petrossa Posted August 3, 2010 Author Share Posted August 3, 2010 Again, what I said in bold above. A plumber doesn't have a clue about whether or not we need to 'conserve energy'. A scientist who has spent time studying the problem... Are you honestly telling me you would give his opinion equal weight? His opinion they both can give as much as they want. The value of their respective opinions is about equal if it concerns matter they both don't know jackcrap about. For example: Expert credibility in climate change Abstract Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97?98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract In short, most people working in the field are not climate scientists Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master?s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5?7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents? names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory. Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered ?risen? to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climatechange) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individualsin total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered ?risen? to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. This is in contrast to results of a recent Gallup poll (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx) that Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?suggests that only 58% of the general public would answer yes to our question 2. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1828618/Doran_final.pdf In other words only 79 real honest to god climate scientists make up the 97% of the 3200 scientists who believe that AGW is a concern. So i guess the plumber nor 'the scientist' shouldn't be taken on face value Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Fulcrum Subscriber¹ Posted August 3, 2010 Subscriber¹ Share Posted August 3, 2010 @HeretikSaint I absolutely agree with you that he is a smart man. But this is besides the point; If we can agree that Scientism has more negative implications than positive, then all we have is a little bit of name calling dispute. It's not my opinion necessarily, rather that of several more authoritative critics. In my own defense, I've never read one of his books, and every youtube video I've seen with him, shines him in a negative light (intentionally). Science cannot be elitist and egalitarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilus Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97?98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. Sorry but that supports everything I said. If the general public disagree with the scientists it's probably because in America they have so many damn lobby groups trying to convince them otherwise, or because their education system is a shambles and a lot of the general public are idiots. http://www.pnas.org/...187107.abstract In short, most people working in the field are not climate scientists You worked that out how, exactly? 908 of the 1,372 scientists used to compile the above data have published over 20 journals on the subject! How are they not "climate scientists"? And they also stated that 'varying the minimum publication cut-off does not materially alter results'. So the results are sound however you look at it. Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master's degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5?7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents' names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory. In other words only 79 real honest to god climate scientists make up the 97% of the 3200 scientists who believe that AGW is a concern. Do you even think before you post? So i guess the plumber nor 'the scientist' shouldn't be taken on face value Sorry but how is a plumber's opinion valuable at all? He has NO knowledge of the subject, he is reaching conclusions based purely on subjective opinion, reading biased magazine articles etc. Someone with a scientific background, especially one specialising in a subject, has plenty of specialist knowledge to help. Hell, even if they don't specialise in a subject chances are they're going to know a wee bit more about it. There are crossover areas in science... REPEATING MYSELF: Also, you seem to be denying that it's the reporters/politicians/lobby groups abusing raw scientific data, and not scientists. I beg to differ, even the article you posted states "scientists need to come out every time some politician says". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealthy_Singh Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 I think the language that scientists use in interviews is misconstrued a lot. All this complaining that scientists are say we must do this; we can't to do that; this needs to be stopped, is a little unfair. Scientists produce literature peer reviewed journals. On the whole (probably not in all cases) this is reporting of data collected through experimentation with some commentary on the data as it relates to the hypothesis posited pre-experiment. I think this has been established in this thread. Where this language comes in is when scientists are asked by the media (on our behalf it must be stressed seeing as we consume this media) to comment on their findings and their implications. Usually that means explaining in lay terms what the experiment showed. In almost all cases I would say the questions probe further and go into the realm of what consequences does this new information have for us. It is in this extended questioning where the scientists are asked to say what this means where the so called authoritarian language comes in. A simple example using salt intake: Journalist: So your study shows that high salt intake like that which we take in these days leads to cardiac problems? Scientist: Yes that is what our data shows. Journalist: Then what can we do in light of this data to help ourselves to lower our risk of cardiac problems? Scientist: Well if we want to lower the probability of having cardiac problems then it's fair to say we MUST lower our salt intake. As you can see the scientist gave his view on what the data shows and what his opinion is to solve a problem. This scientist most likely knows that lowering salt intake isn't the only way to lower cardiac events but from his understanding of the data under question shows 1) Increasing salt intake will not help the issue 2) Maintaining current intake will not help the issue 3) Lowering salt intake will help In the context of the discussion the word must is allowable. The scientist is not being authoritarian in saying you have to lower your salt intake but that if you want to lower your chance of cardiac issues then lowering your salt intake is vital. At the end of the day the choice is yours about what you want to do. Essentially the use of the word must is that you can't have high salt intake and have a low chance of cardiac events; ie. you can't have your cake and eat it! In lots of issues (esp climate change) it's not so clear cut. But what the scientists are saying is the data shows if you want B then you need A. In the case of climate change they are assuming (and quite rightly too) that we want to stop climate change if we can. So from this position they are offering us their opinion (expert or not depending on how you see the scientist) on a way forward using the data. Again if in their opinion they see only one way then they are free to use this sort of language. Data show facts; interpretation is what we ask our scientists to do after experimentation and observation, and this is unavoidably subjective. We can't ask our scientists to advise us and then hang them for advising us what they feel is necessary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrossa Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 Do you even think before you post? Do you even read a post? We discussed the credibility of scientists, i post papers proving that in a random field of science most who talk about it aren't master of the science they comment on and you go on about how it proves that scientist aren't authoritarian but the reporting is. Please keep focused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilus Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Do you even read a post? We discussed the credibility of scientists, i post papers proving contending that in a random field of science most who talk about it aren't master of the science they comment on and you go on about how it proves that scientist aren't authoritarian but the reporting is. Please keep focused. 908 of the 1,372 scientists used to compile the above data have published over 20 journals on the subject! How are they not "climate scientists"? And they also stated that 'varying the minimum publication cut-off does not materially alter results'. Sorry but how is a plumber's opinion valuable at all? He has NO knowledge of the subject, he is reaching conclusions based purely on subjective opinion, reading biased magazine articles etc. Someone with a scientific background, especially one specialising in a subject, has plenty of specialist knowledge to help. Hell, even if they don't specialise in a subject chances are they're going to know a wee bit more about it. There are crossover areas in science... Also, Singh's comment pretty much sums up my views. Albeit far more eloquently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tews Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Too busy reading comics. Your reply shows it too! :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealthy_Singh Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 (edited) Do you even read a post? We discussed the credibility of scientists, i post papers proving that in a random field of science most who talk about it aren't master of the science they comment on and you go on about how it proves that scientist aren't authoritarian but the reporting is. Please keep focused. Can you please tell me under what criteria you are asserting that they are not "Master of the science they comment on". Even if you say it's not you asserting it but the paper you posted does, I can't find any such criteria. If you point it out to me and I missed it I will take your point and debate it further; but I just don't see it. Further more the paper shows that a lot of the people who responded to the survey have written, I think it was, about 20 papers on climate in peer reviewed journals. If that doesn't make them "master of their said science" I don't know what will! P.S. Thanks Nihilus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts