Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (8458)	2/7/2012 5:30:57 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

I think that the argument that most scientists are democrats is specious. I agree for two reasons. 1 - I think the data is faulty (as has been pointed out the poll was a poll of members of a specific organization which itself leans liberal). I wouldn't be surprised that a majority of scientists are at least mildly liberal but 51% is a majority, the 80+ percent Koan speaks about is probably only true for the subset in that poll. 2 - Even if its 99% - So what? On political issues scientists have no special standing or status. On economics issues they don't either (except economists if you consider them to be scientists, economics is a "soft science"). Even in their area of expertise (esp in the soft sciences), they are just well educated people, not infallible or some group to whom we should always defer.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (8458)	2/8/2012 1:23:38 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

Scientists should avoid topics outside their expertise By Kenneth P. Green This letter was sent to the Wall Street Journal on February 1, in response to an opinion column entitled “ Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate.” Editor - You recently published a letter by climate scientist Kevin Trenberth et al., who argued that only specialists in climate policy, and only those comfortably in the bosom of the self-proclaimed “scientific consensus” have the right to speak out about possible misrepresentations of climate science. I disagree with their exclusionism, but it would be a fair point if, that is, they want to be fair. But they don’t. Almost the entirety of the last paragraph of their letter is, in fact, about politics, demographics, economics, technological prediction, and public policy—it is nothing about science. We looked up the authors and found that the educational background of 37/38 of them is almost-purely scientific. Only one of them (Yohe) is an economist. Anther (Kiehl) holds a (second) Masters in psychology. Collectively, they have little or no expertise in the non-science fields above. They say: “It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.” Let’s break that down. The first sentence is a purely political statement. Science has nothing to say about how a political leader should value one policy option over another. Politicians may well decide there are greater risks that need their attention. The second sentence above is also dubious: the scientists can no more predict the future impact of adopting “low-carbon” technologies than could any soothsayer at a carnival. They can make assumptions about adoption, and more assumptions about the impacts of adoption, but that’s all they can do: make and model assumptions. That’s not normal science, that’s computerized astrology. The final clause in the 2nd sentence is purely economics. And the last sentence is silly: I don’t know about you, but I don’t ask my doctor about how to structure my household budget. When it comes to straying outside their expertise, these scientists need to remove the beams from their own eyes before looking for the specks in others... blog.american.com