Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Of course, until fairly recently peer pressure acted strongly in the other direction - it took some decades to get climate change widely accepted. I suppose probably you're of the opinion that at that stage the evidence was on their side, but now more recently the evidence has swung the other way (against climate change), but inertia and peer pressure have made it difficult to accept the change and so people persist in believing in man-made climate change despite the evidence against them. Is that about right? If not I'm still a bit lost.

Again, speaking for myself and not for licker: I'm not in a position to evaluate the history of the climate change theory. I do know that catastrophism has been around for a while (global cooling was the big fear in the 1960s, although it got less press than global warming does today), but I don't know how or whether global warming grew out of that specifically. I do know that I've listened to the arguments on both sides, and the evidence for catastrophic climate change is weak. I don't know whether that means it's always been weak, which I think is what you're asking.

-Max

[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?

[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.

[cleveland]

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

[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

[llamabeast]

Thanks for the answer Max.

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.")

Well, I think it's obviously the case that there can be enormous inertia in the scientific community, such that obviously correct things can sometimes be resisted for a long time. I definitely wouldn't claim that the scientific consensus is always correct.

However, this is kind of the opposite, in that a very large number of scientists have started believing in a new theory (manmade global warming) and abandoned the status quo to do so. People didn't believe in it in, say, the 70s, and it wasn't a very nice thing to start believing in either. I understand that the early proponents of manmade global warming experienced considerable resistance to their ideas, as you'd expect. But now, I think it's fair to say that a majority of scientists and public bodies accept manmade global warming. Can you think of another example where there has been a mass move away from the status quo to a new theory which turns out to be wrong (or at least, wronger than the old one)? I feel there would have to be quite compelling evidence to cause that kind of shift.

I suppose my approach in thinking about this is really to look at the trends in people's beliefs rather than the science itself, at least for the sake of this discussion. I actually had a course in atmospheric chemistry in my undergrad chemistry degree at cambridge, and it was made completely clear that climate change was a real issue, the whole background was explained, and it seemed entirely non-controversial. Of course, it could easily be argued that my lecturers were biased, or misled. Whoever gives the information can make a convincing case in either direction (in a matter with so very much evidence, it is easy to find enough to thoroughly support either side which makes it all but impossible to judge the validity of presented arguments). So this brings me back to the question of why there should be so many biased/misled scientists who believe in this rather uncomfortable idea of manmade global warming in the first place.

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

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

-Max

TAke yourself seriously then, be reflexive rather than just destructive.

There are scientists who are trapped in some kind of structure. They have no agency. They say what they say because the 'structure' they are embedded in tells them to.

What about MW. Why does MW say what he says? What do you want to accomplish?