I will take a closer look
at the situation for bias, but I still believe that everyone has the
right to fund research and organizations, and recognize that there
is countervailing bias on the other side. Surprise. Yes there is an
orthodoxy that also likes to maintain its influence. This is the
same principle at work as smearing the author of a book critical to
the precautionary principle because it was published by the Cato
Institute, knowing full well that Greenpeace would never publish the
material.

> What direct evidence do you have, other than "attitude", and the
> various rumors you've traded on, that climate scientists have done
> anything at all dishonest?
>
> Arthur

Again you're trying to use fancy rhetorical tricks here. I've
provided plenty of evidence of intolerance and poor methodology. Go
back and follow the links I reference. I have no idea what you mean
by "attitude?" I've traded on no rumors for I've backed up every
statement I've made. You on the other hand have asserted that Soon
and Baliunas have lied and misrepresented their material and I still
await evidence of this claim. Unfortunately, a rumor you've heard
won't pass muster with me. Lastly, I've never claimed that climate
scientists have done anything at all that is dishonest. I've said
that they are not following good method and there is a level of
shrill intolerance to dissent that I find off-putting.

You're attempting the old political trick of defining your opponent
but I'll refute you, point by point, as you mischaracterise me, but
I'll not do the same to you in kind.

TangoMan

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"

> > 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

> Uh, more like, were embarrassed into resigning, from what I heard.
> Speculation is par for the course, but out-and-out lying and
> misrepresentation, which seems to be what happened in the Climate
> Research article, is rather a bit worse.

I wonder if the editor of Nature will be forced to resign and what
censure the authors of the piece will face for their conduct?

http://www.techcentralstation.com/010904B.html

Here is some effort at falsifiying Mann's hockey stick. Good
scientific process at work regardless of whether it holds up or not.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121903D.html

Here is some stuff on Lomborg's vindication.

http://www.greenwatch.org/news/news.asp?ID7

How telling the concluding sentence below really is. I didn't really
care much about the debates until I started reading the rabid
commentaries on Lomborg and decided to look for myself.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/122203C.html

History shows that those who persecute heretics beget more heretics.
The Union of Concerned Scientists' clumsy attempt to silence Bjorn
Lomborg is sure to inspire more skeptical environmentalists.

Keep in mind that we're sure to face this type of mentality if SPS
power beaming ever comes to be, or if we increase our launch rate to
orbit.

TangoMan

>
> You on the other hand have asserted that Soon
>and Baliunas have lied and misrepresented their material and I still
>await evidence of this claim.
>
They claimed to re-analyze somebody else's data, and did it in a
selective fashion that wasn't evident from the text of the paper.
Scientists are generally too polite to call a lie a lie, but that's what
it was. I don't think this discussion is being very productive - as I
said, I'm no expert, I'm just a physicist who has some experience in the
way science works, and you seem to think it works very differently from
my experience. There's a free market of ideas in science, everybody has
a chance to be heard - but consensus really is meaningful. If science is
being corrupted on climate issues, please, "show me the money" - what's
the source of the corruption? Because I don't see it - except on the
other side of this debate,

Arthur

>--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>
>>Uh, more like, were embarrassed into resigning, from what I heard.
>>Speculation is par for the course, but out-and-out lying and
>>misrepresentation, which seems to be what happened in the Climate
>>Research article, is rather a bit worse.
>>
>I wonder if the editor of Nature will be forced to resign and what
>censure the authors of the piece will face for their conduct?
>
>http://www.techcentralstation.com/010904B.html
>

Uh, Tech Central Station is (openly) funded by Exxon-Mobil and friends.
They have a very clear agenda, and it's not good science. What happened
with Climate Research, AS I SAID in the last note, was the editor in
chief was not allowed to act as any peer-review journal editor in chief
should, by publishing an editorial on future review policies in his own
journal. He resigned in protest. Nature still practices good peer review
policies. Sometimes things are published that are wrong, that's normal
science, and not the issue.

>Here is some stuff on Lomborg's vindication.
>
>http://www.greenwatch.org/news/news.asp?ID7
>
Lomborg runs the Danish institute in question, and is strongly supported
by the current (conservative) Danish government. That's a very sorry
case there. Anyway, greenwatch is part of the "Capital Research Center",
info on it here:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Capital_Research_Center
Let me just quote one phrase: "CRC has also published two recent books
denying that smoking causes cancer."

So I rely on peer-reviewed scientific publications and the statements of
major scientific societies, and you rely on these guys for your
information? I think you need to change the websites you frequent.

Arthur

Geez - I wish I had the time to follow this more
closely.

Arthur & Tangoman

I've read Bjorn Lomborg's book and the Hard Science of
Global Warming by Danny Harvey and didn't feel
statisfied by either argument as being complete or
comprehensive.

Granted I am not a professional scientist and cannot
spend a great deal of time reading up on the subject.
There still seems room to drive a third view of the
climate change debate that fits within both Lomborg
and Harveys works.

Harvey uses a lot of averages for cloud cover and
terrestrial albedo where I find this to be the most
significant control on global climate that there is.

Lomborg points out that there are more acres of forest
now than 100 years ago (don't quote me on this) and
the primary increase is around the North pole
(balances out the losses in the tropics). My
assertion is if you move the plants from the
equatorial regions to the polar regions you setup a
giant change in the heating and cooling patterns.

Third both of them use low altitude continental
terrestrial measurements to cooberate their
models/arguments. I look at the top of the atmosphere
and the interchange of moisture and air between the
polar realm and the middle latitudes. A powerful
North South circulation pattern speaks volumes to me
more than a .5 degree warmer year as measured against
the last 50. The recent evidence of global shading is
interesting though entirely within the idea that
faster lofting of dust, soot, and whatever else gets
up there and stays up there longer.

Ok my data is more sketchy and I have to guess what is
happening over the Pacific ocean as nobody has put
sensors there yet. What I do have is volumes of
documented defrosting of the polar region complete
with suspected 100,000 year old organic material
rotting in a swamp. My geologist instincts for
disaster are going off like Spiderman and I don't by
the more banal assertions.

In summary I don't fault or praise the emissions of
C02 nearly as much as the increase of population to 6+
billion. If true then there is a much more difficult
soul searching to be done about the fate of humanity
and how to live with so many demands on the natural
world.

My solution to all that will hear me is to look to
what space development has to offer especially SPS.
Wealth to the Egyptians was green grass to raise
cattle. Look one step up to the sun and it is all the
same - power to shape and control our environment.

Sincerely, Thor

"The path to the stars goes through the problems of
the earth"

>--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"

>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>
>>Uh, more like, were embarrassed into resigning, from
what I heard.
>>Speculation is par for the course, but out-and-out
lying and
>>misrepresentation, which seems to be what happened
in the Climate
>>Research article, is rather a bit worse.
>>
>I wonder if the editor of Nature will be forced to
resign and what
>censure the authors of the piece will face for their
conduct?
>
>http://www.techcentralstation.com/010904B.html
>

Uh, Tech Central Station is (openly) funded by
Exxon-Mobil and friends.
They have a very clear agenda, and it's not good
science. What happened
with Climate Research, AS I SAID in the last note, was
the editor in
chief was not allowed to act as any peer-review
journal editor in chief
should, by publishing an editorial on future review
policies in his own
journal. He resigned in protest. Nature still
practices good peer review
policies. Sometimes things are published that are
wrong, that's normal
science, and not the issue.

>Here is some stuff on Lomborg's vindication.
>
>http://www.greenwatch.org/news/news.asp?ID7
>
Lomborg runs the Danish institute in question, and is
strongly supported
by the current (conservative) Danish government.
That's a very sorry
case there. Anyway, greenwatch is part of the "Capital
Research Center",
info on it here:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Capital_Research_Center
Let me just quote one phrase: "CRC has also published
two recent books
denying that smoking causes cancer."

So I rely on peer-reviewed scientific publications and
the statements of
major scientific societies, and you rely on these guys
for your
information? I think you need to change the websites
you frequent.

Arthur

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"

> Uh, Tech Central Station is (openly) funded by Exxon-Mobil and
> friends. They have a very clear agenda, and it's not good science.

What a sad state of affairs when people need to have their thinking
and opinions approved by group-think organizations.

I know where their funding comes from and it matters not. I know
that they have an interest in exposing zeal and excess in the green
movement and that works to my interests for the moment. I won't find
the same analysis or reporting from your approved group-think
originators.

Why is it that the Washington Post hasn't yet run the news of
Lomborg's vindication? Where is their retraction?

http://search1.washingtonpost.com/?
wp=on&_u.1&_u.2=2&_u.3 03&_u.4=1&_u.5&_u.6 04&_g.k_1=lombor
g&_v.7&_u.14=1&_b.1.x=9&_b.1.y

I don't buy into all that comes out from TechCentralStatation for I
can do thinking on my own.

> Lomborg runs the Danish institute in question,

Lomborg runs the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute. He was
condemned by the Danish Research Agency. The Danish Research Agency
reports to the Danish Ministry of Science. It was the Danish
Ministry of Science, the highest body of its type in Denmark, that
issued the report condemning Lomborg's treatment by the Danish
Research Agency.

For you to imply that Lomborg ordered the Institute he runs to
vindicate him is very tacky.

> Anyway, greenwatch is part of the "Capital Research Center",

I'm not sure what's going on here. You never before presented
yourself as the type of person who couldn't independently assess
information. Why this reliance on group-think all of a sudden? You
had nothing to say about the subject material in the link, but find
it sufficient to attack the source. Frankly, I'm surprised.

> So I rely on peer-reviewed scientific publications and the
> statements of major scientific societies, and you rely on these
> guys for your information? I think you need to change the websites
> you frequent.
>
> Arthur

Smears are usually a very ineffective tactic. It's a shame that your
entire response to this thread has been of that calibre.

It's unfortunate that I have to turn to sources that you disapprove
of for analysis but since I've just checked the Greenpeace website,

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/

and their search function returns nothing on Lomborg, all I'd be
left reading there is about the "Sauron White House."

You'll note that my criticism of the "Nature" article was entirely
my own. It was my analysis that there was too heavy a reliance on
computer models. My critiques of the links you provided were
entirely my own. Only last night did I come across a more
sophisticated critique of the article on TechCentralStation that
more effectively exposes the weaknesses of the research. As I've
already stated, it matters not that they published it, for the I can
judge the critique independently of the sponsor. I would have
thought you'd also have that same ability. Perhaps it has atrophied
by a heavy reliance on letting others do one's thinking for them.

It's odd that you smear me by siding with the side of authority but
make no mention of my fair linking to Mann's critique of Soon &
Baluinas in the journal "Eon" which is published by the American
GeoPhysics Union. Not a peep from you on my concerns about their
rebuttal. You seem to rely on authority doing your thinking for you.
It's not my place to lecture you on the lack of critical inquiry.

You've consistently misread my entire argument and have sought to
characterize it, and me, as a strawman that you could beat down with
group-think and ad hominem attacks.

My concern transcends the issue of globl warming for I see a future
when the prospect of microwave beams 10 km in diameter being beamed
down from orbit is going to rile the masses and if you expect
rationalism to win the day I think you'd be betting on the wrong
horse.

Some scientists will find that e-m radiation in the quantity beamed
will have deleterious effects on the ozone, the stratosphere or the
troposhere and they'll publish their results. These results will be
picked up on and the same precautionary principle will be applied.
Other scientists will also detect anthropogenic causation of
stratospheric interaction and will publish their results. There will
be a scientific consensus that microwaves do affect the
stratosphere. The long term implications will not be well understood
or well modeled. The ability to mitigate will not yet be developed.
And you can continue to draw parallels ad infinitum.

That's a future that I'm worried about, and this global warming
debate is really only a proxy for that future, for I fear the same
dynamics and mindsets will be at play.

I'd rather have people in the future confronting this situation who
can analyze matters on their own rather than turning to approved
group-think arbitors for their pre-digested opinions.

Look, it's obvious we're not making any headway in this discussion,
so I'm prepared to drop it. If you don't bait me, I won't post new
material. Fair enough? I hope so.

TangoMan

> For you to imply that Lomborg ordered the Institute he runs to
> vindicate him is very tacky.

The only place that referred to the Danish Science decision
as a "vindication" was Lomborg's institute (and the many
press reports that quoted its analysis of the affair).

> It's unfortunate that I have to turn to sources that you disapprove
> of for analysis but since I've just checked the Greenpeace website,
>
> http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/
>

Greenpeace is not a scientific organization either, they obviously have
their own agenda.

What I was trying to communicate was that you should take very
seriously scientific consensus. If you want to call it
"group-think" fine, but it's the way science works; it's not
some arbitrary political correctness, despite what institutions
like "Tech Central", "Greenwatch", (and, on the other side,
"greenpeace") and their ilk would have you believe. As an
individual not experienced with the range of background evidence that
goes into consensus, you're the one who has to prove your point with
an enormous weight of evidence, not the scientists, and argument from
anecdote or one or two exceptional cases (which is part of what
Lomborg did) will never cut it. If you don't believe that, you're in the
same boat as the "smoking does not cause cancer", "evolution is a sham",
"Einstein was wrong" folks.

Humans love anecdotes, but science doesn't work by anecdote,
it works by the weight of the evidence - which requires in-depth,
many-year study of the many threads in the web - yes, including
computer modeling. Unfortunately, dilettantes really don't have much
hope of breaking in, without years of study. Which is why I generally
trust the real experts (and not phony greenpeace or tech-central
"experts") when they mostly agree amongst themselves.

> It's odd that you smear me by siding with the side of authority but
> make no mention of my fair linking to Mann's critique of Soon &
> Baluinas in the journal "Eon" which is published by the American
> GeoPhysics Union.

That would be "Eos", I assume? I'm a subscriber to that little
newsletter. Never mind, though, I have no recollection of the point here.

> Some scientists will find that e-m radiation in the quantity beamed
> will have deleterious effects on the ozone, the stratosphere or the
> troposhere and they'll publish their results. These results will be
> picked up on and the same precautionary principle will be applied.

Not true at all. I was very closely aware of the debate on the
effects of terrestrial e-m radiation when the whole power-line scare
thing happened. The only claims of effects, which were hyped
by the media, were from a few biologists, not representative
of any major scientific body - there never was ANY scientific
consensus for harm there. Very quickly the American Physical Society
and other bodies had analyses done and published that proved there
could be no effect along the lines of that cited, and the whole
issue died away. When the science is clear, the debate can
be over very quickly. It's when there really is a problem that
we get into trouble - because there are very large forces opposed
to any challenge to the status quo, while the truth pulls scientists
the other way.

> Look, it's obvious we're not making any headway in this discussion,
> so I'm prepared to drop it. If you don't bait me, I won't post new
> material. Fair enough? I hope so.

What's baiting? I've been trying to get across the truth here.
But I've had enough of discussing it, yes.

Arthur

Well, it seems Thor has hit the nail on the head, so to speak. The
burgeoning population in conjunction with rising standards of living and the
attendant increase in industry of all kinds are, together, a formula for
dramatic change. Note that I don't say disaster, which is a realtive term.
The greenies' 'gaia' has survived far more than mankind could conceivably
through at it even if he should try purposely. It is a question of how we
want live with it that is the crux.

I am sure that there is some contribtution from our endeavors to the overall
temperature increase, but whether or not it is significant is certainly
subject to debate. It is clear that temperatures rise and fall over the
course of centuries and eons with no contributions from us, and that would
seem the natural way of things. One might even say that for us to try and
circumvent this process smacks of hubris, and may be the most un-natural
thing of all, much to the greenies' chagrin I'm sure.

Whatever the case, the move of heavy industry, power generation, and the
like to space, possibly with a good portion of the expanding populace, is a
necessary part of our near future. To think otherwise, or to be so short
sighted as to miss this fact, is dooming us to the inevitable squabbling and
warring over diminishing access to resources.

No time like the present!

Val

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
> > For you to imply that Lomborg ordered the Institute he runs to
> > vindicate him is very tacky.
>
> The only place that referred to the Danish Science decision
> as a "vindication" was Lomborg's institute (and the many
> press reports that quoted its analysis of the affair).

You've completely side-stepped the issue and can't own up to making
such an egregious charge and taking the position of gracefully
correcting yourself, so instead you are now nit-picking on another
point.

Back up your assertion.

I'm sure that the NYT and the Economist are sufficiently
professional to properly issue retractions, contrary to your charge.
Some institutions can say they were wrong, but it seems the most
vocal against Lomborg have the hardest time admitting their error
i.e. Washington Post.

Lomborg celebrates ministry ruling.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3340305.stm

It's so sleazy being green.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/14561.htm

Danish Ethics Panel Censured for Critique of Book.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?
res0C10FB3B5B0C708EDDAB0994DB404482

A reprieve for free speech.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%27%298%24%25RA%
5F%2B%23P%22%5C%0A

To clarify the matter for you, look here for a defiinition of
vindication:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/vindication

"justification against denial or censure"

Synonyms: defence, defense, exoneration

To help clarify matters for you even further, there is a difference
between vindication and validation.

No matter whether Lomborg is, in the future, repudiated through
proper process, a matter on which I don't care one way or the other,
my argument that there is a shrill intolerance in the environmental
science community still stands.

> What I was trying to communicate was that you should take very
> seriously scientific consensus.

I take consensus backed by evidence very seriously. I question
consensus that lacks such evidence. How many different ways does
this need to be spelled out for you?

> If you want to call it "group-think" fine,

I'm not calling consensus a group-think. I'm calling your style of
argumentation group-think, for you seem unable, or unwilling, to
look at the subject material that is presented and instead form your
rebuttal based on ad hominem fallacy that seems pre-approved and pre-
digested for you by group-think originators. The source of the
material is all you need to know in order to condemn it. That's
group-think, and it's dangerous.

In case you are wont to misinterpret the above statement, it has
nothing whatsoever to do with global-warming, rather it has to do
with your dismissal of the source of information (TechCentral)
without paying any heed to the content.

> As an individual not experienced with the range of background
> evidence that goes into consensus, you're the one who has to prove
> your point with an enormous weight of evidence, not the
> scientists, and argument from anecdote or one or two exceptional
> cases (which is part of what Lomborg did) will never cut it. If
> you don't believe that, you're in the same boat as the "smoking
> does not cause cancer", "evolution is a sham", "Einstein was
> wrong" folks.

Hmm. Let's see if I can deconstruct this line of reasoning. Believe
X or you are the same as Y. To put a finer point on the
deconstruction: Believe x (even when it is wrong) or you are the
same as Y.

When consensus has no evidence to support it, then all I need do is
falsify the consensus with one contra-example. Thus your
statement "you're the one who has to prove your point with an
enormous weight of evidence, not the scientists, and argument from
anecdote or one or two exceptional cases (which is part of what
Lomborg did) will never cut it" is flatly wrong.

If I falsify a position then the consensus was unsupported by
evidence. Do you understand how falsification works?

> including computer modeling.

Again you're arguing against a ghost. I was the one who praised the
scientists in the link you provided for calibrating their model
against reality. Terrific.

What I don't think is science is publishing computer model results
from error-laden models as was the case in "Nature." That simply is
unsubstantiated opinion and it doesn't matter the stature of the
scientist. If it is without support it is opinion and not science.
If he gets 13 other co-authors to share that unsubstantiated
opinion, then that consensus is still simply opinion.

> > Some scientists will find that e-m radiation in the quantity
> > beamed will have deleterious effects on the ozone, the
> > stratosphere or the troposhere and they'll publish their
> > results. These results will be picked up on and the same
> > precautionary principle will be applied.

> Not true at all. I was very closely aware of the debate on the
> effects of terrestrial e-m radiation when the whole power-line
> scare thing happened.

WOW! I'd love to see the power lines where you live. How do they get
all the way up to the stratosphere?

Here is what I'm concerned about, and to the best of my knowledge it
has nothing to do with powerlines. Further, I'm concerned about the
knowable unknowns that we don't yet know about at this moment but
which may present themselves when SPS comes closer to reality.
(how's that for clear Rumsfeld-speak :-)

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-
bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812415.PDF

"While only a small fraction of the incident microwave energy is
absorbed by the ionosphere, the resultant heating at microwave
frequencies could significantly alter the thermal budget of the
ionosphere. In the lower ionosphere (D & E regions) a phenomenon
called "enhanced electron heating" can occur if the microwave
heating overwhelms the natural cooling mechanisms of the ionosphere.
The resultant heating can then affect electron-ion recombination
rates, changing ionospheric densities, or drive additional
interactions. Furthermore, in the E region it is possible that the
microwave heating could enhance natural density irregularities
called "sporadic E" that can cause scintillations or scattering of
radio frequency signals particularly in the very high frequency
(VHF) band, e.g., citizen-band and some television bands."

> What's baiting? I've been trying to get across the truth here.
> But I've had enough of discussing it, yes.
>
> Arthur

It would help you to read what I write rather than blindly and
deafly shouting slogans that have nothing to do with the issues I've
raised. The truth is only pertinent when it applies to the situation
and you have to understand the situation you're arguing against in
order to find the appropriate truth.

TangoMan

>
>It would help you to read what I write rather than blindly and
>deafly shouting slogans that have nothing to do with the issues I've
>raised.
>
Honestly, I do not have time to defend science further here. You keep
asserting there is no evidence for the "group think" consensus. Please
go look at the scientific literature yourself - there are thousands of
papers with evidence out there, available in any local university
library. Become a climate scientist yourself, and you'll understand, I hope.

I'm done.

Arthur

Some input from an innocent bystander :-)

I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that TangoMan's chief concern here
isn't the evidence that Arthur is speaking of, but the treatment of evidence
or hypothesis that run counter to the prevailing consensus. In addition, I
think that he is concerned about the inappropriate, dishonest, or ignorant
use of such things in the persuit of a social engineering agenda. Let me
state ahead of time that I agree with these concerns, and anyone can
certainly see that this is occuring.

After following the links provided, I concluded that the treatment of Dr. L
didn't seem to fit in with the pure ideal of how the science community
should behave to enhance science. It seemed that there was probably a pretty
good amount of knee jerk PCness in the treatment of his book, and I was
amazed by how SciAm behaved as well. So, at least in this case (I hadn't the
time to pursue all the info), it is evident that politiks from outside of
science played a part. One doesn't seem to see this in such things as
physics, probably due to the extreme esoteric nature of the work, and the
much more concrete results. The chief emotional responders, and the power
base that politikos play off of are the masses, whom I think we can all
agree are on average woefully deficient in science knowledge and critical
thinking ability. However, they certainly feel entiteled to their opinions,
however uniformed, and are played by the media and the politikos, neither of
whom have a great deal of ability to analyze the data before using it, and
love to develop the 'us vs. them' themes for ratings. Clearly there is a lot
more room for misunderstanding, heated arguments, and what not, in this
arena. I would venture to say that therein lies the root of the problem.

In my own readings, it seems evident that consensus is important an basis of
science, though in a much different way than the general public would look
at that word. Consider the difference in usage btween the sci community and
the general public of the words 'fact' and 'theory'. In reading the debate
between you two, it would seem that your primary differences lie here rather
than in the actual treatment of issues by the scientific community. After
all, quantum dynamics and relativity theory are both 'tentative' in the
strict scientific sense, in that they are both considered subject to
falsification. Indeed, experiments are done rigorously and routinely to do
just that. The fact that these experiments have only thus far served to
strenghten these theories does not change the fact that absolutely nothing
is absolute in science. The public, however, consider that 'theory' word to
mean that evolution, quantum dynamics, relativity, and a host of other
things, are all on very shaky ground because they are not called 'facts' by
science.

Perhaps it would help to consider where the preponderance of evidence lies,
and what useful predictions have been made and vindicated, or made and
falsified, and then base the opinion on that. In this sense the computer
models are making predictions, and only time will tell how accurate they
are. The use of model results to form public policy is a decision making
process that must be made by balancing risks vs. benefits, necessarily
without the luxury of waiting to see just who has the most accurate model.
Very different than science. In fact, in this case, politics is actually
gambling, but trying to bet with mind and not the heart, for the future
benfit of all (yes, yes, and a lot of other crap thrown in, like money and
big business, blah, blah).

In light of all that, and a recent post by Thor, it is very clear that: a)
the temperatures are rising with a very high degree of certainty b) mankind
has some sort of input to that at the present, though the exact degree is
uncertain c) due to clearly unavoidable developments (rising standards of
living in the third world and attendant increases in industry, and an
inexorable rise in populations) WILL lead to an exponentially increased
competition for a fixed amount of resources d) these factors WILL lead to
conflicts of all sorts, including wars e) due to the inevitable and
unstoppable proliferation of mass kill technologies, the costs will be very
high, possibly inluding the end of civilization as we know it or the
extinction of humanity f) we are the first species on this planet to have
the means to pass beyond these factors, the exact same factors that every
other living thing on this planet has had to cope with from the dawn of time
g) what in blue blazes are we going to do about it?

While I agree that there is an inordinate amount of politiks in the
envrionmental sciences at the present, this is no different than at any
other time one chooses to pick, including the favorite to mention, Galileo.
Ceratinly it behooves us all, but especially these sciences in particular,
to recognize the overt politiking where it intereferes with the healthy
course of debate, weed it out, and get on with it. On that I am sure we can
all agree. Or can we? :-)

Val

>In light of all that, and a recent post by Thor, it is very clear that: a)
>the temperatures are rising with a very high degree of certainty b) mankind
>has some sort of input to that at the present, though the exact degree is
>uncertain c) due to clearly unavoidable developments (rising standards of
>living in the third world and attendant increases in industry, and an
>inexorable rise in populations) WILL lead to an exponentially increased
>competition for a fixed amount of resources d) these factors WILL lead to
>conflicts of all sorts, including wars e) due to the inevitable and
>unstoppable proliferation of mass kill technologies, the costs will be very
>high, possibly inluding the end of civilization as we know it or the
>extinction of humanity f) we are the first species on this planet to have
>the means to pass beyond these factors, the exact same factors that every
>other living thing on this planet has had to cope with from the dawn of time
>g) what in blue blazes are we going to do about it?
>
Thanks Valens - not that I agree with all you said, but I think I can
agree with that :-)

Arthur

Greetings Val,

Thanks for your post and treatment of the subject. In
am in complete agreement that the global warming
debate is following a similar pattern to what Galileo
(The Catholic church was wrong) and Alfred Wegener
(The world is not static). In both cases there were
huge vested interests and a lack of commonly available
and perceivable clinching evidence.

The evolution debate got drowned out by the emergence
of genetics (very profitable and powerful) so much so
that a fundamentalist aquaintance of mine bemoaned his
inability to get a job as a biologist when everything
related to using gene analysis for classification. To
this day I believe he is still an avowed follower of
creationist doctrine though he works daily with the
evidence to the contrary.

My guess is the global warming debate will go the same
way and become irrelevant when things really start
happening and it is obvious to the voting populace
that it is time to act. This is still a ways off as
best I can tell and indifference reigns in the
meantime.

May I reassure you that on your point e) that the
human race is no closer to extinction than in the 12th
century though grim for some it may be. As in history
those that can afford to insulate themselves will do
so. Those that cannot will survive as best they can.
It is not hard to discern the winners from the losers
in a simple sense. Bangladesh looks doomed to
dissapear due to sea level rise. Wierder things could
happen to make this not what it seems.

It is my hope that this debate focuses more interest
in the opportunities of SPS as a solution to all sort
of earthly issues. As a group the community of space
enthusiasts seems to me deeply fragmented. This is
good for brainstorming though a liability for
encouraging respectability. Tangoman is right in my
opinion about the dangers of microwaving power to
earth and how consensus science would work against
that. It would not serve us to be in agreement only
to arouse a political and scientific force we could
not win against.

Cheers, Thor

Some input from an innocent bystander :-)

I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that TangoMan's
chief concern
here
isn't the evidence that Arthur is speaking of, but the
treatment of
evidence
or hypothesis that run counter to the prevailing
consensus. In
addition, I
think that he is concerned about the inappropriate,
dishonest, or
ignorant
use of such things in the persuit of a social
engineering agenda. Let
me
state ahead of time that I agree with these concerns,
and anyone can
certainly see that this is occuring.

After following the links provided, I concluded that
the treatment of
Dr. L
didn't seem to fit in with the pure ideal of how the
science community
should behave to enhance science. It seemed that there
was probably a
pretty
good amount of knee jerk PCness in the treatment of
his book, and I was
amazed by how SciAm behaved as well. So, at least in
this case (I
hadn't the
time to pursue all the info), it is evident that
politiks from outside
of
science played a part. One doesn't seem to see this in
such things as
physics, probably due to the extreme esoteric nature
of the work, and
the
much more concrete results. The chief emotional
responders, and the
power
base that politikos play off of are the masses, whom I
think we can all
agree are on average woefully deficient in science
knowledge and
critical
thinking ability. However, they certainly feel
entiteled to their
opinions,
however uniformed, and are played by the media and the
politikos,
neither of
whom have a great deal of ability to analyze the data
before using it,
and
love to develop the 'us vs. them' themes for ratings.
Clearly there is
a lot
more room for misunderstanding, heated arguments, and
what not, in this
arena. I would venture to say that therein lies the
root of the
problem.

In my own readings, it seems evident that consensus is
important an
basis of
science, though in a much different way than the
general public would
look
at that word. Consider the difference in usage btween
the sci community
and
the general public of the words 'fact' and 'theory'.
In reading the
debate
between you two, it would seem that your primary
differences lie here
rather
than in the actual treatment of issues by the
scientific community.
After
all, quantum dynamics and relativity theory are both
'tentative' in the
strict scientific sense, in that they are both
considered subject to
falsification. Indeed, experiments are done rigorously
and routinely to
do
just that. The fact that these experiments have only
thus far served to
strenghten these theories does not change the fact
that absolutely
nothing
is absolute in science. The public, however, consider
that 'theory'
word to
mean that evolution, quantum dynamics, relativity, and
a host of other
things, are all on very shaky ground because they are
not called
'facts' by
science.

Perhaps it would help to consider where the
preponderance of evidence
lies,
and what useful predictions have been made and
vindicated, or made and
falsified, and then base the opinion on that. In this
sense the
computer
models are making predictions, and only time will tell
how accurate
they
are. The use of model results to form public policy is
a decision
making
process that must be made by balancing risks vs.
benefits, necessarily
without the luxury of waiting to see just who has the
most accurate
model.
Very different than science. In fact, in this case,
politics is
actually
gambling, but trying to bet with mind and not the
heart, for the future
benfit of all (yes, yes, and a lot of other crap
thrown in, like money
and
big business, blah, blah).

In light of all that, and a recent post by Thor, it is
very clear that:
a)
the temperatures are rising with a very high degree of
certainty b)
mankind
has some sort of input to that at the present, though
the exact degree
is
uncertain c) due to clearly unavoidable developments
(rising standards
of
living in the third world and attendant increases in
industry, and an
inexorable rise in populations) WILL lead to an
exponentially increased
competition for a fixed amount of resources d) these
factors WILL lead
to
conflicts of all sorts, including wars e) due to the
inevitable and
unstoppable proliferation of mass kill technologies,
the costs will be
very
high, possibly inluding the end of civilization as we
know it or the
extinction of humanity f) we are the first species on
this planet to
have
the means to pass beyond these factors, the exact same
factors that
every
other living thing on this planet has had to cope with
from the dawn of
time
g) what in blue blazes are we going to do about it?

While I agree that there is an inordinate amount of
politiks in the
envrionmental sciences at the present, this is no
different than at any
other time one chooses to pick, including the favorite
to mention,
Galileo.
Ceratinly it behooves us all, but especially these
sciences in
particular,
to recognize the overt politiking where it intereferes
with the healthy
course of debate, weed it out, and get on with it. On
that I am sure we
can
all agree. Or can we? :-)

Val

>Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:23:57 -0500
>
> >It would help you to read what I write rather than
blindly and
> >deafly shouting slogans that have nothing to do
with the issues I've
> >raised.
> >
>Honestly, I do not have time to defend science
further here. You keep
>asserting there is no evidence for the "group think"
consensus. Please
>go look at the scientific literature yourself - there
are thousands of
>papers with evidence out there, available in any
local university
>library. Become a climate scientist yourself, and
you'll understand, I

I should amend 'e' ... It is too apocalyptic. The alternative to extinction,
or the end of civilization as we know it, and without expansion into space,
is a slow stagnation. The old going out with a wimper thing - but still ends
in extinction. But I know that's not the part you disagree with, agreed? :-)

Val

Greetings to you, as well, Thor,

Allow me to comment briefly on a few of your points:

>Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:11:31 -0800 (PST)
>
>May I reassure you that on your point e) that the
>human race is no closer to extinction than in the 12th
>century though grim for some it may be. As in history
>those that can afford to insulate themselves will do
>so. Those that cannot will survive as best they can.
>It is not hard to discern the winners from the losers
>in a simple sense. Bangladesh looks doomed to
>dissapear due to sea level rise. Wierder things could
>happen to make this not what it seems.

Remember that when I made the extinction reference, I was assuming no
expansion into space. That is the key, the pressure relief valve of you
will. If you mean that odds are against extinction, you are probably right,
though the alternative seems scant better. If we should remain on Earth, the
population and resource competition will escalate, and will generate
conflict. Indeed, that is what all wars have been fought over, though some
are deluded into thinking some are about ideals other than this. One thing
we can be sure of: The costs will be far hire in terms of humanity than we
have ever seen. Finally, as 9/11 demonstrated, and a little reflection on
current terror and war techniques, there will be no insulation regardless of
status or wealth. The insulation will only be in small degrees.

If we find a way around violence, it will necessarily be through draconian
use of controls on the populations, both social and probably eugenic. As I
mentioned in a previous post, the world will not go out with a bang, but
(paraphrase mine) a long drawn out whimper eneded with a death rattle. I
shudder to think of it.

>
>It is my hope that this debate focuses more interest
>in the opportunities of SPS as a solution to all sort
>of earthly issues. As a group the community of space
>enthusiasts seems to me deeply fragmented. This is
>good for brainstorming though a liability for
>encouraging respectability. Tangoman is right in my
>opinion about the dangers of microwaving power to
>earth and how consensus science would work against
>that. It would not serve us to be in agreement only
>to arouse a political and scientific force we could
>not win against.

I don't think that science consesus by itself is the problem. It is when
Pseudoscience and politiks and 'holier than though' stuff gets mixed into
the final consensus presented to the public that we have a problem. When
answers are not clear, consensus must be the path for science. The Standard
Model is a good example. Environmental debate is no where near as robust as
that example yet, and so lots of room for the politikal shimmy - and the
attendant emotions. Unfortunately, this mixing of publik opinion with
science seems to lead to much flim flam, and friction for progress and
action. I have to throw my hat in TangoMan's ring when I contemplate the
publik reaction to Huge Microwaves From Space. I anticipate all kinds of
emotional appeals to the publk by campaigning politicians and borderline
hysterical media. Maybe not, though... I hope for the best where that is
concerned.

Hope, however, is a useless thing in practicality. Remember that saying:
Luck is where preparedness meets opportunity. I especially like another one
by Franklin, I think: Wealth passes us by everyday but we miss because it is
dressed in overalls and looks like work (or something like that :-) ). My
point is that if we hope to avoid that bleak outlook I sketched above, or
the SPS stalling pseudoscience, that wait for us down the pipe, we need to
get to work educating the public, voting, investing, and encouraging the
right things. In fact, the comment that all of us with outward bound dreams
are to diverse to be a block with the power to affect change, needs to be
addressed as well. But sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees...

And in case someone thinks of me as apocalyptic in view: Only in timescale.
I view apocalypse as a pop, but I foresee long drawn out fade as our fate
without space. The end is the same.

Val

Greetings Val,

I hope I have hit the target this morning responding
to your comments.

This indeed is going to be a wild century with
extinction very much a theme. When I was in Asia I
could not miss the wrenching change that mainland
China did to simplify their writing system to 2000
characters. I assert whenever there is a lot of
change going on it is tempting to see only decline and
violence.

It is very much a part of Bjorn Lomborg's argument
that resources are more adundant than thought and the
quality and wealth of the lives of people around the
world is better now than a 100 years ago. This is
deeply upsetting to the environmentalists that see a
decline in natural habitat and species every year.
Yet destruction of the environment is not a cause to
go to war over. Only a true restriction of a critical
resource seems to prompt such a response and that is
greatly buffered by international markets. The
mandate to Saudi Arabia is to sell their oil at a
reasonable price. It is unquestioned if they stopped
that they would be invaded to change the 'management'.

There is a growing awareness that true poverty results
from wars. The world is much better educated than
ever before. Cases like Cambodia, Rwanda, and Somalia
show that what little wealth these countries had was
squandered in social upheaval. The new challenges
such as the rise of professional women in the third
world, robotic manufacturing, genetically engineered
foods, etc are all creations of a vastly more
sophisticated society. For example Take a look at the
recent change of heart of Pakistan and India over
Kashmir.

Any way I look at it there is still a lot more room
for preparedness and thus opportunity in the world
community. The way around violence may already be
happening with pragmatic decisions being made at the
highest levels. Terrorism relies heavily on
fundamentalist thinking and that is at odds with the
changes I have witnessed in the world. Is terrorism
the last gasp of a male dominated Islamic society?
Everything I see in Saudi Arabia suggests they will
have to give their women full rights and access to
jobs in a generation. It will be due to lack of
cooperation not force that these changes occur.

I suspect Space communities due to their higher living
standard (no poverty) will immediately face the crisis
of low birthrates that dooms the better educated and
professional people to not having much of a legacy.
All of the G-8 nations would shrink in population if
it were not for immigration. Even China with its
vaunted one child policy is close to watching its
population contract as women choose careers over
families and parents boys over girls. This is a good
thing for the scarce resources of the world.

By the time there are space colonies and the means of
getting there worked out the population of the world
may be shrinking not expanding. This is because the
educated do not have enough children to replace
themselves and the poor are wiped out by diseases,
natural disasters, etc. This is a very old and stable
pattern that life expectancy is different for
different groups. Poor uneducated people are
relatively ineffective about mounting armies. Look at
what is happening in Venezuela.

Space development especially SPS has the means to
change this pattern by making energy freely available
to all that would want it and all that can be made
from it. This does not suggest that people will be
fond of this. The environmentalists would point out
quickly that progress has resulted in habitat loss and
species extinction. Making more progress possible is
not likely to be greeted with favor. If anything they
may see it as widening the alienation of humans from
their environment and each other. I see this as the
heart of the 'consensus' against Lomborg.

Still there are opportunities to advance a space
program such as when oil shows to be less plentiful
than thought or the climate not so friendly. Here
politicians will be ready to spend billions of dollars
and take risks of alienating voters. Space for
science exploration harms nobody. Space for beaming
microwaves to earth and the first casualty is the
powerful wireless lobby. To me this indicates that
only in the most remote places on earth would beaming
be even marginally acceptible. Hiding this as a means
of transmission (ie future techincal innovation will
solve this) until the SPS is large enough to really be
desirable.

I don't know how this century is going to play out and
can only place an expectation with a mild degree of
certainty that space will be developed in my lifetime
and the changes I expect will occur. From my visit to
Asia I would believe that if the oceans rose a hundred
feet, they would just adapt and build new cities.
Such is the power of aggressive optimism. We are not
wrong to follow their example.

Cheers, Thor

Greetings to you, as well, Thor,

Allow me to comment briefly on a few of your points:

>Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:11:31 -0800 (PST)
>
>May I reassure you that on your point e) that the
>human race is no closer to extinction than in the
12th
>century though grim for some it may be. As in
history
>those that can afford to insulate themselves will do
>so. Those that cannot will survive as best they can.
>It is not hard to discern the winners from the losers
>in a simple sense. Bangladesh looks doomed to
>dissapear due to sea level rise. Wierder things
could
>happen to make this not what it seems.

Remember that when I made the extinction reference, I
was assuming no
expansion into space. That is the key, the pressure
relief valve of you
will. If you mean that odds are against extinction,
you are probably right,
though the alternative seems scant better. If we
should remain on Earth, the population and resource
competition will escalate, and will generate
conflict. Indeed, that is what all wars have been
fought over, though some
are deluded into thinking some are about ideals other
than this. One thing
we can be sure of: The costs will be far higher in
terms of humanity than we have ever seen. Finally, as
9/11 demonstrated, and a little reflection on current
terror and war techniques, there will be no insulation
regardless of status or wealth. The insulation will
only be in small degrees.

If we find a way around violence, it will necessarily
be through draconian use of controls on the
populations, both social and probably eugenic. As I
mentioned in a previous post, the world will not go
out with a bang, but I (paraphrase mine) a long drawn
out whimper eneded with a death rattle. I
shudder to think of it.

>
>It is my hope that this debate focuses more interest
>in the opportunities of SPS as a solution to all sort
>of earthly issues. As a group the community of space
>enthusiasts seems to me deeply fragmented. This is
>good for brainstorming though a liability for
>encouraging respectability. Tangoman is right in my
>opinion about the dangers of microwaving power to
>earth and how consensus science would work against
>that. It would not serve us to be in agreement only
>to arouse a political and scientific force we could
>not win against.

I don't think that science consensus by itself is the
problem. It is when Pseudoscience and politiks and
'holier than though' stuff gets mixed into
the final consensus presented to the public that we
have a problem. When answers are not clear, consensus
must be the path for science. The Standard
Model is a good example. Environmental debate is no
where near as robust as that example yet, and so lots
of room for the politikal shimmy - and the
attendant emotions. Unfortunately, this mixing of
publik opinion with science seems to lead to much flim
flam, and friction for progress and
action. I have to throw my hat in TangoMan's ring when
I contemplate the publik reaction to Huge Microwaves
From Space. I anticipate all kinds of
emotional appeals to the publik by campaigning
politicians and borderline hysterical media. Maybe
not, though... I hope for the best where that is
concerned.

Hope, however, is a useless thing in practicality.
Remember that saying:
Luck is where preparedness meets opportunity. I
especially like another one by Franklin, I think:
Wealth passes us by everyday but we miss because it is
dressed in overalls and looks like work (or something
like that :-) ). My point is that if we hope to avoid
that bleak outlook I sketched above, or the SPS
stalling pseudoscience, that wait for us down the
pipe, we need to get to work educating the public,
voting, investing, and encouraging the
right things. In fact, the comment that all of us with
outward bound dreams are to diverse to be a block with
the power to affect change, needs to be
addressed as well. But sometimes we can't see the
forest for the trees...

And in case someone thinks of me as apocalyptic in
view: Only in timescale. I view apocalypse as a pop,
but I foresee long drawn out fade as our fate
without space. The end is the same.

Val

> By the time there are space colonies and the means of
> getting there worked out the population of the world
> may be shrinking not expanding. This is because the
> educated do not have enough children to replace
> themselves and the poor are wiped out by diseases,
> natural disasters, etc.

Well, that is not true (except in extreme cases), because as technology
progresses it becomes cheap enough to be acquired/assimilated even by
the poor. As a result, the vast majority of the population growth along
the later half of the 20th Century happened in poor countries, because
they were not-so-poor that they could not take sanitary and agricultural
measurements to promote the death of less children and the production of
more food.

Also, if it is true that, as a general pattern, educated people tend to
under-reproduce, then civilizations of educated people are simply doomed
to go extinct (and replaced by "uneducated people") in a couple of
centuries.

However, I think that "educated people" may not be an accurate label for
the members of the kind of society that under-reproduce. I think that
the kind of society with under-reproduction is simply the one that gives
equal rights and opportunities to men and women and where it is not
considered a moral duty to the society to have children. The fact that
the West fits that definition *and* has an average level of education
higher than other civilizations may be a coincidence; I think that we
have just too few examples of civilizations to make bold generalizations.

Even though, maybe the West will escape extinction because there are
some very small Western populational groups that would not fit the
definition above - Fundamentalist Catholics, for instance. Or perhaps
the West will shift to baby factories a la "Brave New World". :-)

Greetings Lucio,

Yes, I agree that classifying demographics by
education is a poor one - though I was at a loss how
better to describe this point in a short space. Once
again generalities prove to be problematic.

Since the Roman empire at least (and probably long
before) there has been a deficit of children of the
rich and well educated overall. The Romans adopted
promising slaves if I remember my history right.
Extinction has not happened yet though in the long
term the meek do seem to inherit the earth.

Cheers, Thor

> By the time there are space colonies and the means
of
> getting there worked out the population of the world
> may be shrinking not expanding. This is because the
> educated do not have enough children to replace
> themselves and the poor are wiped out by diseases,
> natural disasters, etc.

Well, that is not true (except in extreme cases),
because as technology progresses it becomes cheap
enough to be acquired/assimilated even by
the poor. As a result, the vast majority of the
population growth along the later half of the 20th
Century happened in poor countries, because
they were not-so-poor that they could not take
sanitary and agricultural measurements to promote the
death of less children and the production of
more food.

Also, if it is true that, as a general pattern,
educated people tend to under-reproduce, then
civilizations of educated people are simply doomed
to go extinct (and replaced by "uneducated people") in
a couple of centuries.

However, I think that "educated people" may not be an
accurate label for the members of the kind of society
that under-reproduce. I think that
the kind of society with under-reproduction is simply
the one that gives equal rights and opportunities to
men and women and where it is not considered a moral
duty to the society to have children. The fact that
the West fits that definition *and* has an average
level of education higher than other civilizations may
be a coincidence; I think that we
have just too few examples of civilizations to make
bold generalizations.

Even though, maybe the West will escape extinction
because there are some very small Western populational
groups that would not fit the
definition above - Fundamentalist Catholics, for
instance. Or perhaps the West will shift to baby
factories a la "Brave New World". :-)