Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by licker

...It was not until the late 80s or even early 90s that anyone was publishing on it...

Quote from - http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200...050425fa_fact3

[quote=New_Yorker]The National Academy of Sciences undertook its first rigorous study of global warming in 1979. Mentions studies by Syukuro Manabe and James Hansen. The Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, headed by Jule Charney, found that if carbon dioxide emissions continued to increase, the climate changes would be severe. It’s now 25 years since that report was issued, and, in that period, carbon-dioxide emissions have increased from 5 billion a year to 7 billion, and the earth’s temperature has steadily risen. The world is now warmer than it has been at any point in the last 2 millennia.[quote]

[llamabeast]

Also, thanks for your response. For someone with infuriating views you're very coherent! (teasing)

[Tichy]

Hi Llamabeast: The Project Steve thing isn't about climate change. It's evolution.

Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

[llamabeast]

Ah, I misremembered about Project Steve! Thanks Tichy. Wrong frustrating debate.

Max: I guess in that case, I'm interested to know the same thing as with licker. Regardless of whether the evidence seems strong or weak to you, why do you think it is that so many scientists sign up to fearing climate change, when doing so is really to everyone's disadvantage (assuming it's not really true)?

[MaxWilson]

I don't know how much I can add to my previous posts, but to recap, there are several contributing factors:

1.) Many of them don't.
2.) Just because I think the evidence is weak doesn't mean everyone will think the same. I think you can have legitimate disagreement here.
3.) There are outside pressures. Many of the ones that don't keep relatively quiet and just keep working in their own fields--not everyone is a crusader, and it doesn't pay to rock the boat.
4.) Sociological factors. Humans in general have trouble differentiating real uncertainty from statistical uncertainty, and scientific honesty is hard (but vital). This is not to say that only one side of the debate is scientifically honest (see points #1 and #2), just that there's likely to be a lot of noise in the data if you're trying to judge truth by consensus. It's much better to judge truth by evidence.

Let me turn your question around: why was Ignatz Semmelweiss a pariah for decades in the medical community, when listening to him was really in everyone's best interest? (To the extent that his discovery, today, would elicit nothing but "Duh. Of course washing your hands reduces infection rates.")

-Max

[Omnirizon]

what is 'real uncertainty' vs 'statistical uncertainty'?

what is 'evidence'? what comprises evidence? how do you decide what is admitted as evidence and what isn't?

what is the connection between real/statistical uncertainty and evidence?

[cleveland]

Omni: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...hilosopher.htm

[MaxWilson]

You can read up on real vs. statistical uncertainty here: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM1829-1/

It's free.

-Max

[Omnirizon]

I've studied the classics already, from the MX missile debates and more, but thanks. I just want to see if you understand how this relates to what you are saying, or if you just regurgitate misinformation you read elsewhere.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

I've studied the classics already, from the MX missile debates and more, but thanks. I just want to see if you understand how this relates to what you are saying, or if you just regurgitate misinformation you read elsewhere.

Well, that makes me glad I gave you such short shrift.

-Max