4 ms·

"People who know NOTHING about Science fall squarely in the "warmists" camp. The "nutcases", "tribal", or "primitives", eh?" No. You didn't get the point. Sorr

by Rod 18y ago

"People who know NOTHING about Science fall squarely in the "warmists" camp. The "nutcases", "tribal", or "primitives", eh?" No. You didn't get the point. Sorry for not making it explicit. The point is: people who are not trained in Science (Climate Modeling in particular, Physics in general) are not qualified to speak on the topic. Their opinions count for nothing because those are based on emotion, misinformation, ideology, or plain dogma. In the old days, people seemed to know the boundaries of their knowledge, now everybody who has internet access believes he / she is an instant expert.

radu_floricica 18y ago
At times like this I really wish there was no downvote button on HN. I might try to guess what the guy who downmodded you thought (that even non-specialists have the right to express their opinions? that lobbying is a legitimate activity?) but after all I'm left to guessing. Because in a vast majority of cases, people who downmod don't explain why. It's like throwing a rock through the window and running.
- robotrout 18y ago
  Lobbying IS a legitimate activity! I hate all the crap that I hear about the "evil lobbyists in Washington". They fulfill an important role. To make an informed decision, which is what our politicians in Washington are supposed to do, not just respond to populism and mob voice, you need somebody to inform you. Lobbyists do that. That's their job. To inform congressmen and senators. What that politician does with that information, and how he verifies it's truth is another matter. I suppose I would support your right to try to convince others to a point of view that you know nothing about. But in a better world than we live in, people would seriously question the wisdom of doing this, and talk about baseball instead.
  - raintrees 18y ago
    Aren't many lobbyists resembling the "might makes right" practices? From what little I understand so far, there is quite a bit of money involved, and decisions do not always seem to be as honest and altruistic when the amounts get large enough. And aren't the politicians replacing responding to populism and mob voice with the loudest voices nearest them? Especially those that may finance the politicians' agendas? I am frequently bewildered by some of the decisions made and enacted/codified into law, and must conclude that I obviously do not understand all of the agendas being served in those instances. It is beginning to seem to me that the current lobbying system is akin to the current union system in that it may no longer be as beneficial as it once was in its current form.
    - dangoldin 18y ago
      I agree with you. It seems in this day and age if you wanted to find some information about a topic you cared about you could gather enough information online or by asking some experts. Lobbyists tend to have a biased opinion.
      - raintrees 18y ago
        I would love to see some social website experimentation with online voting, and caucusing/solicitation of voters' desires, correctly tracked to one per registered voter. Might they not already exist? If we can make one robust enough and popular enough, maybe it can be the model (or the actual tool) used by our wonderful pols...
  - Tichy 18y ago
    I guess one problem with that is that it favors people with money too much. In principle I also believe in markets, but I think this is the point where the neo-capitalist logic fails. As an example: I remember reading in "the armchair economist" how the author was angry at environmentalists because they denied him the right to pollute the environment if he was willing to shell out the money for it. He mentions that it might be worth 50$ per year to him to make sure lions don't go extinct, but not much more than that. Well maybe it would be worth 1000000$ per year to another person, but that person does not have the 1000000$ per year. Tough luck one could say, but by that one would assume a certain definition of what is fair, and it is not obvious what consequences that definition would have in the long run.
  - radu_floricica 18y ago
    I didn't mean it's not :) Only that a downmod without comments leaves no room for discussion. Even if you agree with the downvoter, it's still not ok.
Tichy 18y ago
Experts can go wrong, too - and who defines who is an expert and who isn't? Some amateurs might have read more about the issue than the self-proclaimed experts. And if non-experts are not qualified to speak, how do you justify letting them vote? Not saying democracy is perfect, but apparently there was a thought that even if people are not experts, they might be able to inform themselves sufficiently to be able to decide which experts to trust.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Great point Tichy. The entire democratic system is built on the ability for the common man to make decisions about matters in which he is not an expert. This is my problem with the global warming discussion, no matter what the outcome -- no matter who is right or wrong on it. At the heart of it, it's a threat to the core principles underlying the vote. That's why it's near the top of my list of political things to care about.
- Rod 18y ago
  Science is not programming. You can't learn Climate Modeling in your spare time, without checking experimental data and interacting with other people. Scientists should investigate and report their findings. Politicians should decide what to do. People elect politicians, not scientists. That's the way it should work. Democracy is not in danger. However, we now see politicians doing (pseudo-)science (Al Gore is a prime example) and reporting it to the ignorant masses. And we have scientists claiming that they should decide what to do. The world is upside down.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    Not every climate expert has run a climate model in his head. Presumably sometimes they also just read papers about other people's results, and assign the a likelihood based on their own experiences. Maybe they are better at estimating likelihoods, but other than that, not so different from the common person in the street. Even without knowledge in climate modeling, some things can be easily seen. For example it seems obvious that there is a debate on man made warming - some experts seem to consider it likely, others not. Credentials of experts can be checked to some degree without expertise in climate modeling, too. And so on - at every level of knowledge, it is possible to make an estimate of the probabilities, I should think. Also, I think it is often politicians who decide which scientists get funding for their research, so in a way people do elect scientists (not sure how the system works in the US).
ryanwaggoner 18y ago
people who are not trained in Science (Climate Modeling in particular, Physics in general) are not qualified to speak on the topic. Their opinions count for nothing because those are based on emotion, misinformation, ideology, or plain dogma. How do we define "trained"? Since the subject in question is the consequences of global warming (not whether warming is occurring), why does training in Physics qualify one to pontificate on what is largely a biology question? Also, you seem to define scientists in a way that suggests that they're not subject to emotion, misinformation, ideology, or plain dogma. Sadly, this is not the case.
dejb 18y ago
How badly would the global warming deniers complain if everyone who was allowed to speak on the issue needed to be approved by the scientific establishment? That would be a great injustice and even I would agree with them on that one.
bokonist 18y ago
Sorry for not making it explicit. The point is: people who are not trained in Science (Climate Modeling in particular, Physics in general) are not qualified to speak on the topic. The trouble is the money comes out of the pocket books of non-scientists. And they must be able to make the judgment, of whether or not climate modeling is the equivalent of chemistry or of alchemy. The alchemist is not just going to come out and tell you that his whole field is full of mistakes, and that you should cut off funding. Thus when the money of the laity is at stake, there is no avoiding having the laity make opinions about the details of climate science.

by Rod 18y ago

radu_floricica 18y ago

At times like this I really wish there was no downvote button on HN. I might try to guess what the guy who downmodded you thought (that even non-specialists have the right to express their opinions? that lobbying is a legitimate activity?) but after all I'm left to guessing. Because in a vast majority of cases, people who downmod don't explain why. It's like throwing a rock through the window and running.

robotrout 18y ago
Lobbying IS a legitimate activity! I hate all the crap that I hear about the "evil lobbyists in Washington". They fulfill an important role. To make an informed decision, which is what our politicians in Washington are supposed to do, not just respond to populism and mob voice, you need somebody to inform you. Lobbyists do that. That's their job. To inform congressmen and senators. What that politician does with that information, and how he verifies it's truth is another matter. I suppose I would support your right to try to convince others to a point of view that you know nothing about. But in a better world than we live in, people would seriously question the wisdom of doing this, and talk about baseball instead.
- raintrees 18y ago
  Aren't many lobbyists resembling the "might makes right" practices? From what little I understand so far, there is quite a bit of money involved, and decisions do not always seem to be as honest and altruistic when the amounts get large enough. And aren't the politicians replacing responding to populism and mob voice with the loudest voices nearest them? Especially those that may finance the politicians' agendas? I am frequently bewildered by some of the decisions made and enacted/codified into law, and must conclude that I obviously do not understand all of the agendas being served in those instances. It is beginning to seem to me that the current lobbying system is akin to the current union system in that it may no longer be as beneficial as it once was in its current form.
  - dangoldin 18y ago
    I agree with you. It seems in this day and age if you wanted to find some information about a topic you cared about you could gather enough information online or by asking some experts. Lobbyists tend to have a biased opinion.
    - raintrees 18y ago
      I would love to see some social website experimentation with online voting, and caucusing/solicitation of voters' desires, correctly tracked to one per registered voter. Might they not already exist? If we can make one robust enough and popular enough, maybe it can be the model (or the actual tool) used by our wonderful pols...
- Tichy 18y ago
  I guess one problem with that is that it favors people with money too much. In principle I also believe in markets, but I think this is the point where the neo-capitalist logic fails. As an example: I remember reading in "the armchair economist" how the author was angry at environmentalists because they denied him the right to pollute the environment if he was willing to shell out the money for it. He mentions that it might be worth 50$ per year to him to make sure lions don't go extinct, but not much more than that. Well maybe it would be worth 1000000$ per year to another person, but that person does not have the 1000000$ per year. Tough luck one could say, but by that one would assume a certain definition of what is fair, and it is not obvious what consequences that definition would have in the long run.
- radu_floricica 18y ago
  I didn't mean it's not :) Only that a downmod without comments leaves no room for discussion. Even if you agree with the downvoter, it's still not ok.

Tichy 18y ago

Experts can go wrong, too - and who defines who is an expert and who isn't? Some amateurs might have read more about the issue than the self-proclaimed experts. And if non-experts are not qualified to speak, how do you justify letting them vote? Not saying democracy is perfect, but apparently there was a thought that even if people are not experts, they might be able to inform themselves sufficiently to be able to decide which experts to trust.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Great point Tichy. The entire democratic system is built on the ability for the common man to make decisions about matters in which he is not an expert. This is my problem with the global warming discussion, no matter what the outcome -- no matter who is right or wrong on it. At the heart of it, it's a threat to the core principles underlying the vote. That's why it's near the top of my list of political things to care about.
Rod 18y ago
Science is not programming. You can't learn Climate Modeling in your spare time, without checking experimental data and interacting with other people. Scientists should investigate and report their findings. Politicians should decide what to do. People elect politicians, not scientists. That's the way it should work. Democracy is not in danger. However, we now see politicians doing (pseudo-)science (Al Gore is a prime example) and reporting it to the ignorant masses. And we have scientists claiming that they should decide what to do. The world is upside down.
- Tichy 18y ago
  Not every climate expert has run a climate model in his head. Presumably sometimes they also just read papers about other people's results, and assign the a likelihood based on their own experiences. Maybe they are better at estimating likelihoods, but other than that, not so different from the common person in the street. Even without knowledge in climate modeling, some things can be easily seen. For example it seems obvious that there is a debate on man made warming - some experts seem to consider it likely, others not. Credentials of experts can be checked to some degree without expertise in climate modeling, too. And so on - at every level of knowledge, it is possible to make an estimate of the probabilities, I should think. Also, I think it is often politicians who decide which scientists get funding for their research, so in a way people do elect scientists (not sure how the system works in the US).

ryanwaggoner 18y ago

people who are not trained in Science (Climate Modeling in particular, Physics in general) are not qualified to speak on the topic. Their opinions count for nothing because those are based on emotion, misinformation, ideology, or plain dogma. How do we define "trained"? Since the subject in question is the consequences of global warming (not whether warming is occurring), why does training in Physics qualify one to pontificate on what is largely a biology question? Also, you seem to define scientists in a way that suggests that they're not subject to emotion, misinformation, ideology, or plain dogma. Sadly, this is not the case.

dejb 18y ago

How badly would the global warming deniers complain if everyone who was allowed to speak on the issue needed to be approved by the scientific establishment? That would be a great injustice and even I would agree with them on that one.

bokonist 18y ago

Sorry for not making it explicit. The point is: people who are not trained in Science (Climate Modeling in particular, Physics in general) are not qualified to speak on the topic. The trouble is the money comes out of the pocket books of non-scientists. And they must be able to make the judgment, of whether or not climate modeling is the equivalent of chemistry or of alchemy. The alchemist is not just going to come out and tell you that his whole field is full of mistakes, and that you should cut off funding. Thus when the money of the laity is at stake, there is no avoiding having the laity make opinions about the details of climate science.