![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andygatesAuthor Howard Friel has published a cite-by-cite takedown of Lomberg's 'skeptical' anti-climate-change books. He basically followed up every reference and every citation, and quelle surprise most of them are bogus either in fact or interpretation. If Lomberg was an academic, this would have been picked up in peer review -- which is one of the strengths of the method.
See, references make a thing look academic. They lend an aura of truthiness to a publication. Truthiness is a Colbert neologism very apt to pop-sci: truthiness is the feeling of truth, as opposed to the presence of it.
Hell, I once wrote a parody paper that appeared to support Breatharianism's absurd claims by showing an entirely bogus mechanism for human photosynthesis. Given an eyeball test by graduate biochemists, it fooled half of them; it fooled everyone non-scientific who wasn't aware of the Breatharians and their dangerous silliness. Part of the effect of the paper was the liberal splashing of references, some solid and obvious, some utterly made up, some Pythonesque.
Nobody checks. They see references and grunt "ah, s'academical, all very truthy."
Which leaves a tricky problem: how can you tell which pop-sci titles are credible, and which are Von Daniken-esqe ravings? I'm not sure you can, not reliably: the general reader might look for a particular imprint or name (BBC / Attenborough, say) as sound, but that's reputation and reputation is more damn truthiness, just truthiness over time. Academic credentials for the author? Not always relevant (see Monckton et al) and not always solid (plenty of academics 'go emeritus').
How then to lift the solid science above the dreck? Especially when policy decisions, and votes, are hinged on perception of that science? Watching Lomberg influence climate policy is like watching Richard 'face on Mars' Hoagland influence space policy, but climate policy actually matters.
See, references make a thing look academic. They lend an aura of truthiness to a publication. Truthiness is a Colbert neologism very apt to pop-sci: truthiness is the feeling of truth, as opposed to the presence of it.
Hell, I once wrote a parody paper that appeared to support Breatharianism's absurd claims by showing an entirely bogus mechanism for human photosynthesis. Given an eyeball test by graduate biochemists, it fooled half of them; it fooled everyone non-scientific who wasn't aware of the Breatharians and their dangerous silliness. Part of the effect of the paper was the liberal splashing of references, some solid and obvious, some utterly made up, some Pythonesque.
Nobody checks. They see references and grunt "ah, s'academical, all very truthy."
Which leaves a tricky problem: how can you tell which pop-sci titles are credible, and which are Von Daniken-esqe ravings? I'm not sure you can, not reliably: the general reader might look for a particular imprint or name (BBC / Attenborough, say) as sound, but that's reputation and reputation is more damn truthiness, just truthiness over time. Academic credentials for the author? Not always relevant (see Monckton et al) and not always solid (plenty of academics 'go emeritus').
How then to lift the solid science above the dreck? Especially when policy decisions, and votes, are hinged on perception of that science? Watching Lomberg influence climate policy is like watching Richard 'face on Mars' Hoagland influence space policy, but climate policy actually matters.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Science
Date: 2010-02-27 07:37 pm (UTC)Some research is good, some less good, the mechanism is self-correcting. This is why science beats the torah or UPG: it builds on itself and persists over time.
If a system is truly chaotic then nothing can model it, by definition. You just make the best models you can -- and they're getting better all the time -- and run them with lots of inputs to get a likely spread. It's a denialist trope to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, when the perfect is literally unobtainable and actually unnecessary.
Re: Science
Date: 2010-02-27 08:28 pm (UTC)Having the "gee it's better than religion" thing as was pointed out previously to you, is a complete crud and absolutely reduces the value of any other judgement you show. It's on par with those who spout off "Girls can do anything" because "anything" does NOT equate/definedas "stuff what boys can can do". Trying to prove science vs religion is simply a dick waving contest where each side thinks their version of looking at the "truth" is betterer.
When talking chaotic, it does depend on whether we mean chaos (no rules) in which case you're right, or Chaotic (as in the maths/science) in which Evolution is a particular set of feedback conditions. The difficulty with the latter is that the system's behaviour and ground rules are changing (and possibly in a Chaotic manner) as time or observation is proceeding. Thus we can observe results but unable to assert what current (ie starting phase for next step) state the underlying elements are at.
In this case, appart from the feedback Chaos of last cycle, we have implimentation of technology and investment (the latter represeting an ongoing process of localised "improvement" as an ideal or occasionally a mismanaged micro-event). Thus the issue of whether those micro-effects are "butterfly wings" of any significance.
Thus rather than blowing resources on fantasies of the perfect model, it is far more logical to get important and critical issues under control. But that is often avoided because those issues are often politically sensitive! (The problem being that anyone politically opening that can of worms before getting the worm-farm fertile is (a) going to lose their position and worse (b) probably be ineffective (until the political enviromental conditions have reached trigger point, which is more Chaos/Self-Ordering systems)
Re: Science
Date: 2010-02-27 10:03 pm (UTC)Re: Science
Date: 2010-02-27 11:40 pm (UTC)Also word on Carbon Tax and Nitrogen Tax, both in the "we don't want to do this ... but if you don't agree to the other system we'll have to use some system to control environmental emissions".
There is also compulsory systems for data gathering and analysis of soil types/area, and water flow and contamination. These costs are all passed back as compulsory "Cconsent Ffees" even if the basic system and animal levels have dropped over the last 20 years.
There is also talk of Environmental Levies from one of our customers (their company is owned by the dairy farmers, and the product sold at auction to the world, but they set the end price they pay for the raw product). It's great that they're environmentally aware, but they're using it as a marketable selling point and getting a bit gung-ho to prove that they are The Best (tm). Which is good when you've got their budget, but sucks when they set the compliance levels and pay less because of their overhead. It's these last guys who run the real risk of strangling the golden goose in their attempts to market.
Unfortunately the councils are being pushed by government and popular opinion to be "one up" and "ahead of the ball" and <#insert buzzword here> on everyone else. And our local councils are in a phase where they realise that as long as the majority don't understand the cost structure they can go for broke and pass on the costs.
There are also interests involved in setting up the carbon credit system. The forestry industry is hoping like mad, but just as worried because they might get pinged at felling time! But they weren't represented at that meeting.
Other farmer types are being hit by the flak, but locally they're being pounded by low market prices and internal "boardroom level" politics so that this is just another straw on the camel (so far).
Re: Science
Date: 2010-02-28 06:59 pm (UTC)And all farmers, everywhere, ever, are the biggest moaners of the lot. At least they're not French. ;)
Anyway, this is spectacularly off topic and dull now.
Re: Science
Date: 2010-02-28 08:27 pm (UTC)The problem is that all these environmentalists want fancier and more expensive toys and their wages from said political sources. But all they can do is measure stuff.
To change the actual processes and to develop the technologies and bring them to market where they can be brought and utilised requires the money and resources.
Whats happening is the resources are getting sucked into the measurement and marketing side of the equation, which is penalising the ability for the system to actually improve.
And yes farmers are complaining. Some because they're lazy useless fucks, just like a few industry ditch and run types. But those of us trying to implement improvements end up in the same pay-for-monitoring basket. As always it doesn't help that penal matters usually come down to fines, which reduces everyones ability to build remedies.
The real moaners are the consumers. If we put the costs back where it should be, on to the consumers, then you'll really hear the moaning. And if those costs started eating into their pet projects (libraries, parks, cycleways, arts) then you'd really hear the piggies squealing, all the way to the voting booths....
But most of them are extremely lazy and just want other people to pay and make the problem just go away because it's boring and flashy media grabbing stuff is much more entertaining to them.