News of the day

Equality 7-2521 wrote: thellama73 wrote: That's the problem. Everyone "assumes" how bad the problem is, but that's not a good way to conduct science. If we dump billions into trying to fix the problem and it does no good, then I would argue that's a bad use of money. Most of the predictions I've heard (although vague and not very scientifically rigorous) seem to that hybrid cars and recycling are going to do absolutely nothing, since China and India have no intention of cooperating. Is it rational to cripple our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal? Again, I'm not making any claims about whether it would be worth it or not. I'm just saying someone needs to actually do the analysis before any major policy option is taken. But no one ever will, because it is easier to talk about scary doomsday scenarios and to use fear as a weapon to get what politicians and special interest groups want. This has been done. Part of the issue is that it's exceedingly hard to do. Even local weather prediction tends to be tumultuous. Global scale predictions just amplify this difficulty. The precision of our data and  our understanding of causality just isn't there. We can know general trends, but barring some drastic changes we're not going to get a cost figure that economic analysis can be done upon.

The issue has become partisan and that essentially means that any rational science has flown out of the window and has begun the long migration south for the winter. Both sides are cherry-picking the data for evidence that supports their agenda/philosophy/ideology and that is not good for any side and it is certainly not good for science. Even if actual, undeniable and reliable data exists it will be mined for political bias and thus be rendered useless - that same is true for any viable, workable solutions should even one of the predictions prove to be true.

thellama73 wrote: The only point I was trying to make is that even if we accept human-caused climate change as real and a problem, then(based on proposals and predictions I've heard) the solution may be worse than the problem.I just think thta should be acknowledged.

And I sure it has been and I think that is a fore-gone conclusion regardless of how any solution is implemented. One thing we can guarantee in this life is that when a situation is fubar the solution will fubar it further.

thellama73 wrote: That's the problem. Everyone "assumes" how bad the problem is, but that's not a good way to conduct science. If we dump billions into trying to fix the problem and it does no good, then I would argue that's a bad use of money. Most of the predictions I've heard (although vague and not very scientifically rigorous) seem to that hybrid cars and recycling are going to do absolutely nothing, since China and India have no intention of cooperating. Is it rational to cripple our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal? Again, I'm not making any claims about whether it would be worth it or not. I'm just saying someone needs to actually do the analysis before any major policy option is taken. But no one ever will, because it is easier to talk about scary doomsday scenarios and to use fear as a weapon to get what politicians and special interest groups want.

I'm not sure having more political parties is the great answer of all times, after all it's more group trying to push their agenda. But I still would prefer a multi-party system over the atrocious two-party thing in the US

Smurph wrote: The issue has become partisan and that essentially means that any rational science has flown out of the window and has begun the long migration south for the winter. Both sides are cherry-picking the data for evidence that supports their agenda/philosophy/ideology and that is not good for any side and it is certainly not good for science. Even if actual, undeniable and reliable data exists it will be mined for political bias and thus be rendered useless - that same is true for any viable, workable solutions should even one of the predictions prove to be true.   This is an unrecoverable situation, just as any other practical issue that has become partisan and political (e.g. the economy).

[/QUOTE]

Why are you asking for more politics for the solution to a scientific issue? The very reason no solution exists is because the science has become politicized, warped, deformed, and destroyed.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Smurph wrote: The issue has become partisan and that essentially means that any rational science has flown out of the window and has begun the long migration south for the winter. Both sides are cherry-picking the data for evidence that supports their agenda/philosophy/ideology and that is not good for any side and it is certainly not good for science. Even if actual, undeniable and reliable data exists it will be mined for political bias and thus be rendered useless - that same is true for any viable, workable solutions should even one of the predictions prove to be true.   This is an unrecoverable situation, just as any other practical issue that has become partisan and political (e.g. the economy). You hit the nail on the head. Nothing will ever be fixed because of this. EVerythign is jacked up and unfixable in our government. Why can't we have like 4 or 5 dominant parties? At least we could hear different sides to issues and sometimes parties would have to side with other parties at times. And that is something that has not happened in many many years in this country.

Why are you asking for more politics for the solution to a scientific issue? The very reason no solution exists is because the science has become politicized, warped, deformed, and destroyed.
[/QUOTE]

Equality 7-2521 wrote: How would more groups of people fighting over power change anything? And yet again I say, this is not something for political groups to decide. It's something for a handful of climatologists, ecologists, statisticians, etc. to solve.

Who's going to pay those people? The government. Everything is political anymore. It's not fixable.

Yea- all those colleges that he studied at paid for his research. I'm not sure how colleges were in the 1800's but what college is not politicized? If we let colleges pay for the research and the results say we are causing global warming on a terrible scale the Republicans will just scream out that it's those darn "liberal" colleges then come out with a bunch of their own data that contradicts it and no one will win... again.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Darwin paid his on way on his Beagle. He paid for his own research. If you think that science is regularly funded privately, then I think you need to google something like GlaxoSmithKlein

Oh yea sciene is funded privately as well. I am sorry I didnt figure out what you meant- you're the kind of person that seems to not like mistakes so I assumed you didnt make one. I agree with you on most of these points. I was just saying that it's going to be funded in some way. My position is this. 1) Our government sucks

Edited by Smurph - July 11 2012 at 15:43