4 ms·

Point taken. But the opposition (in any game) plays a critical role in disrupting safe methodology and keeping data/rules honest. Note IPCC reports have subst

by jeremyw 17y ago

Point taken. But the opposition (in any game) plays a critical role in disrupting safe methodology and keeping data/rules honest. Note IPCC reports have substantially lowered earlier predictions and findings have more weight. The science is better for the effort to "prove it."

crux_ 17y ago
The issue would be that the intelligent design people are playing the game of politics while evolutionary biologists are playing the game of science. (This should be mostly uncontroversial, I hope ...) This may or may not be the exact same situation with climate science, but I don't think think many would dispute that at least a significant portion the opposition to global warming is purely political. At that point, what paths are left besides losing the game or entering the politics/PR arena as well? The science has suffered as a result, not been strengthened; the most damning excerpts are evidence enough of that.
- jeremyw 17y ago
  Errors are errors. It doesn't really matter from what source they are discovered. It's important for future work that they be eliminated. The number of times I been able to talk to a climate scientist is few, but always full of hedging. It's a young science and predictions are always difficult (to say the least.) Scientific certainty is a sham. The best bet is to consider near-term action an insurance policy against potential outcomes.
  - crux_ 17y ago
    I don't agree with your premise that any opposition is always a net benefit. Do you really believe that the intelligent design movement is making the science of evolution stronger or better? (Please don't misread this: I do believe that climate science needs and benefits from skeptics, dissent, and alternative theories. I just don't believe that any opposition is good opposition, and in particular I believe that political opposition makes for worse science.)
    - jeremyw 17y ago
      I made no such point.

by jeremyw 17y ago

crux_ 17y ago

The issue would be that the intelligent design people are playing the game of politics while evolutionary biologists are playing the game of science. (This should be mostly uncontroversial, I hope ...) This may or may not be the exact same situation with climate science, but I don't think think many would dispute that at least a significant portion the opposition to global warming is purely political. At that point, what paths are left besides losing the game or entering the politics/PR arena as well? The science has suffered as a result, not been strengthened; the most damning excerpts are evidence enough of that.

jeremyw 17y ago
Errors are errors. It doesn't really matter from what source they are discovered. It's important for future work that they be eliminated. The number of times I been able to talk to a climate scientist is few, but always full of hedging. It's a young science and predictions are always difficult (to say the least.) Scientific certainty is a sham. The best bet is to consider near-term action an insurance policy against potential outcomes.
- crux_ 17y ago
  I don't agree with your premise that any opposition is always a net benefit. Do you really believe that the intelligent design movement is making the science of evolution stronger or better? (Please don't misread this: I do believe that climate science needs and benefits from skeptics, dissent, and alternative theories. I just don't believe that any opposition is good opposition, and in particular I believe that political opposition makes for worse science.)
  - jeremyw 17y ago
    I made no such point.