4 ms·

You’re clearly referring to something specific, what is it?

by pastel8739 4mo ago

adornKey 4mo ago
[flagged]
- lakhim 4mo ago
  make the argument explicitly. Here, I'll do it for you: doubling co2 levels should only lead to a 1c increase in temperature (~3w/m2 extra forcing). That ignores all the other things that happen besides co2 forcing alone.
  - adornKey 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - smallmancontrov 4mo ago
      You have no numbers at all, and your complaint is that lakhim's aren't exact?
- convolvatron 4mo ago
  the experimental framework for finding out absorption spectra goes back like 100 years and is basically high school level science. not only that, we have quantum chemistry models that predict empirical results from atomic configurations that are 20+ years old and match that empirical data to a very high level of accurany. there is plenty of ambiguity to attack in climate modeling, but you chose the most settled and fundamental thing to poke at.
mothballed 4mo ago
One example is that whenever patents expire on some refrigerants or related process somehow magically at that same exact moment Dupont or other chemical IP behemoth magically find a new one safe for the ozone, the science magically all aligns at that moment, and congress/EPA finds the time to change the law before one iota of generic industry can squeeze out. I think the generic idea of the science and global warming is real but there is a whole industry around gaming the conclusions and gamifying what concern pops up when to magically align with whatever the guy with the most influence and self-dealing is hawking at that time.
- rainsford 4mo ago
  The problem you're describing is non-scientific interests putting their thumb on the scale of scientific questions. The solution to that problem is more science, not more politicized control of science. Elsewhere in this comment section you're defending politicians as customers of scientists demanding politically convenient science. But that's exactly what produces the non-scientific conclusions you're talking about in this post. What you really should want is for science to be held to a gold standard of fidelity to the facts, and for politicians who push them in other directions should be voted out of office.
  - mothballed 4mo ago
    >The problem you're describing is non-scientific interests putting their thumb on the scale of scientific questions. The solution to that problem is more science, not more politicized control of science. You won't likely "more science" your way into thumbs off the scale, that is going to have to be achieved from largely non-scientific means. >Elsewhere in this comment section you're defending politicians as customers of scientists demanding politically convenient science. This is a cleverly packed lie, one attempted to paint me as a hypocrite, that you not only not quote but also chose to not address directly. The reason why is obvious -- flood the zone with indirect pointers to supposed lies to wear down the counterparty. But just this once I'll entertain it, though I know this deceit doesn't stop once engaged. > defending politicians as customers of scientists I am stating the politicians are the customers of the government-employed scientists. What I am "defending" is not living in a fantasy. Of course you can wax philosophical about "we the people" or whatever but at the end of the day the summation of congress+executive has constructive possession of the purse and executive management of scientific employ. > ... demanding politically convenient science. and I used the verbatim word 'retarded' alluding to what I thought of it ... a very strong defense of that particular customer, after which I suggest they might get a new one. > ut that's exactly what produces the non-scientific conclusions you're talking about in this post. There's a genius amount of terse deception to unpack here. The slight of hand is you use 'customers of scientist demanding politically convenient science' but then claim 'exactly what produces' these conclusions are ... the non-scientific output of work of scientists rather than the output of politicians who are customers. If they are producing non-science they are not acting in capacity of scientists yet somehow they escape your damnation here despite being the very people producing it by reading of your statement. Your sentence is one tightly packed logical contradiction that simultaneously guards scientists as providers of facts while simultaneously claiming the scientists themselves are producing non-scientific conclusions by chaining that as the output of the work. If they are scientists of fidelity acting in capacity of such then practically by definition they aren't to be blamed for non-scientific conclusions and are not the "producers" of such regardless of whom their customer is. > What you really should want is for science to be held to a gold standard of fidelity to the facts The scientist who depends on a salary to survive who wants fidelity of facts should look for customers demanding that. Expecting to produce fidelity from someone demanding infidelity means you end up broke or you become corrupted. The demand from government is infidelity. In fact what I'm "defending" is looking elsewhere away from politicians at this time because your aspiration of "should be voted" is at odds with the current reality of "they were not."

You’re clearly referring to something specific, what is it?

adornKey 4mo ago

[flagged]

lakhim 4mo ago
make the argument explicitly. Here, I'll do it for you: doubling co2 levels should only lead to a 1c increase in temperature (~3w/m2 extra forcing). That ignores all the other things that happen besides co2 forcing alone.
- adornKey 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - smallmancontrov 4mo ago
    You have no numbers at all, and your complaint is that lakhim's aren't exact?
convolvatron 4mo ago
the experimental framework for finding out absorption spectra goes back like 100 years and is basically high school level science. not only that, we have quantum chemistry models that predict empirical results from atomic configurations that are 20+ years old and match that empirical data to a very high level of accurany. there is plenty of ambiguity to attack in climate modeling, but you chose the most settled and fundamental thing to poke at.

mothballed 4mo ago

One example is that whenever patents expire on some refrigerants or related process somehow magically at that same exact moment Dupont or other chemical IP behemoth magically find a new one safe for the ozone, the science magically all aligns at that moment, and congress/EPA finds the time to change the law before one iota of generic industry can squeeze out. I think the generic idea of the science and global warming is real but there is a whole industry around gaming the conclusions and gamifying what concern pops up when to magically align with whatever the guy with the most influence and self-dealing is hawking at that time.

rainsford 4mo ago
The problem you're describing is non-scientific interests putting their thumb on the scale of scientific questions. The solution to that problem is more science, not more politicized control of science. Elsewhere in this comment section you're defending politicians as customers of scientists demanding politically convenient science. But that's exactly what produces the non-scientific conclusions you're talking about in this post. What you really should want is for science to be held to a gold standard of fidelity to the facts, and for politicians who push them in other directions should be voted out of office.
- mothballed 4mo ago
  >The problem you're describing is non-scientific interests putting their thumb on the scale of scientific questions. The solution to that problem is more science, not more politicized control of science. You won't likely "more science" your way into thumbs off the scale, that is going to have to be achieved from largely non-scientific means. >Elsewhere in this comment section you're defending politicians as customers of scientists demanding politically convenient science. This is a cleverly packed lie, one attempted to paint me as a hypocrite, that you not only not quote but also chose to not address directly. The reason why is obvious -- flood the zone with indirect pointers to supposed lies to wear down the counterparty. But just this once I'll entertain it, though I know this deceit doesn't stop once engaged. > defending politicians as customers of scientists I am stating the politicians are the customers of the government-employed scientists. What I am "defending" is not living in a fantasy. Of course you can wax philosophical about "we the people" or whatever but at the end of the day the summation of congress+executive has constructive possession of the purse and executive management of scientific employ. > ... demanding politically convenient science. and I used the verbatim word 'retarded' alluding to what I thought of it ... a very strong defense of that particular customer, after which I suggest they might get a new one. > ut that's exactly what produces the non-scientific conclusions you're talking about in this post. There's a genius amount of terse deception to unpack here. The slight of hand is you use 'customers of scientist demanding politically convenient science' but then claim 'exactly what produces' these conclusions are ... the non-scientific output of work of scientists rather than the output of politicians who are customers. If they are producing non-science they are not acting in capacity of scientists yet somehow they escape your damnation here despite being the very people producing it by reading of your statement. Your sentence is one tightly packed logical contradiction that simultaneously guards scientists as providers of facts while simultaneously claiming the scientists themselves are producing non-scientific conclusions by chaining that as the output of the work. If they are scientists of fidelity acting in capacity of such then practically by definition they aren't to be blamed for non-scientific conclusions and are not the "producers" of such regardless of whom their customer is. > What you really should want is for science to be held to a gold standard of fidelity to the facts The scientist who depends on a salary to survive who wants fidelity of facts should look for customers demanding that. Expecting to produce fidelity from someone demanding infidelity means you end up broke or you become corrupted. The demand from government is infidelity. In fact what I'm "defending" is looking elsewhere away from politicians at this time because your aspiration of "should be voted" is at odds with the current reality of "they were not."