Climate Change Mega Thread

[rustled]

^^I'd expect nothing less from any ardent proponent of Cook-style policy-based science.

What did you make of The Role And Responsibilities Of The Scientist In Public Policy
http://issp.uottawa.ca/sites/issp.uotta ... lities.pdf
Find anything of interest related to responsibilities relating to climate change policy?

[CapitalB]

You keep calling it policy based science. Its actually advocating for science based policy (though since you disagree with the science you see it the other way around).

What I make: I'd be all for Technocracy where scientists rule everything. Though I do realise thats generally an unreachable goal, and also that a lot of social policy would be muddied by that. Still would be better to be governed by data than by the feels

[Glacier]

You keep calling it policy based science. Its actually advocating for science based policy (though since you disagree with the science you see it the other way around).

The only one who disagrees with science here is you, unless you're willing to recant your beliefs in accelerating sea level and temperature.

[rustled]

You keep calling it policy based science. Its actually advocating for science based policy (though since you disagree with the science you see it the other way around).

What I make: I'd be all for Technocracy where scientists rule everything. Though I do realise thats generally an unreachable goal, and also that a lot of social policy would be muddied by that. Still would be better to be governed by data than by the feels

I've always supported science-based policy, although I am wary of policy-based science, particularly when it's so obviously driven by those with a "fear" agenda. (Yep, I'm lookin' at you, Cook. I think if people take the time to look, they'll be surprised to discover how much of what people believe can be traced back to his efforts. But no matter.)

Yes, I'd suggest the technocracy you're in favour of would be unreachable, and should be, IMO. That's a "Spock versus Kirk" kind of argument, where it's all science or all compassion. Neither's in our best interest. IMO.

What we ought to have is good governance through science-based public policy, and I found the document quite interesting in its examination of the role of scientists in supporting that goal, particularly where social media has helped policy drivers like Cook take the reins and turn us onto the track of "science is now by consensus and silencing the outliers is de rigueur".

[The Green Barbarian]

You keep calling it policy based science. Its actually advocating for science based policy

No, it's not. Not even close. If it was, then these people you keep quoting wouldn't be lying so much.

[CapitalB]

You keep calling it policy based science. Its actually advocating for science based policy

No, it's not. Not even close. If it was, then these people you keep quoting wouldn't be lying so much.

Denialism

[rustled]

Denialism

Dang those denialists who flat-out refused to believe stress caused ulcers, or that all cholesterol was bad. If only they'd gone along with the consensus. Oh, if only we'd had Cook and the internet back then to make sure nobody questioned the consensus.

Oh, wait...

(And that's just in my lifetime. Heck, just think, if only he'd had managed to shut up the deniers a couple centuries back so folk would still know for sure what causes the plague.)

The fact that you're unable to acknowledge the significant difference between science-based policy and policy-based science speaks volumes. IMO, it's also why you've not yet shown any qualms about continuing to quote (and cite) Cook et al, and why you continue to assist in their efforts to silence those not conforming to the consensus.

No science-based policy should ever require any effort to prevent scrutiny, and yet the effort put into preventing scrutiny here is quite fierce and sustained. Interesting, huh?

[CapitalB]

No science-based policy should ever require any effort to prevent scrutiny, and yet the effort put into preventing scrutiny here is quite fierce and sustained. Interesting, huh?

Prevent scrutiny? This has far and away been the most scrutinized endeavour in scientific history. Which I guess I have to thank you guys for, thanks btw, since scientists have been examining this subject from every angle because the the AGW "skeptics". If it weren't for you guys crying about the global warming agenda or whatever all the time people would most likely have just moved on from it like they do with every other piece of science news. All the anger against it though just fuels those passionate scientists to find more data, and do more studies, thanks again. All of which basically keep showing the same things, and since you guys are super determined to ignore refuse or deny every piece of data that doesn't support your agenda the science community will probably just keep on doing their thing.

As long as the politicians in canada (cause the states is on their way to crazy town) continue to solicit expert advice, and make informed decisions using data I'm comfortable that our country will keep moving in the right direction.

[Glacier]

When I was a kid I remember people saying things like "ewwww, that's so gay," as a means of shutting you up by shaming what you said. That's exactly what you're doing when say "denier, denier." Name calling and shaming is not a sign of openness to scientific inquiry.

[Bsuds]

I'd be all for Technocracy where scientists rule everything.

You want these to rule?

[rustled]

No science-based policy should ever require any effort to prevent scrutiny, and yet the effort put into preventing scrutiny here is quite fierce and sustained. Interesting, huh?

Prevent scrutiny? This has far and away been the most scrutinized endeavour in scientific history. Which I guess I have to thank you guys for, thanks btw, since scientists have been examining this subject from every angle because the the AGW "skeptics". If it weren't for you guys crying about the global warming agenda or whatever all the time people would most likely have just moved on from it like they do with every other piece of science news. All the anger against it though just fuels those passionate scientists to find more data, and do more studies, thanks again. All of which basically keep showing the same things, and since you guys are super determined to ignore refuse or deny every piece of data that doesn't support your agenda the science community will probably just keep on doing their thing.

As long as the politicians in canada (cause the states is on their way to crazy town) continue to solicit expert advice, and make informed decisions using data I'm comfortable that our country will keep moving in the right direction.

And yet, here you are, still putting all this effort into making sure people only hear what "should be listened to" according to "the consensus", drowning us in information to prove "the consensus". Still trying to shut down discussion about consequences or measurability or the way this particular theory isn't falsifiable. Still doing your best to ensure everyone stays focused on "the consensus" and "we must do everything within our power to reduce emissions". Still keeping everyone focused solely on any science (and some non-science, thanks to Cook) that supports the policy.

Interesting, huh?

Policy-based science.

[CapitalB]

When I was a kid I remember people saying things like "ewwww, that's so gay," as a means of shutting you up by shaming what you said. That's exactly what you're doing when say "denier, denier." Name calling and shaming is not a sign of openness to scientific inquiry.

Is there a more polite term for people denying mans involvement in unnaturally changing climate? Climate change denial is the term used generally by the scientific community. From climate change scientists to sociologists (who are studying the phenomenon of denial) and psychologists (also studying it). Thats the term that gets used by just about everyone, the only people uncomfortable with it are the climate change "skeptics".

I don't think the term Climate change skeptics is applicable to people that just flat out don't accept a majority of the data as being legitimate science. Theres no scientific motivation behind the skepticism, despite claims that its the climate change proponents denying real science the overwhelming amount of evidence on only one side of the argument makes that position pretty weak.

[CapitalB]

And yet, here you are, still putting all this effort into making sure people only hear what "should be listened to" according to "the consensus", drowning us in information to prove "the consensus". Still trying to shut down discussion about consequences or measurability or the way this particular theory isn't falsifiable. Still doing your best to ensure everyone stays focused on "the consensus" and "we must do everything within our power to reduce emissions". Still keeping everyone focused solely on any science (and some non-science, thanks to Cook) that supports the policy.

Interesting, huh?

Policy-based science.

You sir/madam have mistaken my motivations. I just hate to see people go through life being ignorant of things. Especially people that vote.

Edit: Thanks for the gender point out, wouldn't want to be exclusive.

[rustled]

And yet, here you are, still putting all this effort into making sure people only hear what "should be listened to" according to "the consensus", drowning us in information to prove "the consensus". Still trying to shut down discussion about consequences or measurability or the way this particular theory isn't falsifiable. Still doing your best to ensure everyone stays focused on "the consensus" and "we must do everything within our power to reduce emissions". Still keeping everyone focused solely on any science (and some non-science, thanks to Cook) that supports the policy.

Interesting, huh?

Policy-based science.

You sir have mistaken my motivations. I just hate to see people go through life being ignorant of things. Especially people that vote.

That's just one of many preconception biases you'll want to address. If your motivation is to educate others, best begin with understanding you don't know everything you think you know. (You might start with Cook. Or not. Your belief system and how you maintain it is an entirely personal thing.)

Climate change: how exactly are we currently set up to measure the direct results of our emissions reduction strategies, and how will we know these strategies are affecting positive change?

[rustled]

You sir/madam have mistaken my motivations. I just hate to see people go through life being ignorant of things. Especially people that vote.

Edit: Thanks for the gender point out, wouldn't want to be exclusive.

Interesting that where I pointed out a simple factual error in your post, your adjustment to "sir/madam" reflects a more political correction.

Climate change: how exactly are we currently set up to measure the direct results of our emissions reduction strategies, and how will we know these strategies are affecting positive change?