Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: Unum on 22 Jan 2010 22:22 On 1/22/2010 8:10 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 22, 8:06 pm, Peter Franks<n...(a)none.com> wrote: >> Sam Wormley wrote: >>> Climate of suspicion >>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >> >>> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >>> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >>> Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues >>> such as climate change according to their personal values (see page >>> 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely >>> to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. >>> And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People >>> have more trust in experts � and scientists � when they sense that the >>> speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus >>> do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when >>> communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should >>> be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a >>> respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they >>> share something in common with that other side. >> >> That's just common human decency. >> >> The problem with a 'scientist' is that by and large they are driven to >> prove their hypothesis. If the data don't agree, then they conclude >> that the data are wrong and go about proving it a different way. After >> all, they don't get fame and fortune proving their hypotheses wrong, do >> they?. > > You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as > proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you > only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political > objective. That isn't science, that is advocacy. I think you need to prove your hypothesis. > Decide; are you a scientist or a politician? Nature's editors have. Unsubstantiated bullshit.
From: jerry warner on 22 Jan 2010 23:28 Sam Wormley wrote: > Climate of suspicion > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html > > "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors > will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. > Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues > such as climate change according to their personal values (see page > 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely > to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. > And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People > have more trust in experts � and scientists � when they sense that the > speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus > do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when > communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should > be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a > respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they > share something in common with that other side. Does this work with attornies and landlords who raise rent by 40%?
From: Claudius Denk on 23 Jan 2010 00:50 On Jan 22, 4:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Climate of suspicion > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html > > "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors > will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept the facts.
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Jan 2010 00:55 On 1/22/10 11:50 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: > On Jan 22, 4:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Climate of suspicion >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >> >> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. > > Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept > the facts. The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about science.
From: Surfer on 23 Jan 2010 01:15
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as >proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you >only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political >objective. > There is a risk of that happening. However wouldn't the fossil fuel industry have more than enough money to fund work that supports the opposing objective? cf The Temperature of Science James Hansen http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfS... <Start extract> The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians would certainly have done that � but they have not. <End extract> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ |