After 50 Years Of Failed Predictions, Science Is In Crisis

[Dexter]

Duh.  Of course there would be some private businesses out there that, for whatever reason, would want to wish it all away.  And they would ultimately all go under.  In other words, they would eventually be “disciplined” by the market for taking an unproductive position.  Unless government were to prop them up, although even then, they would eventually go under; the explosion when they did would simply be bigger and more productive. 

What was your point?  I take it as being as obvious as gravity that some businesses take false positions because their owners/managers have concluded that their short-term interests outweigh the long-term consequences of being wrong.
Happens all the time.  To see that, one need look no further than the American auto industry in the late 60s and early 70s, still pumping out 10 mpg behemoths and scoffing at the Japanese tin that was about to eat their collective lunch.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that big oil and gas interests are pushing efforts to convince the public AGW isn't real even though it possibly is. I also don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that big government is lying out their ass for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I saw a debate between a climate scientist that believes AGW is real and some prominent skeptic, I forget his name. Basically the debate eventually came to "We can't say for certain that either of us is right or wrong."

So where do we go from there? I don't know. It really would suck if it's true and we don't take it seriously.

Pascal's Wager comes to mind.

[Cyber Liberty]

I guess my point was there is this ignorant misconception out there that only (or primarily) Governments and Universities are the drivers of R&D, and the fact is most R&D is in the private sector, done by people who don't fudge their data because there's no profit in it.  I guess the "If we can't count on NASA who can we?" comment reminded me of that.

[Cyber Liberty]

So where do we go from there?

You can start by knocking off your insults of "Skeptics" by calling them "Deniers."  You are putting climate skeptics into the same box as Holocaust Deniers.

Not pissing people off right off the bat is part of Winning Friends and Influencing People.

[Dexter]

You can start by knocking off your insults of "Skeptics" by calling them "Deniers."  You are putting climate skeptics into the same box as Holocaust Deniers.

Not pissing people off right off the bat is part of Winning Friends and Influencing People.

Being a denier of something doesn't automatically make you wrong. It wasn't meant to be an insult. In no way was I trying to put them in the same box as Holocaust deniers. I'm a flat Earth denier. I didn't call the man stupid or wrong, and even admitted that he went toe to toe with a real climate scientist and came to a stalemate.

[Dexter]

I even edited my post. It was not meant to be aggressive.

[240B]

Pascal's Wager
There are only two kinds of people in this world. There are those who believe that there are only two kinds of people in the world, and there are those who don't.

[Hoodat]

Who can we trust to do science if we can't trust NASA and all of the most prominent scientific institutions on Earth?

Trust the data.  Trust the evidence.  But sure as hell don't trust anyone who says that science is about 'consensus'.

Anyone who has the ability to think critically can examine the evidence, ask pertinent questions relative to that evidence (or lack thereof) and draw logical conclusions.  And anyone who does not have that ability, who instead is easily swayed by non-rational persuasion and emotional tugs, is essentially a liberal.

[Dexter]

Trust the data.  Trust the evidence.  But sure as hell don't trust anyone who says that science is about 'consensus'.

Anyone who has the ability to think critically can examine the evidence, ask pertinent questions relative to that evidence (or lack thereof) and draw logical conclusions.  And anyone who does not have that ability, who instead is easily swayed by non-rational persuasion and emotional tugs, is essentially a liberal.

I went to college for 6 years. During that time I learned that I know a whole lot less than I once thought. I lack the ability to expertly examine and interpret things outside of my field of expertise. I am not a climate scientist. To me blowing off their opinions would be similar to blowing off the opinions of my physician. They could be wrong, but they have a certain weight behind their words because they do know more about these things than anybody else.

[Cyber Liberty]

Being a denier of something doesn't automatically make you wrong. It wasn't meant to be an insult. In no way was I trying to put them in the same box as Holocaust deniers. I'm a flat Earth denier. I didn't call the man stupid or wrong, and even admitted that he went toe to toe with a real climate scientist and came to a stalemate.

Thanks for the edit.  The term "Climate Deniers" was coined by the Watermelons as a way to paint skeptics as not just wrong, but evil.  (A watermelon is green on the outside, red on the inside.)

[Hoodat]

So on the one hand, you have someone telling you that scientists have reached a consensus and that the science is settled, and that half of Florida will be under water by 2015.  And on the other hand, you have the actual data pulled from the Vostok site and published by the UN.  Which of the two would the critical mind rely upon?

[Dexter]

published by the UN. 

What do you think the UN's position on AGW is?

[Hoodat]

What do you think the UN's position on AGW is?

I think the UNs position is the opposite of what that data indicates.  Hence the irony of them publishing it since it directly contradicts their argument.  Which is why one must examine the data instead of mindlessly taking their word for it.

[Cyber Liberty]

What do you think the UN's position on AGW is?

I think the UN's AGW position is agnostic, but they see it as a fabulous new tool to redistribute wealth from the US to everywhere else (after they fill their own coffers).  US AGW enthusiasts see the same thing, and support it because they don't like the US and want to see her taken down a few pegs.

[Hoodat]

I think the UN's AGW position is agnostic, but they see it as a fabulous new tool to redistribute wealth from the US to everywhere else (after they fill their own coffers).  US AGW enthusiasts see the same thing, and support it because they don't like the US and want to see her taken down a few pegs.

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
T H I S

[Smokin Joe]

I can't say for sure, but I do know that governments and NGOs would be the last places I'd look for the truth.  I spent >25 years in private sector R&D, and I'd believe that wayyy before I believed a Government Study.  Corporations don't fudge data because that would lead to inferior product and subsequent loss of market share.  Making up data (or misinterpreting good data) is the bread and butter of government studies.

Unfortunately, that is the crux of the crisis. The preponderance of "evidence" comes from government studies, funded by the flow of tax dollars or created "money", and hyped by a media which seek to toady up.

Real science doesn't necessarily get published, is often easily accused of being self serving in retrospect, and ever vilified when it comes into conflict with the results of the charlatans getting a grant. The academia or paywall (academia's access paid by their institution) makes it difficult or prohibitively expensive to conduct individual research, and legal restrictions on everything from materials to access to field areas and the opportunities to obtain data favor the university affiliated academics (often on government grant) and government agencies to the exclusion of less publicly funded research.
Even the kerfuffle over the Black Hills Institute obtaining rights to and excavating and prepping (which was in progress when the fossil was seized) the T-Rex skeleton known as "Sue" was rooted in academia and government vs. private enterprise. Regardless of the qualifications of those who had obtained the Rights to excavate, the Rights to the fossil, and who had done the work (preparations/preservation was in progress), the Government swooped in at the behest of the University academics, and stole the fossil, later selling it to the Field Museum for millions of dollars.

I have seen dozens of vertebrate fossils and archaeological sites just begging to be excavated. They lie where I saw them, what hasn't eroded away, because the last thing I need are the fines and career ending criminal charges which would come out of being discovered removing them from Federal Land.

[Smokin Joe]

What do you think the UN's position on AGW is?

I think the UN will exploit whatever it can to loot the US and other industrialized nations. The majority of nations represented are less economically developed, and would vote for a slice of that pie.

If whatever findings can be used to justify anything which achieves the economic hobbling of this nation, they will be embraces to their useful extent.
For them it's all about 'sustainability'--namely theirs. If they gave a rat's ass about the environment, they'd clean up their cesspits at home first.

[Smokin Joe]

I would submit, @Smokin Joe , that just this sort of thing has been happening all the way along, with proof surfacing only in the most egregious cases (Piltdown Man comes to mind).

Even in the case of real science, true science is not often attained, as even real science is steered by its rudder - The grants that fund it. That science is in large part a political animal cannot be denied... providing the proofs the political class requires, for a fee.

When science shifted gears from finding out where the evidence leads to proving a point, it failed. Unfortunately, only the most scrupulous and honest can step back from one of their own ideas and say "the evidence does not bear that out". Unlike Edison (We know another thing which will not work), many of those concepts and ideas are not immediately marketable if they do work.
To be sure, there are environments where having the right answer counts, where being able to admit something is not right counts, where being able to say the most truthful words in science "I don't know" should be and sometimes is followed with "Let's find out.", but those aren't so often in the halls of academia where individual reputation is often coupled to being believed to be right, whether a person is or not.  Only the most preeminent in their fields can 'get away' with saying "We don't know the answer" without following on directly with "More research (funding) is needed". Of course, more research is always needed--for every answer we get, there seem to be more questions because we know a little more to ask about.

[Bigun]

When science shifted gears from finding out where the evidence leads to proving a point, it failed. Unfortunately, only the most scrupulous and honest can step back from one of their own ideas and say "the evidence does not bear that out". Unlike Edison (We know another thing which will not work), many of those concepts and ideas are not immediately marketable if they do work.
To be sure, there are environments where having the right answer counts, where being able to admit something is not right counts, where being able to say the most truthful words in science "I don't know" should be and sometimes is followed with "Let's find out.", but those aren't so often in the halls of academia where individual reputation is often coupled to being believed to be right, whether a person is or not.  Only the most preeminent in their fields can 'get away' with saying "We don't know the answer" without following on directly with "More research (funding) is needed". Of course, more research is always needed--for every answer we get, there seem to be more questions because we know a little more to ask about.

Well said @Smokin Joe!  And undeniably true!

[Oceander]

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that big oil and gas interests are pushing efforts to convince the public AGW isn't real even though it possibly is. I also don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that big government is lying out their ass for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I saw a debate between a climate scientist that believes AGW is real and some prominent skeptic, I forget his name. Basically the debate eventually came to "We can't say for certain that either of us is right or wrong."

So where do we go from there? I don't know. It really would suck if it's true and we don't take it seriously.

Pascal's Wager comes to mind.

Since Exxon has already been sued for securities fraud on the basis that they’ve sort-peddled AGW, whereas Thomas Mann and the other conspirators at East Anglia who cooked the temperature data to create false evidence of a temperature increase have not even been publicly censured, let alone prosecuted for fraud, since the predictions of the AGW adherents have consistently failed, and since the climate models all have to be manually pushed beyond the point of reasonable assumptions to generate AGW based on human emissions, the possibility you speak of is very remote, whereas the possibility of outright fraud by the adherents of AGW is demonstrably true. 

Furthermore, based on temperature data across eons of time, the climate should be warming based solely on the principle of regression to the mean, since the Earth is still colder than the mean when measured over eons. 

The missing link - and the whole ball of wax - is the fact that there is nothing with any great certainty that ties global warming, or other climate changes, primarily to human activity. 

In other words, the fly in the ointment isn’t the ‘GW’, it’s the ‘A’.

So, you can hypothesize all you want, but reality doesn’t seem to be in agreement with your hypothesis. 

[Smokin Joe]

So on the one hand, you have someone telling you that scientists have reached a consensus and that the science is settled, and that half of Florida will be under water by 2015.  And on the other hand, you have the actual data pulled from the Vostok site and published by the UN.  Which of the two would the critical mind rely upon?

Well, with rare exception, anyone who tells you "The science is settled." likely doesn't know much about science. Every answer raises new questions, or, as Einstein put it, "As the diameter of a circle of light grows, so does the circumference of the darkness around it."

Since we are constantly learning more, science is never settled.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Pascal's Wager
There are only two kinds of people in this world. There are those who believe that there are only two kinds of people in the world, and there are those who don't.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

[Hoodat]

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Well done, sir.

[Dexter]

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

The point is that the consequences are worse if you're wrong. I know a lot of you may not think so, but solar and other green technology will continue to improve until it someday equals or outpaces fossil fuel in efficiency. If we can put people on the moon we can solve solar storage issues and a handful of other problems. Go look up solar progress and you will see that its growth is extremely impressive. I don't think that's going to stop. The energy we get from fossil fuel originally came from the sun. Does anybody really think it's not possible to more efficiently get energy from direct sunlight? The green revolution will happen either way. It's just a question of time.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

The point is that the consequences are worse if you're wrong. I know a lot of you may not think so, but solar and other green technology will continue to improve until it someday equals or outpaces fossil fuel in efficiency. If we can put people on the moon we can solve solar storage issues and a handful of other problems. Go look up solar progress and you will see that its growth is extremely impressive. I don't think that's going to stop. The energy we get from fossil fuel originally came from the sun. Does anybody really think it's not possible to more efficiently get energy from direct sunlight? The green revolution will happen either way. It's just a question of time.

Guess we'll put you down in the not understanding binary camp.

[Dexter]

Guess we'll put you down in the not understanding binary camp.