Comments on: The Republican War on Science http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:43:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Societas » Chris Mooney’s “The Republican War on Science”: Some Related Info http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-98071 Societas » Chris Mooney’s “The Republican War on Science”: Some Related Info Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:45:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-98071 [...] Likewise, the blogosphere has taken considerable note as well. Crooked Timber has a fine review. Thought Mechanics, an interview. David Brin, whom I’m composing a reply to, a wonderfully skeptical review-in-progress. And the list goes on. [...] [...] Likewise, the blogosphere has taken considerable note as well. Crooked Timber has a fine review. Thought Mechanics, an interview. David Brin, whom I’m composing a reply to, a wonderfully skeptical review-in-progress. And the list goes on. [...]

]]> By: Nigel Sedgwick http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-95019 Nigel Sedgwick Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:55:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-95019 Apologies for missing a bit out. Add, for completeness: The lack of evolution of complex non-life forms contributes nothing to whether or not life-forms evolve. Best regards Apologies for missing a bit out. Add, for completeness:

The lack of evolution of complex non-life forms contributes nothing to whether or not life-forms evolve.

Best regards

]]> By: Nigel Sedgwick http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-95017 Nigel Sedgwick Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:53:15 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-95017 Jackietheblade wrote, presumably believing this is a valid argument: <blockquote>I’ll close with a quote I recently heard…”believing in evolution is like believing you can throw a pile of metal into a junkyard and it will become a 747”.</blockquote> This is not a valid argument. 747s were designed and were/are built by human beings. If human beings evolved, then evolution has contributed to turning raw materials into 747s. If human beings arose through Intelligent Design, then the existance of 747s is a consequence of Intelligent Design. If human beings arose though a combination of both, or through totally different causes, the existance of 747s owes itself (at least partially) to that combined/different cause. Whether or not life forms evolved, there is no good reason to think (from the totality of experience) that complex non-life forms (such as 747s) evolve. That would be faulty inductive reasoning. Best regards Jackietheblade wrote, presumably believing this is a valid argument:

I’ll close with a quote I recently heard…”believing in evolution is like believing you can throw a pile of metal into a junkyard and it will become a 747”.

This is not a valid argument.

747s were designed and were/are built by human beings. If human beings evolved, then evolution has contributed to turning raw materials into 747s. If human beings arose through Intelligent Design, then the existance of 747s is a consequence of Intelligent Design. If human beings arose though a combination of both, or through totally different causes, the existance of 747s owes itself (at least partially) to that combined/different cause.

Whether or not life forms evolved, there is no good reason to think (from the totality of experience) that complex non-life forms (such as 747s) evolve. That would be faulty inductive reasoning.

Best regards

]]> By: Jackietheblade http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94791 Jackietheblade Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:10:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94791 You see, the problem here is that "Darwinians" are being "sheep" and following right along with whatever they hear, just like you claim Creationists are. If you started digging for some HARD facts, you might find yourself in a different camp. I am a Conservative and I strongly believe in Science. I have been studying Relativity for years and I believe Einstein's theories, as well as when he says "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." AND "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice". I understand how important our environment is and that many Conservatives aren't doing enough to protect it. I also understand that science has tried and tried to prove Evolution for decades, but there is no proof to be found. I have heard MANY stories of Athiests setting out to prove that God does not exist and end up convinced that the opposite is true. There are just too many instances where science actually disproves Evolution. I'll close with a quote I recently heard..."believing in evolution is like believing you can throw a pile of metal into a junkyard and it will become a 747". Once you start searching for yourself, you'll begin to realize just how silly Evolution really is. You see, the problem here is that “Darwinians” are being “sheep” and following right along with whatever they hear, just like you claim Creationists are. If you started digging for some HARD facts, you might find yourself in a different camp. I am a Conservative and I strongly believe in Science. I have been studying Relativity for years and I believe Einstein’s theories, as well as when he says “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” AND “I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice”. I understand how important our environment is and that many Conservatives aren’t doing enough to protect it. I also understand that science has tried and tried to prove Evolution for decades, but there is no proof to be found. I have heard MANY stories of Athiests setting out to prove that God does not exist and end up convinced that the opposite is true. There are just too many instances where science actually disproves Evolution. I’ll close with a quote I recently heard…”believing in evolution is like believing you can throw a pile of metal into a junkyard and it will become a 747”. Once you start searching for yourself, you’ll begin to realize just how silly Evolution really is.

]]> By: eudoxis http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94730 eudoxis Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:03:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94730 Jet, the causal link between CFCs and damage to the ozone layer is very clearly established. Even to the point where a manipulation in CFC levels (a mandated reduction) had the desired result in the reversal of damage. Jet, the causal link between CFCs and damage to the ozone layer is very clearly established. Even to the point where a manipulation in CFC levels (a mandated reduction) had the desired result in the reversal of damage.

]]> By: eudoxis http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94729 eudoxis Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:58:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94729 Re 35: Emanuel in <i>Nature</i>: <blockquote>My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.</blockquote> Kennedy is overstating the report, but that's not what is meant by his "abuse of science". Kennedy faults the Mississipi governor Barbour of being instrumental in preventing CO2 caps by the Bush administration, notes the powerful hurricane Katrina that hit the coast of Mississippi, uses the Emanuel study to "link" the two and concludes that Barbour has much to answer for. That's a clear abuse of science. 1) It's a common fallacy to use statistical trends to say something meaningful about a particular event. The projection of future storm intensities implies absolutely nothing about hurricane Katrina. 2) Even if Bush had enacted stringent CO2 caps his first year in office, the best hoped for result would be a reduction in the rate of increase of global warming. If storms intenstities are predicted to increase, they will continue to do so. Kennedy is not alone here. There have been numerous publications, spawned by hurricane Katrina, citing the Nature letter in the same way. A reduction in CO2 emissions is a laudable goal for myriad reasons, but this post is about means, not about laudable ends, is it not? Re 35:

Emanuel in Nature:

My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.

Kennedy is overstating the report, but that’s not what is meant by his “abuse of science”.

Kennedy faults the Mississipi governor Barbour of being instrumental in preventing CO2 caps by the Bush administration, notes the powerful hurricane Katrina that hit the coast of Mississippi, uses the Emanuel study to “link” the two and concludes that Barbour has much to answer for.

That’s a clear abuse of science.

1) It’s a common fallacy to use statistical trends to say something meaningful about a particular event. The projection of future storm intensities implies absolutely nothing about hurricane Katrina.

2) Even if Bush had enacted stringent CO2 caps his first year in office, the best hoped for result would be a reduction in the rate of increase of global warming. If storms intenstities are predicted to increase, they will continue to do so.

Kennedy is not alone here. There have been numerous publications, spawned by hurricane Katrina, citing the Nature letter in the same way. A reduction in CO2 emissions is a laudable goal for myriad reasons, but this post is about means, not about laudable ends, is it not?

]]> By: jet http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94720 jet Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:58:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94720 Robert P. I made clear that I believed CFC's damage the ozone layer. My point was that saying "Look there are a bunch of chemicals that destroy ozone in an area where ozone is disappearing." is not proof. There could still be other causes, it is just that we haven't found any explanation even remotely as likely as human CFC's. At this point politics often gets injected into the debate. Just as there are laboratory results that CFC's destroy Ozone there are laboratory results that Cosmic Radiation effects cloud cover. Yet politics strongly effected the conclusions draw by each of these lab results. In 1999 the IPCC admitted it had zero understanding of the real world effects of GCR's and cloud cover and that they could potentially have tremendous influence on Global Warming, then for political reasons discounted them entirely in the final "We need Kyoto NOW" conclusion. My point was that politics takes over when science can go no further (and unfortunately politics takes over well before science can go no further all too often). Tim Lambert, We both no I have no problem with Science and how many times do I have to say I agree before you understand that I do, indeed, agree? Robert P.

I made clear that I believed CFC’s damage the ozone layer. My point was that saying “Look there are a bunch of chemicals that destroy ozone in an area where ozone is disappearing.” is not proof. There could still be other causes, it is just that we haven’t found any explanation even remotely as likely as human CFC’s. At this point politics often gets injected into the debate. Just as there are laboratory results that CFC’s destroy Ozone there are laboratory results that Cosmic Radiation effects cloud cover. Yet politics strongly effected the conclusions draw by each of these lab results. In 1999 the IPCC admitted it had zero understanding of the real world effects of GCR’s and cloud cover and that they could potentially have tremendous influence on Global Warming, then for political reasons discounted them entirely in the final “We need Kyoto NOW” conclusion.

My point was that politics takes over when science can go no further (and unfortunately politics takes over well before science can go no further all too often).

Tim Lambert,
We both no I have no problem with Science and how many times do I have to say I agree before you understand that I do, indeed, agree?

]]> By: Nigel Sedgwick http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94717 Nigel Sedgwick Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:33:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94717 Tim Lambert quoted "Kennedy about the scieince": <blockquote>This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.</blockquote> How does the renowned MIT climatologist differentiate [increasing hurricanes] due to human-induced global warming from [increasing hurricanes] due to global warming from other causes? Am I wrong to think this subtlety actually matters? Best regards Tim Lambert quoted “Kennedy about the scieince”:

This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

How does the renowned MIT climatologist differentiate [increasing hurricanes] due to human-induced global warming from [increasing hurricanes] due to global warming from other causes?

Am I wrong to think this subtlety actually matters?

Best regards

]]> By: Tim Lambert http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94704 Tim Lambert Thu, 01 Sep 2005 05:49:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94704 Eudoxis, here is what Kennedy said about the science: <blockquote> This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming. </blockquote> Nowhere did he say that failing to sign Kyoto cause Katerina. Eudoxis, here is what Kennedy said about the science:

This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.

Nowhere did he say that failing to sign Kyoto cause Katerina.

]]> By: Robert P. http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94702 Robert P. Thu, 01 Sep 2005 04:20:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94702 I notice that "jet", after offering $100 in comment number 11, has not responded to William Connelly's reply in comment number 13. I notice that “jet”, after offering $100 in comment number 11, has not responded to William Connelly’s reply in comment number 13.

]]> By: eudoxis http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94700 eudoxis Thu, 01 Sep 2005 03:52:49 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94700 The Nature article explores a trend that suggests a causal link between global warming and an increase in storm intensities. Kennedy, on the other hand, is making a statement about a link between the Kyoto protocols and hurricane Katrina. There is absolutely no scientific support for this and surely Kennedy is abusing science albeit for a push in the right direction. The Nature article explores a trend that suggests a causal link between global warming and an increase in storm intensities. Kennedy, on the other hand, is making a statement about a link between the Kyoto protocols and hurricane Katrina. There is absolutely no scientific support for this and surely Kennedy is abusing science albeit for a push in the right direction.

]]> By: Tim Lambert http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94695 Tim Lambert Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:43:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94695 jet, you can read more about the Nature article that Kennedy is referring to <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=173" rel="nofollow">here</a>. How is this abusing science? What do you think is wrong with the research published in Nature? jet, you can read more about the Nature article that Kennedy is referring to here. How is this abusing science? What do you think is wrong with the research published in Nature?

]]> By: rollo http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94566 rollo Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:49:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94566 <i>"Ask me a hard one"</i> Answer that one first and I will. My point is the insistence on things not being black and white goes all inside out when you guys look at those guys and their "beliefs". But they're not arguing intellectually, they're arguing strategically. It doesn't matter about the substance of disagreement, what matters is cohesion of the sub-group and dominance of the elect. <i>Regardless</i>. Truth is irrelevant. There's been over a decade now of sneering scornful dismissal of the superstitions and absurdities of fundamentalist Christianity from the rational-positivist camp, and yet the fundamentalists have only continued to gain power and influence. So obviously the sneering and scorn isn't working too well; and neither is rational debate. That's my point. “Ask me a hard one”
Answer that one first and I will.
My point is the insistence on things not being black and white goes all inside out when you guys look at those guys and their “beliefs”.
But they’re not arguing intellectually, they’re arguing strategically.
It doesn’t matter about the substance of disagreement, what matters is cohesion of the sub-group and dominance of the elect. Regardless. Truth is irrelevant.
There’s been over a decade now of sneering scornful dismissal of the superstitions and absurdities of fundamentalist Christianity from the rational-positivist camp, and yet the fundamentalists have only continued to gain power and influence.
So obviously the sneering and scorn isn’t working too well; and neither is rational debate.
That’s my point.

]]> By: jet http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94564 jet Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:59:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94564 Heh, keep bashing on Conservatives because Liberals are no better about abusing science to push their <strike>religion</strike> politics than conservatives. That is unless they would actually stoop to using the disaster in New Orleans to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/afor-they-that-sow-the-_b_6396.html" rel="nofollow">link hurricanes to Kyoto</a>. Too bad I can't link to Air America since they've been playing that angle also. I'm sure it will also be the rallying flag of Kyoto in the nearing months. These things are so morally repugnant it is almost as if they are working for Rove. Heh, keep bashing on Conservatives because Liberals are no better about abusing science to push their religion politics than conservatives. That is unless they would actually stoop to using the disaster in New Orleans to link hurricanes to Kyoto. Too bad I can’t link to Air America since they’ve been playing that angle also. I’m sure it will also be the rallying flag of Kyoto in the nearing months.

These things are so morally repugnant it is almost as if they are working for Rove.

]]> By: Grand Moff Texan http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/30/the-republican-war-on-science/comment-page-1/#comment-94559 Grand Moff Texan Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:16:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3722#comment-94559 Another auxilliary in the Republican war on science <a href="http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/pharyngula_ooo.html" rel="nofollow">gets fragged</a>. Nice. . Another auxilliary in the Republican war on science gets fragged.

Nice.
.

]]>