The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?

[Sal1950]

Is this about semantics? I'm not going to argue about it.

No it is not just semantics. You can do some reading if you want, and a wiki is likely adequate.

The key is slowing and then stopping the rate of warming, but arbitrary temperature “lines in the sand” will inevitably be crossed and when mankind doesn’t die off, the skeptics will have the rhetorical upper hand

Can't anyone ever just agree that "schitt happens" and leave it at that ?
It's happened before and will happen again.

 

[j_j]

Surely the key words in the sentence you quoted were "as we know it" - i.e. based on agriculture and legislated water rights. The climate in deep prehistory doesn't matter. What matters is the last 5,000 to 10,000 years, when the neolithic started and hunter-gatherers became sedentary farmers. That climate was cool and stable by prior standards. To be exact we could say, "We are already outside the envelope in which all of human civilization - as we know it - evolved, and another one degree Celsius will put us even further away."

So help me out. First you disgree, then you agree? When you make up your mind, well, never mind. Not worth the effort.

 

[SimpleTheater]

Suit yourself. I don't think you understand all of the feedback mechanisms, especially those involving the arctic free of ice.

And in two short sentences you beautifully summed up why nothing has been done to stop CO2 emissions in thirty years. I don’t know if you were trying to make my point so eloquently, but thank you nonetheless.

 

[SIY]

And in two short sentences you beautifully summed up why nothing has been done to stop CO2 emissions in thirty years. I don’t know if you were trying to make my point so eloquently, but thank you nonetheless.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions

The data show declines overall and even steeper declines per capita.

 

[BDWoody]

Of course, there are at least three common emotions - at least in American culture - associated with the color green

Was it only in America where green M&M's were...special?

 

[SimpleTheater]

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions

The data show declines overall and even steeper declines per capita.

While the USA is down over the past five years, we’re still up over the last thirty. But more importantly is that global warming is a global issue, and over the last 30 years China has increased CO2 by 8 million kilotons. Just that increase in the last 30 years is significantly more than the USA produces.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/carbon-co2-emissions

When I said “nothing has been done in 30 years”, I should have said globally.

 

[Helicopter]

While the USA is down over the past five years, we’re still up over the last thirty. But more importantly is that global warming is a global issue, and over the last 30 years China has increased CO2 by 8 million kilotons. Just that increase in the last 30 years is significantly more than the USA produces.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/carbon-co2-emissions

When I said “nothing has been done in 30 years”, I should have said globally.

I don't think that is because people don't understand science. The CCP put their own repositioning to the top before the globe. The worst thing that has been going on for a half-century in my way of thinking, is very rapid vertebrate extinctions. What's the worst thing that could happen unexpectedly soon now? Atlantic currents come to mind. Does that hurt CCP dominance? I am afraid not. I have know for 23 years (I was close friends with a Party member's son) that the CCP was the entity with a real long-term plan. They still are, and they are not planning on democracy. Once the CCP is more clearly established as leaders, maybe, hopefully, they become more concerned about the global climate.

As far as individuals go, few actually understand science. The big question is whether they agree with science. They might agree because of cultural deference to experts; they might agree because they have more at stake; and they might agree out of convenience to their agendas. Coastal Europeans, for example, have all three, with excellent schools, a climate dependent on Atlantic currents, beautiful coastal cities at low altitude, and very little gas of their own. The CCP is much better equipped, with intellectuals in charge, a history or relocating populations where they see fit, and positioned to control energy resources like sub-Saharan oil and rare earth metal reserves. They also have gas-rich neighbors to the North who don't have an interest in NATO countries continuing to dominate geopolitics. Americans may disagree, but that has not stopped continuing progress. I just wish we would stop switching so much production from coal to gas, when gas is more limited, and still pollutes. Most of what's left of the world, well, to paraphrase another, conservation comes after breakfast.

 

[Doodski]

and positioned to control energy resources like sub-Saharan oil and rare earth metal reserves.

Canada and the USA have rare earths and the mining of those has been a priority and is supposed to be promoted to solve the issue we had with China and the rare earths supply in recent years.

I just wish we would stop switching so much production from coal to gas, when gas is more limited, and still pollutes.

Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) compared to coal‪. There is a lot of natural gas reserves. Canada is building a massive export port on the West Coast to export to Asia. So hopefully many Asian coal burning operations can be converted to natural gas. The Province of Alberta Canada has converted all coal electricity generation to natural gas to help meet emissions goals.

 

[Helicopter]

Canada and the USA have rare earths and the mining of those has been a priority and is supposed to be promoted to solve the issue we had with China and the rare earths supply in recent years.


Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) compared to coal‪. There is a lot of natural gas reserves. Canada is building a massive export port on the West Coast to export to Asia. So hopefully many Asian coal burning operations can be converted to natural gas. The Province of Alberta Canada has converted all coal electricity generation to natural gas to help meet emissions goals.

I know, but China won't need to import from us, and there is a lot more coal than gas. 100 years from now reserves will look different. Natural gas emits much more than solar panels. That is what I was getting at. Gas seems like an unnecessary intermediate step. I am sure there are some good economic reasons, but I suspect the people deciding are looking at reserves compared to oil, rather than coal, which is a myopic way to do it.

 

[Doodski]

there is a lot more coal than gas.

That's for sure. The thermal coal deposits for smelting steel are massive in Canada. I don't know about thermal coal in the USA but I know there's lotsa coal there too. The natural gas can also be converted into hydrogen too and used a a vehicle fuel. That's in progress too.

 

[Doodski]

Natural gas emits much more than solar panels.

The technology for storing energy from solar and wind is not up to requirements and that is holding those technologies back. Solar panel technology has improved in recent years but they still only last 20 years give or take. We have wind and solar here in Alberta but it's only good as long as the sun shines and the wind blows otherwise they are quiescent.

 

[StefaanE]

Economics comes to mind as the Chicago school (supply side) and Keynesians are so far apart. It isn't easy to test the result of these economic schools and possibly there will never be overwhelming evidence in favor of either. In the real world they are both in use, and seem to be on a pendulum which swings back and forth. I don't believe it's feasible to further discuss it here because it could veer off into politics.

As John Kenneth Galbraith said: “Economics was invented to make astrology look respectable.” and “Economists reliably forecasted 30 of the last 3 recessions.”
Economics is, like history, condemned to use fragmentary data from the past, and unable to make testable predictions. That doesn’t mean it’s not a science, but that it cannot provide what politicians expect: guaranteed, simple solutions to ill-defined problems to enable them to win the next election.

 

[Phorize]

As John Kenneth Galbraith said: “Economics was invented to make astrology look respectable.” and “Economists reliably forecasted 30 of the last 3 recessions.”
Economics is, like history, condemned to use fragmentary data from the past, and unable to make testable predictions. That doesn’t mean it’s not a science, but that it cannot provide what politicians expect: guaranteed, simple solutions to ill-defined problems to enable them to win the next election.

Economics is humanities with graphs

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal, in my experience, extended recreational use of various hallucinogenic drugs can bring about a permanent change in the perception of color.

At my age, I'd require a guarantee that there would be no other consequences.

 

[Inner Space]

So help me out. First you disgree, then you agree? When you make up your mind, well, never mind. Not worth the effort.

What's that about? Are you confusing me with someone else?

 

[MrPeabody]

In science one starts with a hypothesis. If it can be proven it becomes a law or rule of science like the laws of motion. Sometimes a hypothesis can't reach the status of a rule or law. If insurmountable evidence is accumulated the hypothesis is elevated to a theory as has been done with evolution.

One may observe that many laws are enacted based on a hypothesis and not a theory or rule.

I'm not certain that I understand the intended meaning of this, but I think it might reveal a misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means, in the context of evolution. The underlying problem is that the word "theory" has a fuzzy meaning. When people hear this word being spoken, or read it, they often do not interpret the meaning in a way consistent with the intent of the person who used the word.

Creationists have been fond of saying, "Evolution isn't a scientific fact. It's only a theory." The immediate question is with the origin or source of this notion, that the theory of evolution is merely a "theory" in the sense of not being regarded by mainstream science as established fact. This is not a correct understanding of the status of the idea, among mainstream scientists, so the question that begs to be explained is why so many people say, "Evolution isn't a scientific fact. It's only a theory". I think that this is simply a matter of people misinterpreting the oft-uttered phrase, "theory of evolution". People assume that the word "theory" means what they want it to mean, and don't bother with asking themselves whether the meaning they ascribe to the word is genuine, or whether the meaning they scribe to the word is a matter of convenience to them.

Of course when mainstream scientists utter (or write) the words, "theory of evolution", they are simply alluding to the pertinent body of knowledge. Just like, "theory of the electron", which does not insinuate that the existence of the electron is in doubt, but is only an allusion to the pertinent body of knowledge.

In one sense this might be deemed a conflict over semantics, but if it were characterized as only this, it would be disingenuous, because this isn't merely a conflict over semantics. I find it difficult to characterize the thing appropriately, but it is definitely not a mere conflict over semantics. Partly because there is unarguably malicious intent here, i.e., it is a malicious act for anyone to encourage anyone else to infer, from the mere fact that the phrase "theory of evolution" is often used, that the status of the theory of evolution, within mainstream science, is merely that of an unproved theory.

The important point that I'm trying to make is this: no information about the status of the theory of evolution, within mainstream science, is carried within the fact that the words "theory" and "evolution" are very often uttered in the same sentence. The fact that these two words frequently occur together, in the same sentence, says nothing at all about how mainstream scientists regard the theory of evolution. The phrase "theory of evolution" remains popular only because no one has ever been able to think up a good alternative way to refer to the theory of evolution. That's it. Nothing more. We use the phrase "theory of evolution" simply because this is the phrase that we use to refer to the theory of evolution. It does not mean that mainstream scientists don't think of the theory of evolution as accepted fact, or that they regard it as specifically a hypothesis, or anything else along these lines. There is nothing that can correctly be deduced, from the fact that this phrase is popular, beyond the obvious: it is a convenient and established way to refer to the pertinent body of knowledge, i.e., the body of knowledge associated with the concept of evolution. It is purely a linguistic convenience, not one thing more, and anyone who reads more into it than this is making a blunder.

 

[SIY]

"Theory of evolution" is a problem in terminology that leads to badthink. Evolution is a fact, the theory is that the mechanism for evolution is natural selection.

 

[andreasmaaan]

FWIW, here's the global data (source: https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/):

It would be interesting to work out the relationship between emissions and GDP year on year, both by country and globally.

I don't think that is because people don't understand science. The CCP put their own repositioning to the top before the globe. The worst thing that has been going on for a half-century in my way of thinking, is very rapid vertebrate extinctions. What's the worst thing that could happen unexpectedly soon now? Atlantic currents come to mind. Does that hurt CCP dominance? I am afraid not. I have know for 23 years (I was close friends with a Party member's son) that the CCP was the entity with a real long-term plan. They still are, and they are not planning on democracy. Once the CCP is more clearly established as leaders, maybe, hopefully, they become more concerned about the global climate.

As far as individuals go, few actually understand science. The big question is whether they agree with science. They might agree because of cultural deference to experts; they might agree because they have more at stake; and they might agree out of convenience to their agendas. Coastal Europeans, for example, have all three, with excellent schools, a climate dependent on Atlantic currents, beautiful coastal cities at low altitude, and very little gas of their own. The CCP is much better equipped, with intellectuals in charge, a history or relocating populations where they see fit, and positioned to control energy resources like sub-Saharan oil and rare earth metal reserves. They also have gas-rich neighbors to the North who don't have an interest in NATO countries continuing to dominate geopolitics. Americans may disagree, but that has not stopped continuing progress. I just wish we would stop switching so much production from coal to gas, when gas is more limited, and still pollutes. Most of what's left of the world, well, to paraphrase another, conservation comes after breakfast.

It's refreshing to read an informed, considered opinion on China. Obviously there is plenty wrong with CCP policy and actions, but the discourse in the West has ramped up to almost Cold-War propaganda levels of late. It just doesn't seem possible to discuss relations with China without some degree of hysteria and moral outrage. I fear we are steadily digging a deep geopolitical hole for ourselves in the West, which will come back to bite us very hard over the coming decades.

 

[MrPeabody]

"Theory of evolution" is a problem in terminology that leads to badthink. Evolution is a fact, the theory is that the mechanism for evolution is natural selection.

I don't mean to quibble, and there is truth to your second sentence, in that what Darwin had expounded was a mechanism explaining how speciation had occurred, i.e., natural selection. Unfortunately, when you use the word "theory" the way you are using it, many people read more into it than you likely intended. Unfortunately, if you desire not to be misinterpreted and not to find yourself entangled in dysfunctional arguments with people who have liberally interpreted your words in a way that suits their agenda, you have to pay attention to this possibility, and you have to avoid statements and phrasing wherein the expectation of misinterpretation is high.

I think that is best to say that the use of the word "theory", in the context of evolution, is nothing more than a linguistic convenience. If you say something that implies that the word "theory" is more than a linguistic convenience, you open a door that is best kept closed.

Sorry for being so preachy.

 

[Ron Texas]

@MrPeabody in science a theory has insurmontable evidence to support it even though it falls shot of a law. Newtons laws of motion can take specific inputs and give a certain output which will happen every time. With evolution we know it is happening but we don't know exactly what will happen next or when it will happen. The fuss with evolution is it conflicts with certain Christian religious beliefs such as the world is less than 10,000 years old. People with such beliefs should nevertheless be treated with respect even if their ideas appear to be wrong.