Hard News: Science: it's complicated
401 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 17 Newer→ Last
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Harm from loss of life is easy to emotionally grasp, harm from loss of income is harder,
Still, if the demo crew are pulling down buildings left right and centre, plus police are protecting this barricaded zone, why cant they assist people in if their premises are scheduled for destruction?.Let them in ,have the army assist removal of possessions, and recognise that each place to be destroyed gets priority for the shop/business owner. I would suggest it would be totally cost effective,sensible, compassionate, I could go on but I should move it over to other thread. Bart, you are relieved of your responsive duties. :)
-
It's obviously about control, not safety.
Perhaps someone could clarify the exact qualifications for a worker to be allowed into the red zone, but I would suspect that unskilled labourers hired from temp agencies are allowed in after a safety briefing and the correct gear (hard hat, boots, etc). It would be quite feasible for those wanting access to go off to tech and get construction safety training that would put them on a par with these employees.
The reason why not has to do with a narrative by which disaster can only be dealt with in a top-down manner, with ordinary citizens expected to give due obesiance to authority.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Bart, you are relieved of your responsive duties.
but but but I have so many more opinions to share :)
You won't get any argument from me Sofie. I personally think it is entirely reasonable to let folks in, carefully.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
dealt with in a top-down manner
My experience in the place I work is that management are far far far more risk averse than the people actually doing the work. I think some of that is because the people doing the work have a good understanding of what is going on, same is true in the lab as is true at the demo site. Management know only how to have lunch and worry about how they will look at the next board meeting. Yes that's harsh and cynical and probably overstated but it certainly feels true sometimes.
Meanwhile I am so looking forward to OGB.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
You won’t get any argument from me Sofie.
I am liking this response very much. Continue as you wish Bart.;)
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
The reason why not has to do with a narrative by which disaster can only be dealt with in a top-down manner, with ordinary citizens expected to give due obesiance to authority.
As in Pikes River Mine, where I still question why the police were even involved at a stage before any law seemed to have been broken and where the needs of the situation lay outside their accepted duties, i.e. catching crims, as they say.
-
Here's an interesting article from The Guardian this morning...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/02/scientists-ghostwritten-articles-fraud
One of the issues with academic research is the reliance on peer review to give credence to the research and anyone who has had any experience with peer review will realise there are some pitfalls with this approach.
Anyway, another way in which science is complicated.
-
Oh, and forgot to ask earlier. Is there any way I can see this week's show over here in the UK? To be fair I haven't tried but I am sure there is some geographical exclusion zone on TVNZ programmes.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I believe Russell has arranged for the Media7 shows not to be geo-blocked via TVNZ OnDemand. There's also a Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/TVNZMedia7
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
katie, I don't think the story about ghostwritten articles being passed off as the work of influential researchers is a problem with peer review as such. It's an issue of fraud.
-
A bit late to the discussion, but I just saw this. I know Rasmussen is not the most popular polling organization amongst the PAS crew, but as they have a good track record of prediciting elections, their polls are worth contemplating.
No surprise in this one, 69% think it is at least somewhat likely that scientists have falsified research about AGW to support their own theroies and beliefs, up 10% from Dec 2009 (Climategate time). And even 51% of Dems, agree with this.
It is not that "science is complicated", if agw scientists were open with their research and data, instead of hiding their research and fighting to keep their research and data from seeing the light of day, people would have more confidence in the results. Sunlight afterall is the best disinfectant.
Look at Michael Mann, of hockeystick fame, still fighting like hell to keep everything under cover. If he doesn't have something to hide, he sure as hell behaves like he does.
Again, the question is not why increasing numbers of people don't believe agw, the question is why are so many people so convinced about agw and wont contemplate that things might not be as some claim.
It is long, long past due for all agw scientists to put all their research and data, past and present, into the public domain to be scrutinized by all comers. The consequences of what is being recommended based on their research is so destructive, especially to people in the developing world, that this just must be done. -
Another interesting article on agw, this time about analysis of the HadCRUT3 data set.
Seems that global warming is not so global after all. And a rather large standard deviation on the overall result. Who would base a major decision on data where the standard deviation on a trend is 3 times the calculated trend? Wouldn't an affirmative answer be grounds for a head examination?
"In this sense, the warming recorded by the HadCRUT3 data is not global. Despite the fact that the average station records 77 years of the temperature history, 30% of the stations still manage to end up with a cooling trend. The warming at a given place is 0.75 plus minus 2.35 °C per century."
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
. . . not the most popular polling organization amongst the PAS crew
Go on James, say "hairy armpit brigade." You know you want to.
-
3410,
Who would base a major decision on data where the standard deviation on a trend is 3 times the calculated trend?
So, you're advocating... what? Abdication of responsibility for decision-making? If not our best predictions, on what do we base major decisions?
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
on what do we base major decisions
Don't be silly we should just trust the nice man in the suit, he'll look after our best interests.
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
More disingenuity from you, James. Don't expect anyone here to be impressed by references to Anthony Watts. Of course you know that his scientific credentials are as a ... television weather presenter, don't you?
So outraged was Watts by the whole concept of human-induced climate change that he set up a network of weather stations across the USA, to prove that the official temperature records are biased. So far, he has failed. In fact, several studies showing that he has failed have been published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.PS Watt's 'publication record', as shown in the paper cited, is rather illuminating: here's the whole thing:
Watts, A. (2009), Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?,
29 pp., Heartland Inst., Chicago, Ill. -
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
Of course you know that his scientific credentials are as a ... television weather presenter, don't you?
I think this ties back to the OP. Yes, this guy may be a TV weather man and his scientific credentials are pretty poor. All scientists can scoff at him, but I'm guessing he still has a large influence on the non-scientific community - the general public.
Science is not a popularity contest, but public opinion does influence the decision-making around funding. It seems to me that the deniers are better at fighting the (dirty) war for winning public support.
And, well, that's not good.
-
Meanwhile a mere 8 minutes* away...
A series of large Coronal Mass Ejections from the Sun over the past 3 days or so may have electromagnetic effects here from today onwards
- check these projections*at the speed of light
-
Sacha, in reply to
69% think it is at least somewhat likely that scientists have falsified research about AGW to support their own theroies and beliefs
All that figure shows is that the investment in public sentiment by the industries who profit from continued pollution is paying off. If a majority of US citizens can believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, I think I'll take their opinions with a truckload of salt, thanks. And it doesn't trump peer-reviewed scientific consensus.
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
And it doesn't trump peer-reviewed scientific consensus.
In terms of funding research, I'm afraid that it might.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
peer-reviewed scientific consensus.
Pah, who needs it when we can just have ill informed opinion?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Having the support of those with deep pockets will always trump other things if it's funding we seek.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
we can just have ill informed opinion
Heh even well informed opinion can be wrong, that's why scientists will almost always come off looking weasily, because we're aware that we can be wrong. Folks like James don't have that awareness so they are comfortable with absolutes, hence their statement can be stronger and more emotive.
As I said earlier to Sasha it is for that reason that I use absolute terms when I'm talking about ridiculously improbable events. It is not something that comes naturally to me as a scientist but it something I think is necessary because what I mean by probably is quite different from what the general public understand it to mean, most of the time :).
Interestingly, when you look at climate scientist's statements from the perspective of assuming they are being cautious and conservative about their statements (as I believe is likely) then the scariness of global warming becomes somewhat greater.
-
Sacha, in reply to
ridiculously improbable
That's the sort of language I like. :)
Alongside likelihood, the potential scale of impact seems relevant with things like climate change, nuclear energy and genetic modification.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
As Earl said in "Earl"
If I agree with you then we'd both be wrong.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.