3 ms·

Science is not programming. You can't learn Climate Modeling in your spare time, without checking experimental data and interacting with other people. Scientis

by 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).
- Rod 18y ago
  "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)." You are totally right. And, in my humble opinion, it's dangerous when politicians alone decide what should be investigated and studied. It creates a situation where "intellectual prostitution" is the norm. Scientists know what the funding agencies want to hear, and write grant proposals accordingly. A monoculture is born. No one works outside the mainstream ideas. Focusing on some areas is good because it creates momentum and leads to faster progress. For instance, in the 1950s and 1960s, the investment in the space program led to an amazingly fast progress. This was good. Entire new fields were developed. On the other hand, when the government alone decides that a certain area is "evil" (e.g., stem cell research) then we have a "New Inquisition" in place. This is very bad. In an ideal world, scientists would report their findings, politicians would propose courses of action, and people would vote for one proposal over the others. The real world is a whole lot less perfect.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

by Rod 18y ago

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).

Rod 18y ago
"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)." You are totally right. And, in my humble opinion, it's dangerous when politicians alone decide what should be investigated and studied. It creates a situation where "intellectual prostitution" is the norm. Scientists know what the funding agencies want to hear, and write grant proposals accordingly. A monoculture is born. No one works outside the mainstream ideas. Focusing on some areas is good because it creates momentum and leads to faster progress. For instance, in the 1950s and 1960s, the investment in the space program led to an amazingly fast progress. This was good. Entire new fields were developed. On the other hand, when the government alone decides that a certain area is "evil" (e.g., stem cell research) then we have a "New Inquisition" in place. This is very bad. In an ideal world, scientists would report their findings, politicians would propose courses of action, and people would vote for one proposal over the others. The real world is a whole lot less perfect.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]