Seriously OT - primarily for Bill

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:40:53 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

Obvious pollution is usually a very clear and simple matter, but we
shouldn't fall into the environmentalists' idea that it is automatically
wrong. Virtually everything we do causes some pollution, so we have to
assess whether the pollution is unacceptable when measured against the
benefits of the activity that causes it.

This is so obvious, I can't understand why you assume it isn't done.
In fact, cost-benefit analysis has been very big in environmental
economics for many years. My first env econ project was about the
costs and benefits, in purely economic terms, of reducing water
pollution in the Forth Estuary. It started in 1995. The fact you don't
know about something doesn't mean it doesn't happen!
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
snip

People are obviously perfectly entitiled to have - and express -
*opinions*. But it helps if they, and others, realise that such
'opinions'
may or may not be worthless, depending on the level of their
relevant
understanding and knowledge. To assess the opinion, you look at the
evidence for or against, and understand the relevance, etc.


When scientists can't agree, and we have had a prime example of this
today with a certain type of DNA test, what makes a scientists opinion
any better than anyone else's opinion - assuming that they has studied
the same raw and peer review data?

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:

snip

Basically all "Jim" was saying is "Believe me, I'm a scientist",
sorry
but that doesn't cut the mustard anymore...

Straw man, I'm afraid.

Yes you are using such arguments, or to put it another way, you are
both the salesman and the product reviewer...

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:19:52 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:25:19 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

Let's face it, the 'environment' has become a fabulous excuse for higher
taxes. Not so long ago they were saying that green taxes would be revenue
neutral, but in fact that isn't what's happening.

Do you think that non-revenue-neutral environmental taxation is
evidence against climate change?

No, it's evidence that the climate change bandwagon is already eroding our
standard of living, which is my central point.

Some things are worth paying for. And before you go off on one about
"it depends how much", "could it be gotten cheaper elsewhere", etc,
yes, that's f*ing obvious, though stating the obvious as if it was a
great revelation that has never occurred to anyone else seems to be a
favoured tactic around here.

This isn't just an argument about the extent to which human activities
affect the climate, it's about whether we in the west can do anything to
avoid said climate change, and whether we would be wiser to accept that it's
going to happen, make a guess as to the severity, and plan accordingly.

All of these points have been and are being widely debated, as you'd
know if you did some investigating, instead of sitting on your arse
nursing your attitude.
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:42:53 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

When scientists can't agree, and we have had a prime example of this
today with a certain type of DNA test, what makes a scientists opinion
any better than anyone else's opinion - assuming that they has studied
the same raw and peer review data?

This is not about individual scientists, it's about a concensus within
the relevant scientific community. And just in case you take the same
attitude as some I've seen online: no, you don't need unanimity for a
concensus, a substantial majority is perfectly sufficient. And that's
what we have on man-made climate change.

To answer your question: anyone who has really studied the area
properly might as well be considered a scientist. Is that you?

The fuss people make about scientists is not because their opinions
are inherently more valuable. It's because science is all about
eliminating bias and discovering what's really true. Without that,
science is absolutely pointless. To accuse a scientist of bias is very
serious, and though scientific fraud does happen, it is quite rare.
Simply to assume that a majority of scientists in a given field are
biased because you don't like what they're saying is not
cynical-but-smart, it's really rather foolish, to anyone who has an
idea how science actually works.
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:42:53 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

This is not about individual scientists, it's about a concensus within
the relevant scientific community. And just in case you take the same
attitude as some I've seen online: no, you don't need unanimity for a
concensus, a substantial majority is perfectly sufficient. And that's
what we have on man-made climate change.

There's no concensus at all about the severity of the effects of man-made
climate. To get a 'concensus' you have to lump together all those who agree
that there is an effect to some extent.

Assuming for the moment that they are right, we come to an even more
contentious issue: should we attempt to reduce or even prevent climate
change, or should we prepare for it?

I would have thought that the rich west would be far better to prepare for
it than to waste time and money trying to persuade the Far East and the
Third World not to have their industrial revolutions. That's doomed to
failure. So we should concentrate on building defences against being flooded
with seawater and foreigners. Also, let's buy barbies and look forward to
the nice summers. I can't wait. Roll on Global Warming.

Bill

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:19:52 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

This isn't just an argument about the extent to which human activities
affect the climate, it's about whether we in the west can do anything to
avoid said climate change, and whether we would be wiser to accept that
it's
going to happen, make a guess as to the severity, and plan accordingly.

All of these points have been and are being widely debated,
That's what we're doing isn't it? Part of the process.

as you'd
know if you did some investigating, instead of sitting on your arse
What's my arse got to do with it?

Bill

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:27:41 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:42:53 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

This is not about individual scientists, it's about a concensus within
the relevant scientific community. And just in case you take the same
attitude as some I've seen online: no, you don't need unanimity for a
concensus, a substantial majority is perfectly sufficient. And that's
what we have on man-made climate change.

There's no concensus at all about the severity of the effects of man-made
climate. To get a 'concensus' you have to lump together all those who agree
that there is an effect to some extent.

That's right. But the IPCC publishes concensus figures for a range of
scenarios, giving the estimated liklihood of each one. It's difficult
to imagine how that could be improved upon, except obviously in
reducing the uncertainties, which thousands of climate scientists are
working on right now.

Assuming for the moment that they are right, we come to an even more
contentious issue: should we attempt to reduce or even prevent climate
change, or should we prepare for it?

I believe there's a concensus across most relevant disciplines (which
include politics and economics as well as climate science), in most
Western countries, that both are required.

I would have thought that the rich west would be far better to prepare for
it than to waste time and money trying to persuade the Far East and the
Third World not to have their industrial revolutions. That's doomed to
failure.

Luckily, it's not necessary -- and I don't think I've heard anyone
besides yourself suggest it is. Though I might have heard it from
types such as Lawson and instantly dismissed it as the usual economic
fundamentalist FUD. These people also argue that significantly
reducing CO2 emissions would mean returning Western civilisation to
the stone age. (Very strangely, there seem to be a few extreme
left-wingers who take that sort of position, but I believe the extreme
right is more at home there. It's certainly them who are threatening
my mate Clive because of his views on climate change.)

So we should concentrate on building defences against being flooded
with seawater and foreigners. Also, let's buy barbies and look forward to
the nice summers. I can't wait. Roll on Global Warming.

You might find it morally and politically acceptable to raise the
drawbridge and say to the poor (in both senses) people in low lying
areas of the third world "tough luck, chums", but many of us don't,
and I believe we have the upper hand at the moment, thank god.

--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
... snip

People are obviously perfectly entitiled to have - and express -
*opinions*. But it helps if they, and others, realise that such
'opinions' may or may not be worthless, depending on the level of
their relevant understanding and knowledge. To assess the opinion,
you look at the evidence for or against, and understand the relevance,
etc.


When scientists can't agree, and we have had a prime example of this
today with a certain type of DNA test,


My recollection was that the situation was that the courts/legal eagles
decided that some test *results* were unreliable. The reasons being
that the sample material was not kept with sufficient care and tracability,
and that the individual tests were not done with due care.

So we need:

1) To distinguish the nominal test method from it being incorrectly
or inappropiately done. Owning a cook-book does not ensure
a person is a decent cook, and can bake a cake you'd be happy
to eat! :-)

2) To distinguish the court system from "scientists". cf below.


Might also be useful to take care with terms in other ways. For example
"scientists" does not mean "anyone wearing a white coat" or "anyone
who carries out a measurement". Similarly, "scientists" and the
scientific method are not the same thing.

Indeed, similar confusions between the 'container' and the 'contained'
have appeared elsewhere in this thread. I have been talking about
the scientific method, whereas others seem to think this means
'scientists'. It doesn't. A confusion like this is symptomatic of a
lack of understanding of what the scientific method actually is.


what makes a scientists opinion any better than anyone else's opinion -
assuming that they has studied the same raw and peer review data?

ahem Try reading what I have already written on that point in
other postings. :-)

A view isn't "better" because someone has a name-lable "scientist" or
"someone who spouts on usenet". Decisions should be based on the evidence
*and* on understanding how it was obtained so you can assess its worth.
Lost count of how many times I have written that.

A veiw may be 'better', though if the person giving it has put in the
time and effort to learn to understand how the evidence as obtained,
and how it can be assessed in the appropriate manner.

The problem is that some (many) of those who pontificate show no signs of
having any real understanding of either the evidence, or how to assess its
reliability. Thus making their opinions of doubtful worth.

So if someone wants to arrive at a dependable view they have to decide.
Either

A) They have to put in the time and effort to get the required
understanding, and then assess the evidence by correctly applying the
appropriate academic and scientific methods. Or...

B) Try to determine who is giving views on the basis of being able to
do (A) and who is not. Then use the approach of preferring understanding
rather than ignorance as a guide.

(Another alternative, of course, is to admit a lack of understanding
and say that they have no clear view. Alas this is a rare course
on usenet and in the media. ;- )

(A) is better than (B) if someone wishs to make their own decisions,
but it entails rather more work and sweat. Plus the risk of making
the discovery that they are simply not able to understand what is
required.

(B) entails determining the relevant ability and knowledge of the
person(s) whose views are being considered. Not name badges or if
they wear a white coat, or spout in the media/on usenet.

The snag, of course, is that to do (B) you still end up needing
some of the knowledge required for (A). Otherwise you can't reliably
tell which views to give weight, and which are based on hot air in
a different sense to 'climate change'. ;-

Unless you understand the scientific and academic methods it is quite
easy to be mislead by the way academic scientists *do* often 'disagree'
and challenge ideas or evidence. This is a part of the method by which
ideas are refined and their reliability or relevance assessed. It is
also assumed that all humans are prone to error, so these things need
to be checked and challenged on a routine basis. It is the way that
evidence/ideas stand up to appropriate and relevant test that shows
their worth (or not). When ideas and evidence survive this we use them
as the basis for our understanding *until* we find a similarly testable
reason to change.

FWIW When I read books or papers in the fields which interest me and
which I have done some work, my first mental question is "What's wrong
with this?" and to look for mistakes or errors. Regardless of how
good I may think previous work by the authors may be. This is a
normal academic science approach.

Take an example. Look at

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...eshift/cp.html

This deals with a set of articles I saw in a magazine that claimed to
give evidence for a remarkable idea. One that would be quite significant
in its implications for signal cables. By applying the normal academic
science approach I examined the evidence, etc, with results as shown.

It is open to anyone to do similar critical analysis of any published
work. But to do so, you do need to understand the evidence *and how
it was produced, and the relevant background in terms of theory*.
So, in the above example, if someone didn't understand
the relevant topics (ac circuit theory, etc) then they would be
unable to assess if the results stood up or not as support for the
claims.

The above is also an example of what happens when there is no
peer review in the academic journal sense. The authors though they
had made a significant discovery. So much so that the work was
spread over a series of magazine articles. Yet it was easy to spot
a basic flaw in their measurement technique. If found before publication
they could have either withdrawn or done other tests to check their
idea. As it is, the articles are sitting on library shelves, waiting
to confuse later readers who may not spot the flaw.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Alan

wrote:
In message , Jim Lesurf
wrote


Alas, my repeated impression from reading threads like this one is
that
most people have no real understanding of the scientific method,
or how
such academic work is assessed/done.

You scare people in the hope that it will result in a lucrative
research
grant for next year. This is often achieved by sending out a
misleading
press release which is reported as fact by those highly skilled
journalists employed by the newspaper, TV and radio industries.

Thanks for giving evidence that I was correct. ;-


But that doesn't make him wrong, his point was about how scientists
obtain funding, not how they do research or peer review.