One thing that I do have some issues with is... In general, when politics and science enter a room together, only politics emerge.
During the hobby lobby case, I became aware that a number of widely published and circulated studies were outright fraudulent. That there is simply, mathematically, no possibility that "Plan B" can have the stated efficacy without preventing implantation.
As for global warming, that case is less cut and dried, and more nuanced than either side would have us believe. In scientific terms, there's *no* debate that co2 is a greenhouse gas. none whatsoever. However, there IS a vast amount of debate as to what the sensitivity of the climate is to a doubling of co2. No 2 studies agree on that.
What the IPCC does due to that lack of consensus on the sensitivity is average all the different predictions. Which is not a valid methodology, because IF you don't understand the mechanisms, then those models are not valid statistically. No number of dice rolls averaged will predict a bridge failure. it doesn't work that way unless your models are intrinsically valid.
That being said, yes, given the land-mass impacts of humanity (look at aerial photography, there is not that much land that isn't under management anymore), the fact that we ARE changing atmospheric chemistry, and all the other impacts of humanity, it does seem like the claim of the "Anthropocene" is a valid (and... kind of awesome) extrapolation.
So often I feel like I'm going crazy, looking at the data that tell a tale that people claim is fraudulent and something put out by the political party opposite to theirs (generally, they're on the Right, the opposition is the Left) to "deceive the people" and "allow tyrants to take over the nation/world/etc." Or something of the sort. The choice so often comes down to "Shall I continue to believe in what hard, scientifically acquired data, my education, and history tell us, or shall I be regarded by people as on their side and thus worthy of their friendship? That can be one hell of a hard choice to make, and having to make it every damned day of my life becomes very wearing. So, as you can imagine, someone agreeding with my on any of these critically important matters is a reassurance that I'm sane (at least to some extent), not mistaken in my understanding of what the science makes known, and not entirely alone in the world.
If new data come in contradicting the old data, and our scientific understanding of the chemistry, physics, and ecology of our world changes significantly, of course I would change my ideas of astrobiological reality on our world to match. But so far that hasn't happened. It's good to know that others can see that there are just too ****ing many human beings on Earth for us not to affect our world, often in drastic ways.
I'm currently reading a book by Clive Hamilton, Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change, that explores the psychology behind our various attitudes concerning the issue, rather than climate change itself. In the end, I think, it will be that -- our emotional as well as intellectual responses to such issues as climate change and global pollution -- that will make the difference between our viability as a species, with a long future ahead of us as well as our descendants, and the end of the hominen/human lineage. I hope we come down on the side of the former, not the latter.
During the hobby lobby case, I became aware that a number of widely published and circulated studies were outright fraudulent. That there is simply, mathematically, no possibility that "Plan B" can have the stated efficacy without preventing implantation.
As for global warming, that case is less cut and dried, and more nuanced than either side would have us believe. In scientific terms, there's *no* debate that co2 is a greenhouse gas. none whatsoever. However, there IS a vast amount of debate as to what the sensitivity of the climate is to a doubling of co2. No 2 studies agree on that.
What the IPCC does due to that lack of consensus on the sensitivity is average all the different predictions. Which is not a valid methodology, because IF you don't understand the mechanisms, then those models are not valid statistically. No number of dice rolls averaged will predict a bridge failure. it doesn't work that way unless your models are intrinsically valid.
That being said, yes, given the land-mass impacts of humanity (look at aerial photography, there is not that much land that isn't under management anymore), the fact that we ARE changing atmospheric chemistry, and all the other impacts of humanity, it does seem like the claim of the "Anthropocene" is a valid (and... kind of awesome) extrapolation.
Reply
So often I feel like I'm going crazy, looking at the data that tell a tale that people claim is fraudulent and something put out by the political party opposite to theirs (generally, they're on the Right, the opposition is the Left) to "deceive the people" and "allow tyrants to take over the nation/world/etc." Or something of the sort. The choice so often comes down to "Shall I continue to believe in what hard, scientifically acquired data, my education, and history tell us, or shall I be regarded by people as on their side and thus worthy of their friendship? That can be one hell of a hard choice to make, and having to make it every damned day of my life becomes very wearing. So, as you can imagine, someone agreeding with my on any of these critically important matters is a reassurance that I'm sane (at least to some extent), not mistaken in my understanding of what the science makes known, and not entirely alone in the world.
If new data come in contradicting the old data, and our scientific understanding of the chemistry, physics, and ecology of our world changes significantly, of course I would change my ideas of astrobiological reality on our world to match. But so far that hasn't happened. It's good to know that others can see that there are just too ****ing many human beings on Earth for us not to affect our world, often in drastic ways.
I'm currently reading a book by Clive Hamilton, Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change, that explores the psychology behind our various attitudes concerning the issue, rather than climate change itself. In the end, I think, it will be that -- our emotional as well as intellectual responses to such issues as climate change and global pollution -- that will make the difference between our viability as a species, with a long future ahead of us as well as our descendants, and the end of the hominen/human lineage. I hope we come down on the side of the former, not the latter.
Reply
Leave a comment