BewaConsensus Science

--- 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