Science By Democracy Doesn't Work 497
StartsWithABang writes The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid. Nevertheless, debates have always been a thing in science, and they do have their place: in raising what points would be needed to validate, robustly confirm or refute competing explanations, theories or ideas. The greatest scientific debate in all of history — along with its conclusions — illustrates exactly this.
Of course it does! (Score:5, Funny)
Because the majority said so.
Society... (Score:3)
...by democracy really doesn't work too well either.
Its the best we have, but it doesn't work, more so in a polarized society.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow....it was a straight up freedom of speech decision.
No, it wasn't. It was anything but. By effectively declaring that money = speech, the Supreme Court tried to make this a country in which some people get to have much more speech than others. And that is so clearly an anti-American conclusion that it WILL inevitably be overturned.
But back to the main topic. This isn't as big a deal -- or quite the "victory" -- that some people have been crowing about.
First, it's ridiculous to try to declare science settled by legislative fiat. It's about as smart as t
Science by Democracy? (Score:3)
Try "Science by Oligarchy".
So what was the result?? (Score:4, Funny)
Is it a hoax? I'm on tenterhooks.
Re:So what was the result?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do humans contribute significantly to climate change?: No (50:49) - All the Dems plus a few Reps votes "Yes". Key to that result however is that before the vote Sen. Lisa Murkoswki (R-AK) took exception to the word "significantly", which I actually think is a reasonable point given the available data that tries to quantify our contribution to the changes.
The question that remains unanswered is how many of those 50 that voted "No" in the second vote would have voted differently if the contentious "significantly" wasn't present. That's almost certainly more than zero, so it appears that the disconnect between what US politicians and scientists believe about climate change and AGW might not be as far apart as some are portraying it, and might not even exist at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what was the result?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what was the result?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I think voting is a great way to determine truth. When that doesn't work, generally a wrestling match does.
Then (Score:3, Insightful)
Its just as well that we don't live in a democracy
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm not sure what you would call the US Government nowadays. Probably more of an Oligarchy of wealthy business owners and campaign contributors telling our "Democratically Elected" Legislative bodies what bills to vote on.
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. Not this again.
We don't live in a direct democracy. We do live in a representative democracy which also happens to be a republic.
A question for all the"deniers". (Score:3, Insightful)
Just what exactly do you expect will happen if you almost double the amount of the atmospheres main persistent infra red absorber? And if you think it will have no effect can you please explain why you think this.
I'm just curious because I'm sure your stand is based on sound scientific reasoning rather than a rather pathetic attempt at self justification for a "lets carry on business as usual I don't care" approach to the issue which unfortunately is a standard human response to a lot of big problems.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because we have had colder temperatures with more CO2 in the past and the earth is primarily a self regulating eco-system leading to stability.
Climate alarmists would have you believe the climate we had recently is closer to perfect and like a boulder balanced on top of a mountain where in any change could cause it all to topple. In reality it's more like a boulder in a valley.
We still have NO credible numbers as to what percent of temperature is MAN MADE and what is natural cycle.
If you run the CO2 vs Temp
Re: (Score:3)
Because we have had colder temperatures with more CO2 in the past
This is true, but those times also had significantly higher ice concentrations. Paint a big chunk of the ground (and sea area) white and you'll see the
the earth is primarily a self regulating eco-system leading to stability
If you can say this with a straight face, then you have no idea of the history of the climate.
Re:A question for all the"deniers". (Score:4, Interesting)
By "self regulating eco-system" AC meant that Earth always has a climate. And at some point (indefinite future) it will stabilize. Did snowball Earth (if such existed) have climate? Yes. Was it stable? Sure, for a while. So there you have it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you ever written a simulation? I have. You have to use simplification of calculations and use predetermined result tables to avoid doing the calculations to get any kind of speed in result return. This causes deviance from true simulation. The only way to accurately simulate the real thing is to build the real thing.
As someone who has written a number of simulations, you are full of shit. You certainly don't use lookup tables to determine results of the thing that you are calculating; if you have a well behaved submodel that is part of the larger simulation, you can use precomputed results but that is completely different. Further, you can get the simulations that they are running; here's one: GISS GCM E [nasa.gov]. They are 'true simulations' in any meaningful definition of the word; they are not using "predetermined res
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just what exactly do you expect will happen if you almost double the amount of the atmospheres main persistent infra red absorber? And if you think it will have no effect can you please explain why you think this.
I'm just curious because I'm sure your stand is based on sound scientific reasoning rather than a rather pathetic attempt at self justification for a "lets carry on business as usual I don't care" approach to the issue which unfortunately is a standard human response to a lot of big problems.
The mean temperature may rise 0.6C. Could be marginally less due to negative feedbacks (hitherto underestimated cloud cover) and other random causes (more than average volcanoes popping, the sun having a fit, an asteroid impact...), could be marginally more due to positive feedbacks (water vapor amplification, hitherto belied by the facts) and other random causes (less than average volcanoes popping, the sun having a fit, ...). Let's assume another doubling follows after that before we can't pull any (hydro
Re:A question for all the"deniers". (Score:4, Informative)
The mean temperature may rise 0.6C.
Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6–4.1 C, most clustering around 3 C, according to http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~ste... [pik-potsdam.de]
Re: (Score:3)
Then the facts of the long-time trend - even after all the massaging, tweaking and adjusting of the historic record - being near or below the lower error bars of said cluster are proving previous and current state-of-the-art climate models very wrong.
Re:A question for all the"deniers". (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, we haven't doubled CO2 yet. We've only added about 35%. Secondly, the 3C sensitivity is the steady state number. Right now, we're still in flux, as the oceans take considerable time to warm up. So, even if we stopped adding CO2 now, the temperature would continue to rise for decades.
Re:A question for all the"deniers". (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for the persistent part.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the persistent part.
Are you claiming the measurements showing the amount of atmospheric CO2 is rising are incorrect?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I was responding to the other comment about water vapor.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sorry.
I didn't realise there was an AC comment inbetween those two.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the persistent part.
There is a difference between long lived and persistent. CO2 that enters the atmosphere will stay there much longer, sure. Water vapor will only stay a couple of days, sure. Despite water vapor leaving the atmosphere so quickly though, it's also entering the atmosphere as quickly as it leaves. It's impact and effect on absorption of radiation thus persistently accounts for 60% of all GHG absorption and CO2 less than half that according to the American Geological society [archive.org].
Its about allocation of funding dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
Debate on scientific endeavors does work, because the primary purpose of congress is to fund various programs. Climate change debate in the political realm is all about transferring wealth from other productive areas of the economy. For arguments sake I'll agree there is climate change, and I'll agree to pay a few hundred million of our tax dollars for it, but no more. If you want to spent billions - well then, you've just discovered where the real debate is, and why this is going on in congress. I don't think it's as important as you think it is in dollar terms.
We can also argue about what's causing it, but at the end of the day it's about how many resources get allocated to doing something about it. Some of us think it's a fake issue to reallocate dollars into pet projects. It has happened before. What if we spend the billions and the next 10 years are the coldest on record? Will we get our money back or will we have to fund a new project to deal with global cooling?
Re: (Score:3)
What if we wean our economy off of fossil fuels for nothing ?
Re: (Score:3)
Let me know when you have something viable (politically, economically) that has energy density of fossil fuels, that is also carbon neutral. Right now, (this moment) there is nothing even close. When oil prices increase there will be a point when it is viable, until then ... good luck.
A brave new world (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? That's never been the case.
Who'd have thought it... (Score:3)
...science relies on evidence and is not swayed by what I, arbitrary authorities or consensus believes. But this goes both ways:
Now I'm not familiar with the US vote. It does seem reasonable, as policy makers and legislators are going to have to respond to climate change in their legislation, that they decide whether they buy the arguments for it or not. And given that the US uses a democratic framework for legislating it doesn't seem unreasonable that the legislature uses a democratic vote to take such an opinion collectively.
You see, that's the great thing about science. It's true, they can't just vote it away. But it's not an authority - you can't demand congress address climate change just because the men in white coats say so - you have to address evidence based, logically sound arguments to them. And your opponents can respond with arguments of their own. And the adjudicator has to choose between them.
If you think that no one has the right to challenge the sanctity of the holy scientific truth then you're just as bad as the politician who thinks they can vote objective reality away.
So this vote may be stupid (or it may not be), but, inherently speaking, a group voting on how to collectively respond to some argument isn't necessarily.
Re: (Score:2)
This had nothing to do with science (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid.
You think this vote had anything to do with science? This is about power and policy. It's about pandering to a group of voters. It's about setting a stage for the next election. It's about getting votes. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with power.
Science should inform public policy but nothing forces politicians to actually care what scientists tell them if the facts diverge from political needs. If a politician needs to proclaim that gravity is a hoax to get votes then they will do that and do it with a straight face.
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity is a hoax. The earth is a large flat disk accelerating through space on the back of a rocket propelled tortoise and the sun is small light source only 100 miles above the plane of the disk. It's really the B-ark space ship carrying away the descendants of the true earth's telephone sanitizers and hairdressers. Don't fall for the lies of "big globe" and their well paid "scientists".
Man vs Nature (Score:2)
Democracy is a human construct, i.e. consensus of the majority, while science reflects how nature behaves. Good luck imposing man's will on nature.
Very Situational (Score:2)
Wrong approach - they should make it illegal! (Score:3)
This is clearly the wrong approach, they should simply make it illegal. Make everyone worry for the safety of their children (spontaneous combustion!) and explain that climate change is clearly a form of terrorism thus it is super-über-illegal. That should do it.
Unconstitutional (Score:3)
Clearly it's a violation of the separation of powers. Only the judicial branch can decide reality, like the judge ruling that deepwater horizon spilled 3.19 million barrels of oil.
Outcome of the vote (Score:4, Informative)
By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax [sciencemag.org]
Personally, when "the senate just voted" is linked to something in the summary, I would expect the link to tell me more about the outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Please moderate parent up to the max.
This is the only interesting factual post on this thread.
Re:Outcome of the vote (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet communication by information does - USE IT (Score:2)
This is not rocket surgery.
DO:
Put your shoes on before going outside.
DO NOT:
Greet your neighbors with a tennis racket to the genitals.
DO:
Post the summary of the article in the summary.
DO NOT:
Post worthless clickbait in the summary.
Please grasp the concept.
Elevated CO2 levels impair decision making ability (Score:2)
Bad title. (Score:3)
Science by democracy isn't science.
Democracy (Score:2)
Democracy by science also doesn't work (Score:2)
Democracy by science also doesn't work. Remember the "scientific basis" behind the eugenics movement, which even after WW2 was used to justify forced sterilization of those deemed mentally retarded? Or the "scientific basis" for blacks being inferior? Or the "scientific basis" for "curing" gays and lesbians? Or the "scientific basis" for trains not being able to travel more than 20 mph because the passengers would have all the air sucked out of their lungs at that terrifying speed? I'm sure that with a bi
As expected ... (Score:3)
... only scientifically challenged (read: morons) would vote on whether scientific results are true. Why don't they let SCIENTISTS vote on the issue? Oh, right, because 97% of the scientists stating the climate change is true would overrule the 3% that say it isn't ...
Surprise: Most People Voted Otherwise (Score:2)
It may seem odd, but most people in last election voted for Democrats, who have climate change as part of their platform [democrats.org].
In 2012, the first congressional election after the last round of gerrymandering, Democratic House candidates won 50.59 percent of the vote — or 1.37 million more votes than Republican candidates — yet secured only 201 seats in Congress, compared to 234 seats for Republicans. The House of Representatives, the “people’s house,” no longer requires the most vote
Except when scientists do it (Score:2)
When mathematicians vote on whether to accept a new theorem, when psychiatrists vote on which diseases should be included in the latest version of DSM, when NIH panels vote on whether to fund a grant. No, science couldn't possibly be run by the tyranny of the mob that refuses to believe in ideas that are too new and radical.
So to be consistent... (Score:2)
(Since I agree that science-by-democracy is stupid)
Does that mean we can ALSO expect Global Warming folks to stop spouting the phrase "an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on..."
Or is it ok for one side, but not the other?
Seriously, though: while I again agree that this vote was stupid, let's all be very clear that the response to Global Warming - whatever the cause - is entirely political.
If you have a problem, it's entirely reasonable to ask specialists about the problem, the causes and co
Square the circle (Score:2)
I'm waiting for them to fix the plague of transcendental numbers and redefine pi to be the proper, all-American value of 3.2. If we're lucky they might fix that pesky e too.
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it's called consensus and no, it isn't science. Not when politicians do it. Not when scientists do it.
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Consensus isn't science, but it's a method of determining which of the competing scientific theories should be used as a basis of policy. It may not be a good method, but other methods are worse.
Re: Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:2)
The problem there is 'policy' not 'science'.
I like the IETF model: "We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code".
Oh, but nothing large-scale and important could ever be accomplished without Democracy ...
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question ? Also, it's impossible to not have a policy while we wait. Right now, our policy is to keep producing CO2 at about the same rate. What exactly should we base that policy on, if not for our current best scientific understanding ?
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:5, Interesting)
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question? When the hypothesis has experimental/observational verification. Policy based on any other standard, like a consensus of dubious objectivity, is a crap shoot.
Re: (Score:2)
How does one determine when the hypothesis has experimental/observational verification ?
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds good. May be a challenge to get all the Congress members to do that, though.
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:5, Insightful)
By creating hypothesis and then testing it, experimentally and verifying results, you know SCIENCE.
That's what 95% of the climate scientists believe we have done. If that's not enough, please explain your exact criteria. WHO must do all the things you mention, and WHEN does the general public know they have been done correctly ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's what 95% of the climate scientists believe we have done.
I don't know why you think that. All climate scientists who are not in a coma (or on vacation in Aruba collecting temperature data) are aware that the models are wrong. [ed.ac.uk] The hypothesis is wrong and needs to be adjusted. And scientists aren't stupid, that is exactly what they are doing, thinking of different ways to adjust the hypothesis. But it takes time.
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:4, Insightful)
An interesting aspect of science is that all our models are always wrong. And we are always aware of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Now what?
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:4, Informative)
The data from the last decade fits the rising trend perfectly.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2... [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the rising trend does not seem to lead to the predicted disasters.
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:4, Insightful)
The future hasn't happened yet.
Re: (Score:3)
The denialists will still come up with an alternate interpretation of cherry-picked data from some crackpot blog, to prove you wrong.
-
Bias: but for them - not me! (Score:5, Insightful)
Stone Age ended, but not for lack of stones. (Score:3)
Not sure what is meant by 'dire', but warming is in line with expectations. Here is a quote from the IPCC TAR in 2001 - a projection that has not changed in recent reports: "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2C/decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario" That is exactly what we have seen.
Regarding fuel supplies, Saudi Arabia plans to pump everything they can while people are still interested in oil. They do not believe they will run out:
"Thirty years from
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if the same data has been used to claim a warming trend and the same data is used to say otherwise I'd call that invalid data.
The same data has been used to claim men landed on the moon, and that the moon landing was a hoax. Therefore all data related to the moon landing should then be ignored. As it's proven flawed on both counts.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, the observable evidence over the past decade suggests that at the least the impact of the prevailing theory is highly overstated, and potentially flat out wrong. Now what?
First off, you need to accept that you have bad data.
Re: (Score:3)
Over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate "skeptics" could have argued (and often did...) that global warming had stopped. And yet over the entire period question containing these six cooling trends, the underlying trend is one of rapid global warming (0.27C per decade, according to the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [BEST] dataset). - http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:3)
We should base policy on what the majority of 'the people' (read voters without regard for what internationally other people want) wish to do, after they have been made aware of the risk a large number of scientists believe to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Have voters been made aware of this ? I'm pretty sure that the average voter, who does not care for scientific journals and reports, has a poor idea of the current scientific facts and theories. And that applies to voters on both sides of the debate.
Re: (Score:3)
We should base policy on what the majority of 'the people' (read voters without regard for what internationally other people want) wish to do, after they have been made aware of the risk a large number of scientists believe to exist.
You don't let someone else drive you over a cliff just because they don't understand or care about the consequences of their actions. The electorate in general has not looked carefully at the evidence and many of them clearly do not understand it or are apparently ignoring the good of the many in favor of their own short term interests. It is VERY apparent that the electorate is not well informed on this issue and it is equally clear that short term economic self interest is very likely to result in long
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:4, Informative)
The point of "this is perfect and certainly true" does not exist.
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference is that you can duplicate the tests, measurements and models, and that you are invited to come up with alternative explanations.
Re: (Score:2)
None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.
Very little is ever fully resolved.
Plus we already set public policy based upon religion, which is never ever resolved, and never will be.
Tobacco science (Score:3)
I take it you are not yet persuaded by the science against smoking cigarettes?
Please mod parent -1 disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:4, Informative)
None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.
Bogus. Science is not about "fully resolving" but about "models that work". Yes you could back the "wrong" scientifc theory when making policy, but in most cases they will differ only in corner cases. And even better, you can choose a response that addresses the problem, no matter which theory is correct. Even if global warming today was mainly caused by volcanoes, would it make sense to pump out even more CO2?
However, if there's a debate like there is in the US with climate change, with opinions 180 degrees the opposite, you can be sure that one side is only spouting complete bollocks and propaganda. Especially when you notice that one side has most of the scientists on its side, and the other mostly politicians.
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:5, Insightful)
None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.
Now I understand the denial logic. Let say science is 90% confident that a comet is going to crash on the earth, we shouldn't do anything since the question is not fully resolved, right? That's just plain stupid, whether it's applied to a comet or climate change. Man made climate change is happening. Are we 100% confident? No, but close enough so that we should live accordingly. Again, is the science 100% settled? No. But while we continue research on the matter, there is no reason not to act.
Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. We should use quantum mechanics instead as a basis for laws regarding houses, roads and bridges, because that's much more applicable to houses, roads, and bridges than Newtonian physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Those laws allow for such large inaccuracies (aka safety margins) that the inaccuracies of Newtonian physics are neglegible.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists are supposed to know anything about the subjects they vote on. Legislaters are not, and do not in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's called consensus and no, it isn't science. Not when politicians do it. Not when scientists do it.
That's the failing of the submitter. Nobody ever said this vote was part of the science, so there is no reason argue it isn't. But alas, many idiots will anyhow.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that called "consensus"? Isn't that what's being pushed by the "Global Climate Change" (new name this week!) crowd as impetus for ending discussion and declaring the science "done"?
I realize you are just grinding a hatchet here; but 'scientific consensus' differs from 'democracy' in the minor detail that 'experiments' and 'data' are involved.
In the short to medium term it can (and has) been the case that scientific consensus is following some mixture of confusion and groupthink into error(or, as some suspect the more theoretical aspects of physics of doing, into an unverifiable morass of elegant but meaningless mathematics); long term, though, it's hard to both ignore the world and
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that called "consensus"? Isn't that what's being pushed by the "Global Climate Change" (new name this week!) crowd as impetus for ending discussion and declaring the science "done"?
It should be named anthropogenically accelerated global climate change, as there is no question whether the climate is changing---one cannot expect that the actual climate will last forever, it has changed before and will change again. The question is whether climate change is (a) global, (b) faster than it would be natural, and therefore (c) caused by the man.
Re: (Score:2)
Newtonian physics?
Re:The good thing about it is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd agree with that is the bill was just a vote on whether climate change is real or not. It's attached to another bill.
The democrats voted in mass for Obama Care. Are you saying that means they agree and support everything in it? Because recent history would prove that wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why our system is so messed up. This why the lobbyists and influence vendors have power. This why our laws are written such that not even the people who enact them really know what they mean.
The reason is voters like you, are willing to let them off the hook. When these guys sign their name to it they need to be accountable for it FULL STOP. You should not let them make excuses like oh well it was must pass....
No all those democrats who voted for the ACA better be willing to stand up and say pro
Re: (Score:3)
If the republicans of the past 15 years wanted what a mass gov pushed for his state, they would have passed it when Bush was in office.
The dems own this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it? Do they get to vote differently to different parts of the bill?
If the climate change rider was an entirely standalone bill, I would agree with you - but what about those that strongly believe the pipeline is a benefit worth having, but having differing opinions on various riders? In the end, the climate change rider doesn't force anyones hand, so its probably not something that would jeopardise a vote for the entire bill.
The rider really needed to be its own bill if we are to attach any meaning a
Re: (Score:2)
Many of us are scientists.
Actually, most Slashdotters are High School nerds, dateless college guys, single guys living in their mother's basements with apolitical axe to grind, or trolls poking the first three with a stick.
I don't think any real scientist would waste their time here.
Consider yourself poked.
A little self projection there?
And yes, there are scientists here.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, most Slashdotters are High School nerds, dateless college guys, single guys living in their mother's basements with apolitical axe to grind, or trolls poking the first three with a stick...
Consider yourself poked.
I suspect that the latter category also substantially overlaps the first three. Hah, poked you back!
Re:science by clickbait doesn't work either (Score:5, Informative)
The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax
Especially since (1) he doesn't tell us the result of the vote, and (2) he links back to yesterday's article on slashdot that covered the same thing, and to the same article on his web site as yesterday. Nothing - nothing - whatsoever to see here.