War on Science
Apr. 21st, 2017 01:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apharTo get the trivial issues out of the way, let me state with utmost clarity that all the problems that humanity have ever solved were solved by science and technology - from staving off the Malthusian starvation with the Green revolution, to avoiding NYC being buried by horse manure. Thus I believe we should fund STEM research - DARPA, ARPA-e, NASA and national labs - at 101% of what scientists request (and 70+% of my compatriots agree with me!).
However, given the real and perceived "war on science" by the Trump administration, we need to understand what is really going on, and how to advance our progress.
The dominant explanation of the "war on science" is Knowledge Deficit: people don't know enough. This explanation is, apparently, wrong, because there is a (weak) positive correlation between science knowledge and skepticism of recommendations of climate scientists (IOW, more knowledgeable people - as determined by a quiz - are more skeptical).
Let me try to advance an alternative view of the apparent conflict.
There are two parts to what the scientists say:
We ("the literate public") certainly trust the scientists' area of expertise - the Positive statements.
However, there is no reason to trust their Normative statements any more than that of an average intelligent person.
The poster child of this attitude is the aforementioned "manure crisis": we did not need to do what the scientists recommended to solve it, it was solved by the automotive revolution.
Similarly, there is absolutely no need for wedges, treaties &c &c.
If it ever will be stopped, the climate change will be stopped by introducing new technology, so what we need is a stiff carbon tax without grandfather clauses which will make alternative energy more economically attractive (and maybe give extra money to STEM R&D).
However, given the real and perceived "war on science" by the Trump administration, we need to understand what is really going on, and how to advance our progress.
The dominant explanation of the "war on science" is Knowledge Deficit: people don't know enough. This explanation is, apparently, wrong, because there is a (weak) positive correlation between science knowledge and skepticism of recommendations of climate scientists (IOW, more knowledgeable people - as determined by a quiz - are more skeptical).
Let me try to advance an alternative view of the apparent conflict.
There are two parts to what the scientists say:
- Positive statements - what is
- Normative statements - what should be done
We ("the literate public") certainly trust the scientists' area of expertise - the Positive statements.
However, there is no reason to trust their Normative statements any more than that of an average intelligent person.
The poster child of this attitude is the aforementioned "manure crisis": we did not need to do what the scientists recommended to solve it, it was solved by the automotive revolution.
Similarly, there is absolutely no need for wedges, treaties &c &c.
If it ever will be stopped, the climate change will be stopped by introducing new technology, so what we need is a stiff carbon tax without grandfather clauses which will make alternative energy more economically attractive (and maybe give extra money to STEM R&D).
no subject
Date: 2017-04-21 06:26 pm (UTC)2nd link mentions the number of dissenters but to those who agree - a bad sign.
3rd link has an irrelevant title.
Generally speaking, denying the existence of the consensus is worse than denying AGW. :-)
2. When your insurance doubles and you cannot use your well anymore - this is hardly minor.
3. Okay, natural gas is only bad if we accept AGW. However, oil in cars and ships sucks big time.
4. Carbon tax is the best way to reduce emissions (as per economists' consensus) and emissions cause AGW (as per climate scientists' consensus).
Shabbat Shalom!
no subject
Date: 2017-04-21 08:32 pm (UTC)2. We're libertarians, no? That's what liability laws are for.
3. Ships suck, yes.
And the really important thing is the love and respect we have for each other even when we disagree.
Good Shabbos!
no subject
Date: 2017-04-21 08:37 pm (UTC)best to you and yours!
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:41 pm (UTC)now from "economists"
they are the same economists that made "subprime mortgages" and "obamacare" possible
both are an economical nonsence
second, as ymarkov hints, it is not much of a skepticism, but people are voicing their concern that the whole "science" behind "climate change" is a scam.
back to 1:
@1. The 1st table in your 1st link: 80% think that at least half of GW is anthropogenic. 67% think mostly anthropogenic. I would call this a consensus@
nope, it is not a consensus. "consensus" means 100%
80% or 67% is a "democracy"
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:52 pm (UTC)You can't be writing all this seriously.
But, okay, I will try...
в огороде бузина а в Киеве дядька
yes it is.
the practitioners of the field call it consensus, so it is such.
neither economics nor climate science are mathematics.
100% agreement does not exist there.
no subject
Date: 2017-04-25 06:57 pm (UTC)consensus is consensus
it is 100% or not
the rest is "democracy"
@the practitioners of the field call it consensus, so it is such.@ - funny,
"some" practitioners call it such, some don't
ps
i have better things to do though
talk to you next time
@neither economics nor climate science are mathematics.
100% agreement does not exist there.@
meaning that this cannot be called a consensus