Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 19. (Read 24009 times)

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

I think AGW and CAGW are interesting ideas and deserve to be studied and properly proven or disproven by appropriate scientists in the field. Unfortunately, the issue has been hijacked by those who would have us living in the stone age and have been running around chicken-littleing about global warming/global cooling/peak oil/nuclear/the steam engine/the wheel/fire since forever. As such, I stand in strong opposition to any change which could radically alter our quality of life until and unless we have much more solid proof. (This is the true implication of the precautionary principle by the way).

No, the results are inconclusive both ways. Both sides are concluding things based on insufficient evidence (if climate science is like biomed science, which I don't know for sure).

See the first link in this post and take the job:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/someone-needed-to-search-old-academic-papers-and-textbooks-127448

I disagree, I have seen convincing arguments that most of what science has measured in the last 50 years or so is actually just the prevailing bias (ie expert opinion like NASA used to predict 1/100,000 chance of fuel tank explosion in the 80s and then ignore the dangers of foam debris for 20 more years, which is why they are losing all funding). In more technical terms, the prior probabilities implicitly used by scientists are so strong (they believe their hypothesis has 75-90% chance of being true before doing any experiments)  that it requires unreasonably strong data to the contrary to affect the final assessment of the result. All of science is losing credibility due to this.

I don't have time right now to go figure out which are the most important climate science papers, but my experience with scientists in my field tells me most have no concept of how to deal with uncertainty or alternative explanations, they instead just sweep it under the rug with dynamite plots and p-value "gold stars" sold to them by the various false-positive dealers (SPSS, SAS, etc). Perhaps this is going on in climate science, perhaps not. To me it doesn't really matter since my opinion aligns with the reduce growth/stop polluting/alternative energy movement anyway.

There is a scientific consensus. A consensus is more likely right than wrong in today's age. Not always. but usually.

Please attempt to show some good science by those in opposition to the consensus.

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

What does that leave us with? A warming of the planet. An industrial age which pollutes. A lot of falsified science denying climate change. A scientific consensus which in theory could be wrong, but likely isn't.

Wow. You guys are so convincing.

Let me get this straight then: your 5 percent of lying self serving sellout scientists are more likely to be correct than the 95 percent scientific consensus? Is that it?

If there's a chance that the 95 percent are wrong, then obviously there's a bigger chance your 5 percent of sellouts and document falsifiers and people receiving donations from Exxon/Mobil are wrong as well.

What I see is a bunch of libertarians whose political agenda can't handle the reality of climate science, and then must proceed to delude themselves into believing it's all a conspiracy, and thus like to grasp at straws in the dark, and then hope whatever they find will be enough to fool the rest of us into being deluded as well. Ah, the power of propaganda and self delusions!

You guys are the pathetic brainwashed herd that has been heavily influenced by a bunch of garbage out there in the form of bad science and propaganda published by the think tanks. Sad. And doubly sad that as a result, you think the mainstream is the brainwashed.

Agreed. Trying to derail a conversation with "you should not question the scientific consensus" is not cool.

I'd just like to point out at this juncture that the scientific consensus was, at one point, that phlogiston caused and was released during fires.

Scientists can be wrong, even in great numbers. A wise man looks even at the consensus with skepticism.

In one ear and out the other. Stop filtering, and start keeping up with the news, as well as the scientific publications.

Or continue with applying credence to Exxon/Mobil and Richard Landzen. By the way, not only does Landzen speak for the Heartland Institute and Exxon/Mobil, but he was a sellout to the tobacco industry as well, saying there was no correlation between lung cancer and smoking.

He's just like Frederick Seitz. So tell me, is he an expert in both medicine and climate science? Or is he just a sellout?

And by the way, tell me again why documents like the Oregon Petition were created? Could it be that in the absence of real science, the deniers must create falsified documents which solicit the opinion of dentists, in which the document implies those dentists are climate scientists?

Yes, please show me that science doesn't work, but instead something else does.

Oh, and you better get right on reading the 100,000 plus science papers on the subject so that you can make your informed decision about the consensus. Get on it, man! The scientists are out to get you! It's a big conspiracy!  

Much of climate science is based on faulty reasoning:

Significance Tests in Climate Science

Perhaps the big businesses are right. At the very least, academics cannot be trusted to analyze their data correctly. I dunno, we would have to look at the specific landmark papers.

Because of the title of the thread.

I think it's awesome you don't find this concept wacky. Many do for no real reason.

Oh okay, I thought you were going to propose something wacky. Sorry to have misjudged you.

If you have prior information use bayes' theorem, if you do not, use p-values. If the evidence is strong enough they converge on the same result. Even Fisher says to do this in that last paper I quoted.

Even Keyne's was a "bayesian", although I'm not sure if he recognized it (I haven't read all this, just found it today):
http://ia600506.us.archive.org/19/items/treatiseonprobab007528mbp/treatiseonprobab007528mbp.pdf

P-values seem necessary for any type of empirical investigation. What would you suggest instead?

What has he done to make me care about him? Plenty of people with big mouths and pieces of paper use it to advance their agendas, so that's not enough for me to care. The people who rely on argument from authority when there is time to reason are ultimately pawns anyway. They can be swayed to support whatever.

Frederick Seitz, not Ronald Fisher. Discuss Seitz.

Ironically you just committed correlation equal to causation. I worded my post poorly. I don't like p values for other reasons, mostly that almost noone understands what they actually mean or that they are not the correct tool for most of modern science. Fisher was alright, but his prophecy has come true with regards to his own work:

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher272.pdf

Fisher is being careful. He is the one calling "all science based on p values into question." In particular, he is worried about correlation vs. causation. As he should be. All science should be called into question all the time. That is the whole idea of science.

It is quite silly of you to associate his statistical theories with his views on smoking. Perhaps the silliest part is that you are criticizing him for doing exactly what you recommend.

The original, and ultimate proponent of smoking !=cancer was Ronald Fisher, who's theories underlie 95% of all scientific reasoning used today. Personally, I call all science based on p values into question.


http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher276.pdf

George Soros?

There's ample evidence of big business supporting libertarianism. Just look at who funds the libertarian think tanks.

Learn about Frederick Seitz, founder of the George C. Marshall Institute. Which big business do you think paid him to be a 'scientist' and claim there is no relation between cancer and tobacco smoke? Which big business do you think paid him to lead the public to believe there is no consensus regarding global warming?

Who do you think funds the Heartland Institute, which employs James Taylor, legal analyst for property rights, to edit the rag Environment and Climate News? By the way, it sure is hilarious that the editor of such an officious sounding newsletter is actually an analyst for property rights, and not a climate scientist.

Where do you think the money comes from to put out propaganda such as the Oregon Petition?

What institutes do you think appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook?