Contributors

Friday, December 31, 2010

Critical Thinking, Science and Conservatives

Mark's post on critical thinking got me to thinking about an article I read recently. It said that the vast majority of scientists surveyed were Democrats, independents or undecided. Only 6% of them were Republicans. The right, of course, latched on to this as evidence of political bias in science. But it really reflects the sort of personality that's attracted to science in the first place.

Science is all about observations and the hypotheses that explain them. As scientists collect more data the hypotheses are refined. The theories change and are often thrown out completely when they don't fit the facts. In science there's always the possibility that the ground will be pulled out from underneath you. It doesn't happen overnight, but it happens in every field of study. Every theory is temporary, subject to change. That doesn't mean the theories are wrong; they're just incomplete.

People on the right seem to crow about never having changed their minds, as if it were some kind of badge of honor. They want an answer now, and once they have it they will not allow it to change. Even if the underlying facts change, or were initially misapprehended. They don't seem to trust science because science doesn't provide them a dogmatic answer that will justify what they've already decided they want. They hate uncertainty because it breeds fear.

Sure, there are some conservatives in science. But the very definition of science involves learning new things, and new ideas will of necessity change the way we think. And that's anathema to most conservatives: for them everything must remain static and unchanging. The way it was must be conserved for eternity. Even though that golden age was much different from what the conservatives of that time longed for.

A more cynical person would say that conservatives just aren't smart enough to be scientists, or are too greedy to waste time getting a PhD or working in academia for peanuts. But for many fields of study there is too much conflict between matters of fact and religious or political beliefs.

The foundation of modern biology and zoology is the theory of evolution. It explains pretty much everything, from why embryos develop the way they do, to how infectious diseases mutate. So a career in biology is out of the question for someone who thinks that Noah collected pairs of wombats, dodos, jaguars, penguins, polar bears, awks, platypuses, orangutans, bison, lemurs and aurochs from all across the world, put them on a boat for six weeks then led them back to their places of origin.

Astronomy and cosmology are similarly taboo: the creation of the universe is an open question for astronomers. For someone who thinks the earth was created six thousand years ago geology is right out. As is anthropology and pretty much any of the social sciences.

But there are some conservatives in those fields. One is C. Martin Gaskell, a conservative astronomer who is suing the University of Kentucky for not hiring him because he publicly questions the validity of evolutionary theory and theorizes on how the bible relates to contemporary astronomy. I thought Republicans were against frivolous lawsuits? I mean, it's a simple business question for the University: what serious student of the sciences would consider attending an institution that hires a guy like that? Such a hire would cast a bad light on the whole university, especially considering that Kentucky houses the Creation Museum and is providing public funding for a Noah's ark park.

The really hard sciences -- physics, mathematics, chemistry, medicine -- would seem to harbor the most conservatives because they come into conflict with political beliefs only rarely. And they are clearly the most applicable to money-making opportunities.

But when hard science does conflict with conservative ideology -- especially when there are economic implications -- the science loses. A prime example is climatology. Some conservatives deny that it's happening. Other conservatives deny that we have anything to do with it. Others say the scientists are lying to make money. The remaining few conservatives who acknowledge the reality say that we'll just adapt.

Mainstream climatologists agree that we should adapt. The best way to adapt is to reduce carbon emissions and develop new energy technologies. The best time to adapt is now, while we have enough oil and gas to make the transition smoothly.

One of the most foolish things I ever heard George Bush utter was also the most illustrative of the conservative mindset. He said, "Do you want the terrorists to control the oil in 50 years?" In 50 years there's not going to be any more oil to for the terrorists to control. We will have burned it all. Or at least all of the Middle East's easily accessible oil.

When the oil is gone we will of necessity reduce our emissions and develop new energy sources. Why put that off to the time when competition for the little remaining oil will be bringing us to the brink of war with China, and we have total dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Russia and Venezuela for our oil?

51 comments:

6Kings said...

The ignorance in your premise is staggering:

Majority of Christians anti-science: no.

http://bit.ly/fktnIG

In fact, many Christians want scientific studies in the very areas of contention because of their faith.

http://bit.ly/H3lcB

That link ought to give you a much better understanding that science and Christianity do in fact mix and modern science is heavily dependent on Christian scientists from the past.

People on the right seem to crow about never having changed their minds, as if it were some kind of badge of honor. They want an answer now, and once they have it they will not allow it to change.

Nice strawman. In fact, most would be happy to change their mind if facts and rational reasons turned against their held positions. Many here have told you this in comments and are waiting for good reasoning and evidence to override the current knowledge. Unfortunately, we aren't getting it here. Arguments here have been nothing more than vapid emotional pleas mixed with the occasional fact that doesn't stand up to scrutiny....over and over and over. We aren't as gullible as the Democratic base who sop up stupid as a rule.

But when hard science does conflict with conservative ideology -- especially when there are economic implications -- the science loses.

Talk about projection! It isn't the conservatives politicizing AGW. That comes directly from the Green movement and the Democrats. Conservatives and others would like to have valid studies done before we wast untold amounts of wealth on various schemes. The AGW believers are the ones using faulty and manipulated data to support their faith that man is the cause. Pathetic and you eat it up. The same 'scientists' were predicting an ice age not 30 years ago.

Now on to your oil rant:

In 50 years there's not going to be any more oil to for the terrorists to control.

Apparently, you have little understanding of science and some of the results. Oil is not a fossil fuel.

http://bit.ly/hRNUXV

Peak Oil? No

http://bit.ly/bVyk71

Does this mean we should burn with abandon? No. Does it mean we should research alternatives? Of Course, but forcing expensive schemes on this country as a 'crisis' with faulty reasoning is stupid. Many can see this yet those on the left continue with debunked and faulty positions.

Why does the left have such a hard time changing their minds in spite of the evidence? Oh wait, you were saying that about the right.

Last in line said...

>I thought Republicans were against frivolous lawsuits?

You've already declared is frivolous. In terms of science we get...

>In science there's always the possibility that the ground will be pulled out from underneath you.

but when its lawsuits involving conservatives, it's immediately declared frivolous. I don't know a whole lot about the case, maybe he is claiming discrimination. You against discrimination now?

Kind of reminds me of Mark...anytime he reads about a lawsuit brought by someone on the "other side", he quips that he thought republicans supported tort reform. Never mind the fact that a tort is only one particular type of lawsuit. He would say it when talking about contract lawsuits or even lawsuits brought on constitutional grounds.

Damn Teabaggers said...

Nice.

You take one datum, and proceed to develop half a page of pure speculation from it. No possible explanation is even considered except for the one that fits your prejudices.

And it's not even a hard datum, it's a poll result.

Posted under the title of "Critical Thinking, Science, and Conservatives". That's a nice touch.

You probably didn't make the point you were intending to make. Nonetheless, the post is eloquence itself.

GuardDuck said...

The theories change and are often thrown out completely when they don't fit the facts

Mainstream climatologists agree that we should adapt.

What do the words 'mainstream' or 'agree' have to do with science or the prior sentence?

Damn Teabaggers said...

What do the words 'mainstream' or 'agree' have to do with science or the prior sentence?

Easy. In climatology a hypothesis doesn't have to be proven to be factual, as long as it can be 'deemed' factual by 'consensus'.

juris imprudent said...

More on that alleged 6%.

The survey of scientist partisan affiliation was limited to one organization. One where the membership skews to academia. As DT put it - you made an interesting point, just not the one you intended.

Anonymous said...

So this is an example of "critical thinking", is it?

juris imprudent said...

Speaking of critical thinking, and no one seems to be now, how about we review the great problem of deregulation that M has gnashed his teeth about, repeatedly.

Here is a good bit on Carter's architect of airline deregulation who recently died. Some moron here declared this to be a huge failure, based on him not liking the service of the airlines he patronizes. Anyone up for this?

sw said...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40857

That is truth

Mark Ward said...

SW-ah, that old classic again. I think Stossel trotted that one out a few years ago.

DT and GD-It's just unacceptable to think that a liberal (Al Gore) could be right about something, correct? This really wasn't much of a political issue until he made it an issue. Then it became about winning the argument and not being wrong...AGAIN!

"Nice strawman. In fact, most would be happy to change their mind if facts and rational reasons turned against their held positions."

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

Give me one example, 6Kings, where you were happy to change your mind as a result of a Democrat being correct. ONE. And that goes for any of you.

And can't you see the utter hypocrisy in this?

"Arguments here have been nothing more than vapid emotional pleas mixed with the occasional fact that doesn't stand up to scrutiny....over and over and over."

immediately followed by

"We aren't as gullible as the Democratic base who sop up stupid as a rule."

Hilarious! You bemoan emotion and then turn around and act emotional. You analysis of climate change scientists is riddle with emotion and offers no real critical thinking as defined here recently by a regular poster. So what did the three panels miss that you in your great wisdom caught? An actual answer by your definition of logic and reason, not emotion filled generalizations.

Anonymous said...

"a Democrat being correct."

Can you give me a couple examples... just to get started...

dw

Damn Teabaggers said...

DT and GD-It's just unacceptable to think that a liberal (Al Gore) could be right about something, correct?

No. What's unacceptable is things like this post, spinning half a page of pure speculation from a single mushy data point, and then insulting my intelligence by expecting me to consider it as a valid hypothesis. It'd be generous to call it "sophomoric", as I'd expect college freshmen to be able to do better.

So what did the three panels miss that you in your great wisdom caught? An actual answer by your definition of logic and reason, not emotion filled generalizations.

Just who are these 3 panels? Care to name them and link to their work? Please bear with me, because I'm trying very hard not to seem insulting to you. But I really would like to find out what you're actually driving at here, as opposed to what you appear to be driving at.

For clarity's sake, what you appear to be saying is that 3 independent panels decided:

1. That the model that produced "the hockey stick", which has been proven to produce a "hockey stick" from completely random data and would produce a "hockey stick" from names in the phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. That the raw data, which the original researchers claim has been destroyed, was once again "peer reviewed" after its destruction and found to be good, solid, valid data.

3. That this same "peer review" process that allowed an article written by an IUCN activist journalist and a forest fire expert, and a purely speculative essay by a student, to be listed as "peer reviewed science" in IPCC 3 and 4, worked flawlessly this time, there's no chance of such ludicrous results being included now.

...and that therefore I should accept what they claim as Truth From On High(tm). And if I fail to do so, I have a "pathological fear of government" and am "incapable of critical thought".

Once again, I'm not trying to be insulting. The above is what you actually appear to be saying, at least from where I sit. Should I accept that this is in fact what you are saying, or would you care to clarify?

6kings said...

Yeah, that would be good dw. Because I can give you a few examples of not being correct:

1. Gun Control
2. Economic Policies
3. Energy Policies

And those are just generic examples. Want to see Democratic policies in action and the results on a number of levels:

1. Detroit: Corrupt, broke, and falling apart
2. Illinois: Corrupt, broke, and falling apart
3. California: broke, repressive, and digging the hole deeper every day.
4. Feds: Corrupt, broke, inept, and spending faster and faster like it will help. ha ha

Pick a Democrat stronghold and witness the disaster their policies have created on every level and in real time!

And can you point to some that aren't?

Now, for AGW, the point I made and you apparently can't comprehend is that it is irresponsible and stupid to create policy on an 'unsettled' theory. One in which there is significant and factual counterpoints that question the validity of the theory and the ability for human intervention to have relevance. THAT isn't science, that is dogma which you are in fact pushing as fact.

The East Anglia clearance is a sideshow which doesn't change the fact that Greens and Democrats (in general) are politicizing a theory to further an agenda.

That is like someone positing a theory that the canals on Mars are created by aliens so we need to spend trillions to build a spaceport for their welcome. After all, there isn't any other good reason why the canals are so straight. They look like they were 'made' by someone.

So get back to your 'Critical Thinking' and let's see how you come out.

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is three independent panels decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", even though you can use it to produce a hockey stick by feeding it random numbers or names from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim has been destroyed, was reviewed again after its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which allowed things like a speculative essay written by a student and an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert into the IPCC reports as "peer reviewed science", couldn't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates a "pathological fear of government" and "an inability to think critically".

Is that, in fact, what you are saying?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

(Note: This is about the 5th time or so that I have posted this, so I apologize if it comes up multiple times.)

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

juris imprudent said...

Then it became about winning the argument and not being wrong...AGAIN!

Hmmm, appears M is projecting again.

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

Maybe if I post this twice, one of them will actually show up.

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Damn Teabaggers said...

I'm posting this multiple times, in hopes that one of them will actually stay there for a few minutes.

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Anonymous said...

You mean like all the data that says that climate change is likely man made? Or the three independent panels that cleared East Anglia? The peer review they went through three times over?

What you appear to be saying here is that "three independent panels" (so far unnamed, their work unreferenced in links, etc.) have decided that:

1. The model that produced the "hockey stick graph", despite the fact that you can get a "hockey stick" out of it using random numbers or names picked from a phone book, is in fact a valid model.

2. The raw data, which the original researchers claim was destroyed, has been reviewed since its destruction and found to be good, solid, reliable data.

3. The peer review process, which previously allowed an article by an IUCN journalist and a forest fire expert, and a speculative essay by a student, pass as "peer reviewed science", can't possibly be in error this time.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."

Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Mark Ward said...

Yes.

I have linked all three in a previous thread. Here they are again in one concise location with source footnotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Reports

Review the reports and explain to me how these aren't accurate.

Notice the Media Reception article at the end of the link. I think diversionary and manufactured controversies are an apt description of your three points above. The question raised in the Economist article are important: how can one conduct science in such a combative arena given the hyper critical blogsphere?

Personally, I don't think it's possible. There isn't any information I could share with the skeptics on steroids here that will change your mind. You want to win the argument, you loathe the very concept of losing, and you will never admit fault because it means weakness. I doubt the link above will do any good but there it is if you are interested.

juris imprudent said...

You want to win the argument, you loathe the very concept of losing, and you will never admit fault because it means weakness.

[voice of Al Pacino as Satan/John Milton] "Projection, definitely my favorite sin"

Damn Teabaggers said...

'Nuff said. You have officially declared further discussion to be pointless.

I think diversionary and manufactured controversies are an apt description of your three points above.

"Think" is precisely the wrong term. You have already decided what my 3 points are, and that therefore no further thinking is necessary.

Santa said...

No, he hasn't. He's saying that so far you have demonstrated an obstinate attitude. I, as well, am wondering if you can demonstrate critical thinking regarding climate change. From what I have seen you post on here it's been all tilted one way. The climate change skeptics have become a freakish culture in and of themselves. They remind me a lot of the people who believe that vaccines cause autism. There are mountains of proof that they do not yet they still believe that they do.

Damn Teabaggers said...

No, he hasn't.

Yes, he has.

1. When the "control" for a test yield results that aren't distinct from the test itself, either the test results are negative or the testing process isn't valid. Any 12 year old Science Club geek knows this.

2. If your data is destroyed, no one can duplicate your work. In short, they can't go get the same information from the same sources, and apply the same process to it to see if they get the same results. It is unverifiable. Therefore the only way to validate it is to start over by gathering new data. Any 12 year old Science Club geek knows this, too.

3. It can be verified even now, today, that IPCC 3 & 4 contain as "peer reviewed science" papers done by people who can't be called scientists even under the loosest possible interpretation.

Do any of those disprove anything? No, they don't, of course not. But in any of those cases, skepticism is an entirely healthy and appropriate reaction. When all of them apply to a single subject, a lack of skepticism seems to imply a lack of several other mental qualities as well.

...and that therefore we should accept their findings as Word From On High(tm), and failure to do so indicates "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically."
Is that in fact what you are claiming?


Markadelphia said...

Yes.


And there it is. You are claiming "a pathological distrust of government" and "an inability to think critically" based on my refusal to accept evidence that fails to meet the standard of a middle school science project.

Whether AGW has any validity is completely beside the point. Regardless of its validity, it's pointless to discuss it with people who are unable or unwilling to evaluate data, but insist that the findings of _____ must be accepted without question.

That's not science, it's theology.

Damn Teabaggers said...

Or, to simplify it still further, so far AGW theory has shown:

1. A testing model that is at best inconclusive, at worst hoplessly flawed.

2. Data that, however good it may have been at one time, is now unverifiable.

3. A peer review process that has been recently proven to be corrupt, and no evidence of significant changes to that process.

...and I am being told that if I do not believe 1. inconclusive test model + 2. unverifiable data + 3. corrupt review process must = incontrovertible fact, I am displaying "an inability to think critically."

Speaking Truth said...

> That's not science, it's theology.

I disagree. It has nothing to do with the study of a god.

It's Dogma.

Otherwise, excellent job, especially that last sentence!

Damn Teabaggers said...

The creepy part to me is that our esteemed host, proud of his abilities as a teacher, gives Mann, Jones et al a good, solid B + even after finding out that the dog ate their homework.

Santa said...

STill with the avoidance of facts. Mark's right. There's no point in discussing climate change further with either of you until you can cleanse yourselves of the frenzy of the skeptorightwingblogsculture that you are immersed in.

juris imprudent said...

cleanse yourselves

I just love the theological bent of secular lefties.

Picturing a Monty Python skit with Santa here screaming "heretic"!

GuardDuck said...

Repent of your unbelief!

Speaking Truth said...

Ah, the mantra of the left: no discussion is possible unless you begin by agreeing with us.

Oh, and Santa, why can't you address the simple and obvious facts about the divergence from the most basic precepts of the scientific method. Here's a clue: if the scientific method isn't followed, then it ain't science!

Damn Teabaggers said...

...until you can cleanse yourselves of the frenzy of the skeptorightwingblogsculture that you are immersed in.

Which would be what, exactly? The belief that if a testing model can't produce test results distinct from control results, that both the results and the model must be considered questionable?

The belief that data that doesn't exist cannot be conclusively verified, and that unverifiable data cannot be considered scientifically valid?

The belief that a review system that has already been shown to be corrupt is likely to remain so unless and until major changes are made to it?

All of those beliefs have been considered basic to science from... oh, Socrates or so up to the present day. And they are all, right now, today, applied routinely to every subject on which science touches... except for climate change, where you are labeled a "denier", a "kook" and "anti-science" if you expect the same standard to apply as has applied to every scientific discovery for thousands of years.

juris imprudent said...

Climate-shmimate.

This is child's play compared to the whole, world-wide climate, and these guys can't predict jack.

I will give them this much credit - they actually test their predictions against real events/data. They may get it wrong, but at least they are really trying - and not just proselytizing in some vain attempt to convince us that rain isn't wet.