The Origins of "Consensus" Science?

[rushmc 18]

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

OMG....RushMC and yet another global warming thread

[quade 3]

Quote

OMG....RushMC and yet another global warming thread

Yes. It's a little known fact, but Rush isn't actually a web site user. He's actually a clock program that instead of going "cuckcoo" at the top of each hour, posts a global warming thread.

My apologies. He appears to be running a few minutes fast.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

OMG....RushMC and yet another global warming thread

Yes. It's a little known fact, but Rush isn't actually a web site user. He's actually a clock program that instead of going "cuckcoo" at the top of each hour, posts a global warming thread.

My apologies. He appears to be running a few minutes fast.

Your on a roll tonight.

For all to see........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Hey! I said you didn't go "cuckcoo!" What more do you want?

Come on, even you have to admit you do post about that topic on a fairly regular basis . . . one might say with clock like regularity.

Oh wait, I did.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Hey! I said you didn't go "cuckcoo!" What more do you want?

Come on, even you have to admit that you do post about that on a fairly regular basis . . . one might say with clock like regularity.

Oh wait, I did.

I have seen how you treat many you do not agree with on this site. More of the same.

No comment on the content?

Sorry, dont bother. I am near the point of ingoring you as I do Amazon.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Quote

I am near the point of ingoring you as I do Amazon.

You are completely free to ignore and never reply to any of my unofficial posts again.

You have my permission.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Sorry, dont bother. I am near the point of ingoring you as I do Amazon.

I guess that is one way to delude yourself into thinking you would ever come close to winning any arguement

[kallend 1,623]

Michael Crichton does tell a good STORY, doesn't he? I like the one about dinosaurs off the cost of Costa Rica better than this one, though.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Michael Crichton does tell a good STORY, doesn't he? I like the one about dinosaurs off the cost of Costa Rica better than this one, though.

I wish he would go back to telling those beautiful, engaging stories. He dropped completely off my "favourite authors" list when he started writing these dumb, politically skewed pastiches.
Oh wait, on second thought, his work actually started sucking way before he joined the "political conspiracy" bandwagon.
Me thinks we might have another case of a burnt-out author trying desperately to salvage his career. So sad.

Ciao,

Vale

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Michael Crichton does tell a good STORY, doesn't he? I like the one about dinosaurs off the cost of Costa Rica better than this one, though.

I wish he would go back to telling those beautiful, engaging stories. He dropped completely off my "favourite authors" list when he started writing these dumb, politically skewed pastiches.
Oh wait, on second thought, his work actually started sucking way before he joined the "political conspiracy" bandwagon.
Me thinks we might have another case of a burnt-out author trying desperately to salvage his career. So sad.

Ciao,

Vale

Who cares. He looks good, that guy

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Michael Crichton does tell a good STORY, doesn't he? I like the one about dinosaurs off the cost of Costa Rica better than this one, though.

I had to stop reading when Crichton screwed up the explanation of the Drake equation (including, arguably, the equation itself). If he doesn't even understand the starting point of his argument, how can he expect anyone to take his argument seriously.

I think he falls in the "I don't understand the science behind global warming, so it must be a hoax perpetrated by consensus of climate scientists" category, like so many others.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,395]

Some people (scientists mainly) get their information from journals like Science, Nature, the New England Journal of Medicine etc. These are pretty accurate, although very, very dry.

Some get it from the popular news media, which is a business set up to make money by reporting on sensationalist news items. I believe you call them the "drive by media." They exist to make money by attracting viewers and therefore advertisers; fact checking is secondary. (Although some media outlets do a pretty good job overall.)

The next rung down the accuracy ladder are comedians and talk show hosts, people who start with a basis in reality and then add their own spin for purposes of entertainment. Rush Limbaugh, David Letterman, Stephen Colbert, Al Franken and Jon Stewart would be examples.

On the bottom of the ladder are fiction writers, who write pure fiction. Indeed, as they will sometimes get sued if their writing gets too close to an accurate description of someone or something, they have a vested interest in remaining completely free of scientific accuracy - although some, like Robert Forward and Carl Sagan, base their fiction pretty accurately on modern science. In general, the more popular, the less accuracy you see.

So in terms of accuracy, I don't know how you could get much lower than a popular fiction writer. Maybe the former Iraqi Information Minister. They are fun to read though.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Maybe the former Iraqi Information Minister.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Are you suggesting.....


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Well while I cant be jump[ing due to injury.. I at least have SC to entertain....

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

On the bottom of the ladder are fiction writers, who write pure fiction. Indeed, as they will sometimes get sued if their writing gets too close to an accurate description of someone or something, they have a vested interest in remaining completely free of scientific accuracy .

Off topic but related to the above. Last week I watched a video about the Boleyn sisters Anne and Mary, their affairs with Henry VIII, the divorce of Queen Katharine, the trial and execution of Anne Boleyn, etc. All good historical stuff.

At the end of the movie came the disclaimer "This movie is not about any real person, living or dead, and any resemblance is purely coincidental". Can the studio really be scared that Anne Boleyn's ghost will sue.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

So you really think I put much into that "article"

Dam, while the consensus thing still bugs me I know that this was a bit nuts to begin with

Dam Bill, it starts out about aliens for christ sake.

Has been an interesting thread though

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,395]

>So you really think I put much into that "article"

Actually, no. I think you saw an anti-GW article and posted it without thinking about it much. Had it turned out well, you'd have said something like "oohh, thats got to hurt all yo consensus types." If it didn't turn out well, then you could say "well, i didnt really put that much itno it"

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>So you really think I put much into that "article"

Actually, no. I think you saw an anti-GW article and posted it without thinking about it much. Had it turned out well, you'd have said something like "oohh, thats got to hurt all yo consensus types." If it didn't turn out well, then you could say "well, i didnt really put that much itno it"

To bad you think that way but I did read it and regardless of what you think I know what a science article is and a, well, what ever what I posted was.

But I did get the obligatory down the nose responses from some of the regulars. But not you.

In any event, I think the data coming in the next, say, 18 to 24 months is going to have a big impact on the debate. May show I am wrong or otherwise. I am looking forward to it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,395]

>In any event, I think the data coming in the next, say, 18 to 24
>months is going to have a big impact on the debate.

What data will you be looking for, and what significance would you attach to it?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>In any event, I think the data coming in the next, say, 18 to 24
>months is going to have a big impact on the debate.

What data will you be looking for, and what significance would you attach to it?

Temps and trends. More info coming out about climate science. Effects of water vapor and more info on whether temps lead CO2 levels or visa versa (I do not feel that topic is settled by a long shot)

To the climate sciences, I think you would agree there is much we do not yet know about how the climate and this planet work together. A good thing for sure will be the continued info gained about that.

The "polictis" of the topic will also have more revelations (one way or the other)

Just to my point that I believe this is a LOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG way from being settled

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>In any event, I think the data coming in the next, say, 18 to 24
>months is going to have a big impact on the debate.

What data will you be looking for, and what significance would you attach to it?

On a different note.

I do not nor will I ever understand the deep down details of the science as you do. I will have to depend on high level explanations and conclusions of those I learn to trust. Common sense. for me, also plays a big part. Presented conclusions and opinion have to fit together to make sense to me. That is trully not the case today. As of yet, I do not have a true trust in any source. Political or otherwise

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,395]

>Connon sense. for me, also plays a big part.

The problem is that common sense works really well for, say, water flowing down a hill, not so well for, say, solar weather. Our intuitions help us understand things in our world that we've experienced; almost everyone has used a garden hose. Very few people have been in orbit, or have studied the solar wind.

It even fails in day to day life, sometimes. Does it make sense that turning a bicycle's handlebars to the left makes a bike turn right? Not really; common sense tells you that you turn the wheel left to go left. But again, that's because people are used to cars.

> Presented conclusions and opinion have to fit together to make sense to me.

Those two rarely will. Opinion is sort of the opposite of a reviewed result.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Common sense. for me, also plays a big part.

The problem is that common sense works really well for, say, water flowing down a hill, not so well for, say, solar weather. Our intuitions help us understand things in our world that we've experienced; almost everyone has used a garden hose. Very few people have been in orbit, or have studied the solar wind.

It even fails in day to day life, sometimes. Does it make sense that turning a bicycle's handlebars to the left makes a bike turn right? Not really; common sense tells you that you turn the wheel left to go left. But again, that's because people are used to cars.

> Presented conclusions and opinion have to fit together to make sense to me.

Those two rarely will. Opinion is sort of the opposite of a reviewed result.

I understand the point you are making but, I do not agree. The order of things in nature are stunning if not shocking. But in many cases that "order" has not been evident until we gain a more complete understanding of (insert what ever topic we have gained great knowlege of).

I trully believe that we are so in the early stages of climate science (maybe less than 10% understanding) that conclusions are being made based purely someone's own conclusion based on what we\he\she know today. (and I understand that is what science is to a point) There are sciences where we have gained much insite and conclusions have changed. A flat world come to mind (and I know that one can go either way)

The climate sciences today deals largely in chemistry. Ok, but look at the CFC's debate and the Ozone. There are researchers out there today saying that man made CFC's effects were overblown by as much as 90%> True? I dont know. But the fact that some scientists are willing to stick their necks out idicates doubt. And to this topic the political part can be brought in.

IE: When the CFC ozone issue came up there was a company that funded much of the major research into that science. That same company was about to see the patent for the gas that became blamed for ozone depleation end. That same company held the patent for the new gas that would replace it.

Do you know what company that is? Do I "know" that this story is 100% true?

Anyway

Examples of where I come from. I can and will change my mind if the info is there. But it will not be done by someone acting as if they know it all (not aimed at you in any way)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,395]

> There are researchers out there today saying that man made CFC's
>effects were overblown by as much as 90%> True? I dont know. But the
>fact that some scientists are willing to stick their necks out idicates doubt.

That is true of most topics out there.

9/11? Some scientists, structural engineers and architects think that it was a controlled demolition perpetrated by the Bush administration. Since they are willing to stick their necks out, should we assume that the whole terrorism angle might be completely wrong?

Evolution? Lots of people don't believe in that, even some scientists. Again, should we stop worrying about antibiotic resistant staph aureus because some scientists don't agree?

Smoking? Back in the 1950's, tobacco companies opened the Tobacco Studies Institute; scientists there discovered that smoking wasn't all that bad for you. Indeed, it was touted as a healthy stress reliever. Should we stop warning people about the dangers of smoking, and start encouraging its adoption by teens? (Or go the creationist route - "encourage them to try it and make up their own minds.")

We now know more about climate change than we know about how smoking causes lung cancer. (That is to say, we do not understand all the details, but have a very good case for correlation.) Does that mean we can predict with 100% accuracy what will happen in 10, 20, 50 years? Nope, no more than we can say "if you smoke you will die in 17.6 years." But the smart money is still on the correlation in both cases.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

> There are researchers out there today saying that man made CFC's
>effects were overblown by as much as 90%> True? I dont know. But the
>fact that some scientists are willing to stick their necks out idicates doubt.

That is true of most topics out there.

9/11? Some scientists, structural engineers and architects think that it was a controlled demolition perpetrated by the Bush administration. Since they are willing to stick their necks out, should we assume that the whole terrorism angle might be completely wrong?

Evolution? Lots of people don't believe in that, even some scientists. Again, should we stop worrying about antibiotic resistant staph aureus because some scientists don't agree?

Smoking? Back in the 1950's, tobacco companies opened the Tobacco Studies Institute; scientists there discovered that smoking wasn't all that bad for you. Indeed, it was touted as a healthy stress reliever. Should we stop warning people about the dangers of smoking, and start encouraging its adoption by teens? (Or go the creationist route - "encourage them to try it and make up their own minds.")

We now know more about climate change than we know about how smoking causes lung cancer. (That is to say, we do not understand all the details, but have a very good case for correlation.) Does that mean we can predict with 100% accuracy what will happen in 10, 20, 50 years? Nope, no more than we can say "if you smoke you will die in 17.6 years." But the smart money is still on the correlation in both cases.

Points taken but we still disagree. Way way to early for "smart" money.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln