Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

licker, I guess maybe you missed my last post in the flurry that followed it, but I'd really be honestly interested to hear - what, in your opinion, is the reason that so many scientists (certainly the enormous majority, but if that's in dispute let's just say really a lot) are concerned about global warming and think that taking action would be helpful. I'm just interested to know if you think they're all dumb, or they're part of a conspiracy, or they're over-excitable, or what.

I'm not licker, but give my take on it anyway:

The explanation I've heard from researchers like Morner (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi.../33-37_725.pdf) is that it's all about grant pressure--in the EU, he says, you have to show support for global warming or you can't get funding. I think that's reductionist, and I'm not really willing to take Morner's word for it. However, I have observed that the "overwhelming consensus" for current climate theory models comes from within current climatology community (among physicists the issue is controversial, and meteorologists appear to think the data don't support the theories), and to me that says less about monetary pressure per se than Kuhn's /Structure of Scientific Revolutions/. People get stuck on a theory (string theory, or global cooling in the 1960's) and it becomes hard to challenge it from within the paradigm. (Read Richard Feynman's CalTech talk on cargo cult science.) Morner's comments are actually consistent with this phenomenon, unfortunately. Perhaps we have to wait for this generation of climatologists to die off (like Ignatz Semmelweiss' critics).

Or, maybe they're right, and they'll convince all the physicists. It's not like the physicists are universally skeptical, and if the climate models are actually valid it should be possible to show it.

-Max

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

I'm not licker, but give my take on it anyway:

The explanation I've heard from researchers like Morner (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi.../33-37_725.pdf) is that it's all about grant pressure--in the EU, he says, you have to show support for global warming or you can't get funding. I think that's reductionist, and I'm not really willing to take Morner's word for it. However, I have observed that the "overwhelming consensus" for current climate theory models comes from within current climatology community (among physicists the issue is controversial, and meteorologists appear to think the data don't support the theories), and to me that says less about monetary pressure per se than Kuhn's /Structure of Scientific Revolutions/. People get stuck on a theory (string theory, or global cooling in the 1960's) and it becomes hard to challenge it from within the paradigm. (Read Richard Feynman's CalTech talk on cargo cult science.) Morner's comments are actually consistent with this phenomenon, unfortunately. Perhaps we have to wait for this generation of climatologists to die off (like Ignatz Semmelweiss' critics).

Or, maybe they're right, and they'll convince all the physicists. It's not like the physicists are universally skeptical, and if the climate models are actually valid it should be possible to show it.

-Max

What you are pointing out here is what actually makes global warming theory so amazing from within the scientific community. As Kuhn points out, science is intrinsically conservative, it is very difficult to change paradigms. Basically, there simply has to be no place left to hide for one paradigm before another can take over; as long as there is doubt, the old ones will remain.

However, this means that when a paradigm falls out of favor, its out for good, and the one that replaces it has already undergone rigorous testing. Read up on the history of global warming and you will see that its ascension is fairly recent (as recent as the last half century). Before that, it was only one among a group of competing theories. The intrinsic conservatism of science that Kuhn talks about (and Popper sometimes laments) is in this case lending some favor for global warming and against its (ironically) conservative detractors.

What makes this even more amazing is that science is actually moving in opposition to state interests in extending global warming. typically, since the state controls the flow of money, it has a strong say over what is defined as "science". This is witnessed in virtually all social science from psychological testing to sociological tabulating: the state funds science and what ever gets funded becomes "science" while the rest becomes marginal. The almost reactionary attitude within science and pressure to accept global warming is a defense mechanism against this state intervention. without it, scientists would be easily bought by state money, and science itself would be defined by this money. In this sense, scientists have been taking the literature on science studies produced since Kuhn and up through constructionist like Latour very seriously. They know and are taking seriously the golden law: who has the gold makes the laws; even scientific ones. Science is in a double-bind: it can either opt for reactionary conservatism protecting its community production, or it can sell out to conservatism of the liberal economy (thats a twist, but yes its real. think neo-cons, its basically their game.)

As for whatever licker wrote. I'm not bothering to read it. I just think its funny to watch you go through the pains and spend all the time on carefully quoting everything I wrote and viciously rebutting it. This is game forum. Get real. No one here gives a ****. Not like what you say is actually going to change opinions. If you really gave a damn about science, then you should go get a PhD.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

What you are pointing out here is what actually makes global warming theory so amazing from within the scientific community. *snip*
What makes this even more amazing is that science is actually moving in opposition to state interests in extending global warming.

You're right, that is kind of weird, and there probably is more to it than Kuhnianisms. I can think of a couple more factors that might be contributing: one is that there are state actors (Maldive islands) who actually have an incentive to push the fear of warming-driven disaster scenarios (which requires warming). More importantly, there's an unexplained datum, which is the warming trend of the last century. Ignatz Semmelweiss' problem was that he could show a causative link empirically (basic hygiene reduces iatrogenic childbed fever dramatically), but he had no theory to explain the causation. Only after germ theory was invented did his data gain widespread credibility. In theory science is about understanding the universe, which sometimes means understanding that you don't understand it; in practice people like to have explanations even if they're wrong. The GCMs climatologists use aren't high-quality models, but they can be tweaked to explain away the puzzling recent warming trend. Acknowledging the actual uncertainty in the system is too difficult, especially if that threatens your livelihood. Better to keep on studying and publishing on GCMs, even if they don't correspond to reality.

Feynman says scientific honesty is much harder than regular honesty. It takes a certain amount of brutality to say to yourself that the field you're studying really isn't going anywhere, in which case you'll probably leave. Therefore, it makes sense to pay attention to cross-disciplinary debates. Here's a link to an issue of APS Physics featuring debate on global change: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...0807/index.cfm.

-Max