|
Listerine posted:In the thread on evolution, someone posted a link to this site that systematically lists the issues Creationists have with evolution research and debunks them. Does a similar site/list exist for climate change? I was recently pointed to this blog and while I know some of those posts are wrong there's a lot in there that I can't evaluate. This should do it: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
Guigui posted:Is this not a good thing (somewhat) that the scientific community remains outside the political sphere? If there is one thing that Carl Sagan and David Suzuki imprinted on me through their books; it's that science isn't a good thing - nor is it a bad thing - it just "is". If policy-changing discoveries are found by using the methods of science, well, that is up to our elected officials to debate. I actually think that this is a BIG problem rather than a good thing. There is no reason why science and scientists should not be more involved in public debate and politics, especially where science can provide objective guidelines for legislature. For that to happen, though, you need to have scientists with a political conscience to push for recognition of application of their knowledge. On the ethics and morality of science and the corresponding intersection with politics - that's a different issue. And I'm not sure that the notion of "science is neither good nor bad" is not too naive of a cop-out for scientists (and I have not problem saying this as a scientist myself).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:US Carbon Emissions at Lowest Level since '94 I had a quick look at the report and it indeed seems that there is a little glimmer of optimism. On the other hand, in one of the first figures in the report you see CO2 emissions plotted against GDP, and if you look at the past development, you see that CO2 emissions always lag behind GDP a little bit. I'm not sure that these decreases are not all still perfectly consistent with the diminished output after the Great Recession. Furthermore, much of the CO2 that is actually produced by US consumption and lifestyle is emitted in other countries and transportation, in particular in and from Asia. I have not seen a figure in this report that would even acknowledge this. I don't think that it is therefore safe to talk about a move towards sustainability. Lastly, the big shale gas boom that many people are seeing on the horizon will offset any of the savings by slow adoption of renewable energy sources. At least those are my impressions as a non-expert...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Oh you'll find scientists who will tell you straight up its not happening. Just to briefly interject, I'm a scientist from outside the field myself. In general, I do think that scientists from whatever field are more qualified to talk about scientific issues than, e.g., a business guy. Of course, without being a specialist in the field you cannot talk about the details of current research issues, but as a scientist you should be able to understand the current scientific consensus and why it is preferred to other possible explanations. This is something that a layperson cannot do as easily. It always annoys me when people discredit scientific expertise because it does not come from the specific field in question. In other words, if an astrophysicist explains to a reporter why climate change is happening, I think it's a good thing and he or she shouldn't be discredited as "Well, but he's not a climate scientist therefore his opinion is worthless." On the other hand, if the astrophysicist goes against the consensus and spouts some fringe opinion, that is when the lack of expertise becomes important and that's when it should be pointed out. I think the difference is really important here. Just my two cents.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 14:27
|
|