The American Politics thread

[Flem274*]

Well, the GOP candidates with the exception of Huntsman (WAG) have all neatly solved that policy conundrum by categorically denying its existence straight up.

They just deny anything remotely connected to science straight up. A fair proportion of them at least.

I never will work out how a bunch of 18th century blokes all managed to find themselves in the 21st century in the same political party.

[Cevno]

The cause is us mate. The only references you will find refuting it lead either to right wing news outlets, oil companies or scientists (half the time it's those bloody physicists) talking about something not in their field.

The ways to curb it are pretty straightforward, and uniformitarianism (processes that happened in the past happen today like they did then) would suggest we can predict the effects pretty handily going off past Holocene fluctuations.

Disagree on some of that and it being so black and white, but really don't want to have that debate right now.

It is certainly a evolving issue and there are voices both sides of the divide who get stronger from time to time.

[Cevno]

Well, the GOP candidates with the exception of Huntsman (WAG) have all neatly solved that policy conundrum by categorically denying its existence straight up.

Has anyone denied Climate change?

[Spark]

Has anyone denied Climate change?

More or less all of them.

[Flem274*]

Has anyone denied Climate change?

Bachmann, Perry, Paul...the list keeps going.

Herman Cain has had the sense not to mention it (that I know of). Someone should really ask him, right after we ask him how old he believes the Earth is.

[sledger]

was your thread on cricsim about global warming trolling MF and Farny or serious? I never did figure it out.

It was mainly just an attempt to flame and they bit pretty hard on it. However, having said that, whilst I in no way deny global warming, I do find some of the things written in scientific journals and in official reports etc... to be somewhat dubious, I would say there is definite room for scepticism in this particular debate.

What irks me massively though, his how the word "sceptic" in this context has become a dirty word. Any scientist who comes out with a view that is considered sceptical is lambasted and treated like the anti-christ, which for me is totally unnaceptable. Whilst I don't particularly favour the views of most sceptics, their treatment on the most part is pretty outrageous. What is further problematic, is that most people's perceptions of what the position on global warming is inevitably comes from the media, which in most instances tends to demonstrate bias towards one side of the argument or the other.

In addition to this, I loathe this pernicious development of "Consensus science", it needs to be stamped out. I also dislike the precautionary principle a great deal, as I consider it's entire philosophy to be completely retrograde, though I can accept that it's deployment in the context of global warming is one of the few occasions in which it could be considered suitable or reasonable.

[Cevno]

More or less all of them.

Bachmann, Perry, Paul...the list keeps going.

Herman Cain has had the sense not to mention it (that I know of). Someone should really ask him, right after we ask him how old he believes the Earth is.

Pretty sure Rpmney doubted the cause of it and the fact whether it can be stopped or not.

Have they denied that it is happening?

Nothing wrong with some Skepticism tbh and many Democrats also share it and so do many countries.

[Spark]

Yeah, the precautionary principle is crap, tbh, and bizarrely irrational until you remember that it's the brainchild of the environmental movement in the last few decades, for whom science is merely a useful tool when convenient to bash a larger agenda, and to be totally ignored when not (see: nuclear, nanotech, GM)

[Spark]

Pretty sure Rpmney doubted the cause of it and the fact whether it can be stopped or not.

Have they denied that it is happening?

Think so. A lot of them use this sort of argument.

The problem with non-anthropogenically-driven climate change is that to explain it otherwise you have to resort to some seriously flawed - usually hilariously flawed - reasoning. The most popular of which is the solar cycle theory, which is just so horrendously bad I don't understand how it ever saw the light of day. Not least because the paper it was originally based on had some rather dodgy maths iirc.

[sledger]

Yeah, the precautionary principle is crap, tbh, and bizarrely irrational until you remember that it's the brainchild of the environmental movement in the last few decades, for whom science is merely a useful tool when convenient to bash a larger agenda, and to be totally ignored when not (see: nuclear, nanotech, GM)

Yeah, the EU's policy on GM is something I have a huge gripe with, the fact that various countries have enforced an embargo on GM products despite the fact that various tests have shown no evidence that GM may be harmful in any way whatsoever is another embodiment of the "consensus science" which I dislike so much (i.e. policy is decided on what the public perceive the scientific risks to be rather than what science actually suggests). Whilst regulation of these things should not be left purely in the hands of regulators and industry "experts" (for that wouldn't be a satisfactory position either), I'm not convinced that public participation on matters of safety of a certain technology or whatever should play such a decisive role.

[Flem274*]

It was mainly just an attempt to flame and they bit pretty hard on it. However, having said that, whilst I in no way deny global warming, I do find some of the things written in scientific journals and in official reports etc... to be somewhat dubious, I would say there is definite room for scepticism in this particular debate.

What irks me massively though, his how the word "sceptic" in this context has become a dirty word. Any scientist who comes out with a view that is considered sceptical is lambasted and treated like the anti-christ, which for me is totally unnaceptable. Whilst I don't particularly favour the views of most sceptics, their treatment on the most part is pretty outrageous. What is further problematic, is that most people's perceptions of what the position on global warming is inevitably comes from the media, which in most instances tends to demonstrate bias towards one side of the argument or the other.

In addition to this, I loathe this pernicious development of "Consensus science", it needs to be stamped out. I also dislike the precautionary principle a great deal, as I consider it's entire philosophy to be completely retrograde, though I can accept that it's deployment in the context of global warming is one of the few occasions in which it could be considered suitable or reasonable.

There have definitely been mistakes in the pro-AGW science. The IPCC report quoting something from the World Wildlife Fund website was exceptionally stunted of them. It was about the glaciers in the Himilayas melting by 2035 iirc, which is bollocks, and glaciologists picked it up almost immediately.

I have it all in my notes so I can look them up. cbf though.

In saying that, considering the research to mistakes ratio, and comparing it to the anti AGW to gaping holes ratio, it's a no contest.

One of my favourites was some bloke claiming ice sheet meltwater isn't the main control of sea level, but expansion and contraction of water molecules. I'm not joking; it's on the Great Global Warming Swindle. When second year undergrads can tear an argument apart, it sucks.

On consensus science; I remember this from cricsim, and you were arguing in favour of what "consensus science" basically is iirc. You are completely on the money when yyou say who is right is what matters; it's just fellow scientists need to be able to reproduce your results. It's a perfect system really, since if hypothesis x is true then if the experiment is repeated then anyone should be able to reproduce it. The more it is reproduced, the harder the evidence and it becomes prevailing consensus.

Tomorrow, if some guy comes along and says "we don't need water to survive" and shows scientists results in favour of his experiment, after thinking he is bonkers the dudes will go away, repeat the experiment and if they get the same results, we have a new consensus.

[Flem274*]

Yeah, the precautionary principle is crap, tbh, and bizarrely irrational until you remember that it's the brainchild of the environmental movement in the last few decades, for whom science is merely a useful tool when convenient to bash a larger agenda, and to be totally ignored when not (see: nuclear, nanotech, GM)

I haven't come across this principle before, unless I've met it under a different name?

[Cevno]

Think so. A lot of them use this sort of argument.

The problem with non-anthropogenically-driven climate change is that to explain it otherwise you have to resort to some seriously flawed - usually hilariously flawed - reasoning. The most popular of which is the solar cycle theory, which is just so horrendously bad I don't understand how it ever saw the light of day. Not least because the paper it was originally based on had some rather dodgy maths iirc.

Yeah fair enough. Seems to be the case with most except Huntsman and partially Romney (Cain hasn't commented i think). But still it is a evolving issue on many levels.

Can't go into the minute science of it to a large degree but there are 3 aspects to it -

1)Is the cause of it man made?

2)Can it actually be stopped or not? Or even slowed down? And if so is it even possible to do what has to be done, to stop it?

3)Who does what on Policy front? Which country agrees to take the brunt to what degree and give up growth and money on possibly a unsettled issue?

There is room for skepticism on all these 3 tbh and voices on both sides. Can't really ignore either side and paint it black and white AFAIC.

[Flem274*]

Yeah, the EU's policy on GM is something I have a huge gripe with, the fact that various countries have enforced an embargo on GM products despite the fact that various tests have shown no evidence that GM may be harmful in any way whatsoever is another embodiment of the "consensus science" which I dislike so much (i.e. policy is decided on what the public perceive the scientific risks to be rather than what science actually suggests). Whilst regulation of these things should not be left purely in the hands of regulators and industry "experts" (for that wouldn't be a satisfactory position either), I'm not convinced that public participation on matters of safety of a certain technology or whatever should play such a decisive role.

In a lot of policy cases there is a unanimous opinion shared by scientists which is then promptly ignored by policy writers. I know in Palmy the current rich area is built on extremely dodgy loose fluvial sediment and they have destabilized the hillside. any geomorphologist will tell you it's only a matter of time before it comes crashing down (either through earthquake or heavy rainfall) but the developers have something we don't; money and PR.

[Cevno]

It was mainly just an attempt to flame and they bit pretty hard on it. However, having said that, whilst I in no way deny global warming, I do find some of the things written in scientific journals and in official reports etc... to be somewhat dubious, I would say there is definite room for scepticism in this particular debate.

What irks me massively though, his how the word "sceptic" in this context has become a dirty word. Any scientist who comes out with a view that is considered sceptical is lambasted and treated like the anti-christ, which for me is totally unnaceptable. Whilst I don't particularly favour the views of most sceptics, their treatment on the most part is pretty outrageous. What is further problematic, is that most people's perceptions of what the position on global warming is inevitably comes from the media, which in most instances tends to demonstrate bias towards one side of the argument or the other.

In addition to this, I loathe this pernicious development of "Consensus science", it needs to be stamped out. I also dislike the precautionary principle a great deal, as I consider it's entire philosophy to be completely retrograde, though I can accept that it's deployment in the context of global warming is one of the few occasions in which it could be considered suitable or reasonable.

Mostly agree with this.