And then there's a real issue of turning to Scientists for every concern. Some issues can and should be addressed without consulting Science. I don't know if you agree or disagree with that statement. I'd think you would want to avoid turning scientists into our new Apostles.
If not then you are engaging in scientism. And we've had that conversation before.

You're right. I think philosophy has an important role to play. As you said, science isn't the best source for moral guidance. Philosophy of war anyone?

As it relates to politics, there's mostly power, wealth, and "special interests" involved. Political parties dish out monies to scientists that will push agendas favored by that party. Said scientists, with their own prestige and money objectives are motivated to "fit the data" that is being sought.

What happens when fitting the data doesn't fit peer review? Prestige is often gained in spite of "monetary objectives", where those who shirk the status quo are often those who make the largest discoveries. Many, but not most, scientific 'discoveries' with monetary motive have turned out to be false. You're right on that point. But notice that they turned out to be false? That's the corrective feedback loop that makes science powerful. In the end, even all the money in the world can't ignore eventual truth.

There are scientists on both sides of the spectrum. But political lobbying is primarily represented by industries with high pollution. Manufacturing, Utilities, and Oil and Gas are the top 3.

ant wrote: people like Robert disseminate only the data that bolsters their agenda.

Maybe ant if you could find any data (as opposed to lies) that does not bolster my agenda then we could have a sensible conversation instead of me continually correcting your bullshit.

I see your great source on climate bullshit, David Rose of the UK Daily Mail, has had to apologise (or at least retract) for lying about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It appears that Rose just made up a malicious headline report saying that the IPCC had wrongly claimed the world would warm at double the observed rate. This is explained at http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... cation.pdf

[abridged] On Tuesday, 17 September The Daily Telegraph [Australia] ran a story that claimed that the IPCC ‘admits the world has been warming at just over half the rate it had claimed in 2007’. Climate scientists refuted the claims in a media release from the Australian Science Media Centre. The UK’s Mail on Sunday issued a clarification, outlining its error of trying to equate the long term (50-year) observed trend of warming at a rate of 0.13C per decade with a rate based on a particular 15-year period (1990-2005) of 0.2C. These two sets of figures cannot be compared.

I appreciate that reading facts makes ant's brain hurt, but I am providing this so others can see what a great Saint ant really is, treating liars like David Rose as reliable. The tabloid journalists had correct information, but chose not to use it, opening themselves to suspicions of acting on the basis of malice, deceit, corruption and reckless indifference to the facts, as part of a denialist cult.

Interbane wrote: I think science needs to be more "in bed" with politics. Not pseudo-science or misinterpreted science or rejection of science, but sound science. Scientific influence on policy should be heavy, because it's the best source of information we have to base decisions on. What we should be cautious of is the religious thinking - politicians like Sarah Palin who think there's no possible way humankind could impact our environment, because it's "gods environment" and he wouldn't let anything bad happen. That sort of ignorance is the true threat. Science counters that threat, or at least it would if more people understood the process and accepted it as trustworthy.

The problem with the political arena is that it is decidedly not based on reason or logic. Policies are put into place without any kind of rationale other than a few people (in power) think we should do it. We don't usually do a trial run to see if a new law or policy will do what is really intended. As such, much of politics is a lot of bluster and emotion, based primarily on whim and special interests.

Ant wrote:For the sake of mankind, it is better to error on the side of caution.

The very idea that we can do something about global warming is an assumption. Usually if you point this out, the response is "but we should at least try something." But obviously, we can't just try anything and hope it works. We have to understand the science behind climate change and come up with reasonable solutions.

I have always thought gasoline taxes were a good idea because they would make us think twice before we get in the car and drive somewhere. Whether that would actually help reduce carbon emissions to a significant degree is very doubtful. Carbon taxes might work to that extent, but many of the ideas being floated around are being promoted by power brokers positioning themselves for monetary advantage. Some people are actually getting rich off of tax-subsidized "green" companies that eventually go belly up. We have to be careful about making decisions from an emotional place. We have to be careful about those who would incite fear in order to get the people to jump on board so-called "green" solutions that will do nothing to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions.

Unfortunately the dialogue remains all hyped up. Climate deniers versus global warming alarmists. Maybe there's some middle ground we should aim for.

The problem with the political arena is that it is decidedly not based on reason or logic. Policies are put into place without any kind of rationale other than a few people (in power) think we should do it.

Hmm, that's not entirely true. There are plenty of policies that have been well thought out. But i'm right there with you regarding special interests.

The very idea that we can do something about global warming is an assumption. Usually if you point this out, the response is "but we should at least try something." But obviously, we can't just try anything and hope it works. We have to understand the science behind climate change and come up with reasonable solutions.

We may not understand it until it's too late. I think we need to limit our pollution, and use drastic measures to do so. Needless to say, if any number of Earth's stable cycles comes unravelled, we could see deaths in the billions. It's not scare-mongering. We're being naive if we think it can't/won't happen. The Earth has gone through drastic transformations on it's own, many times, and most recently within a 100k years ago. It WILL happen, unless we gain full understanding and institute measures to keep things stable. Even without pollution it will happen. Pollution just revs the engines.

The smartest thing we can do is drastically decrease our current impact. That means not only reducing carbon based pollutants, but figuring out how to clean up the ocean of garbage in our oceans, rather than making it bigger. Screw-ups like Solyndra certainly don't help the cause.

Interbane wrote:
The smartest thing we can do is drastically decrease our current impact. That means not only reducing carbon based pollutants, but figuring out how to clean up the ocean of garbage in our oceans, rather than making it bigger. Screw-ups like Solyndra certainly don't help the cause.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should strive to live reasonably and sustainably, and that starts with energy and consumption. Thoreau is a better role model than Al Gore. I don't think we realize what a consumerist culture we live in. I was in a Wal-Mart with my wife last night and said something along the lines of this is where humanity has taken a wrong turn. Better get a start on your Christmas shopping.

The catch is the forcing factor of CO2 amplified by multiple positive feedback.