3 ms·

"On the other hand, things like climate science seem (to me at least) to rely much more on the argument from authority for gaining lay support." Have you looke

"On the other hand, things like climate science seem (to me at least) to rely much more on the argument from authority for gaining lay support." Have you looked at any of the actual research? It sounds more like you're criticizing the very pseudo-science that the climate science community is battling. The actual researchers are using a combination of meteorological models, telemetry (if you've seen the film "Twister" you've seen a Hollywood-ized version of an actual piece of science in their flock of birds), and empirical observational evidence (e.g. presented in "Planet Ice"). A lot of organizations that fund a lot of the climate research, including NOAA, have been going to great lengths to stifle it and obfuscate the actual message that they send out to the public.

zeteo 16y ago
I'm sure there is a lot of good science happening in climatology. I'm not so sure, however, how much of the sound science is of the predictive variety, and how much is merely concerned with historical reconstructions. Being able to do the latter doesn't give you the ability to do the former, especially if the system is complex enough / chaotic. What I definitely can take issue with is the way the science is presented to laypersons, especially laypersons with an intellectual bent. Granted this is mainly not the work of the scientists themselves, but neither do they seem to do anything to discourage it.
- Tamerlin 16y ago
  The muddled presentation is due a combination of factors. One is that the scientists tend not to counter the pseudo-scientific idiocy that's rampant -- even though it's mind-numbingly obvious to anyone who isn't a complete idiot that it's pure BS with Star Trek style technobabble strewn throughout, the technobabble without any real science to counter it convinces the unwashed masses. The scientists would be doing themselves a huge favor if they spoke out more. Which leads to point 2, which is that exactly the same organizations that fund a lot of that science are also going out of their way to muddle the message and stifle the scientists. NOAA has actually been intentionally altering the messages that the scientists have been releasing, and also preventing the scientists from speaking with anyone directly. Combine that with the press and the government intentionally working to hide the message, and it's no surprise that most of what you end up seeing is pseudo-science rather than real science. It's not much different from the government's claims that the Gulf oil spill is 75% cleaned up... http://www.amazon.com/Storm-World-Hurricanes-Politics-Warming/dp/0156033666/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283874027&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Storm-World-Hurricanes-Politics-Warmin...

zeteo 16y ago

I'm sure there is a lot of good science happening in climatology. I'm not so sure, however, how much of the sound science is of the predictive variety, and how much is merely concerned with historical reconstructions. Being able to do the latter doesn't give you the ability to do the former, especially if the system is complex enough / chaotic. What I definitely can take issue with is the way the science is presented to laypersons, especially laypersons with an intellectual bent. Granted this is mainly not the work of the scientists themselves, but neither do they seem to do anything to discourage it.

Tamerlin 16y ago
The muddled presentation is due a combination of factors. One is that the scientists tend not to counter the pseudo-scientific idiocy that's rampant -- even though it's mind-numbingly obvious to anyone who isn't a complete idiot that it's pure BS with Star Trek style technobabble strewn throughout, the technobabble without any real science to counter it convinces the unwashed masses. The scientists would be doing themselves a huge favor if they spoke out more. Which leads to point 2, which is that exactly the same organizations that fund a lot of that science are also going out of their way to muddle the message and stifle the scientists. NOAA has actually been intentionally altering the messages that the scientists have been releasing, and also preventing the scientists from speaking with anyone directly. Combine that with the press and the government intentionally working to hide the message, and it's no surprise that most of what you end up seeing is pseudo-science rather than real science. It's not much different from the government's claims that the Gulf oil spill is 75% cleaned up... http://www.amazon.com/Storm-World-Hurricanes-Politics-Warming/dp/0156033666/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283874027&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Storm-World-Hurricanes-Politics-Warmin...