|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 21, 2016 11:24:10 GMT -5
Off to one side, about self-publishing: Last night Andy Weir's The Martian got a Hugo Award (the People's Choice of the SF world) for Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form). The novel it was based on was originally self-published, sold 35,000 copies on Amazon, was then picked up by a commercial publisher, and finally made into the movie. (I got the commercial edition to review but found it not compelling enough to read beyond the first few pages. I am clearly in the minority there. But I had a similar response to last year's Hugo winner for Best Novel, so at least I'm consistent.)
More toward the center of this thread: In matters where there are strongly contending sides, the question of whom to pay attention to, of credentials, of authority is not a simple one--though evaluation of sources is a fundamental function in research, whether academic or journalistic. Another basic skill is unpicking exactly what is being argued in a given presentation. I haven't had the time to look at the Hart interview, but I can see that whatever else he is, he's not a scientist. Which doesn't mean that he can't analyze what's going on in a public-policy debate that involves scientific research or that he can't make a case that involves an analysis of the sociology of science. It does suggest, however, that one needs to examine exactly what he's asserting about a field in which he's not a practitioner and wonder what the limits of his understanding might be.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 21, 2016 11:27:38 GMT -5
Wait a minute. I didn’t like the questions asked in the interview. Am I obligated to like the interview? If not, am I obligated to keep my opinions to myself? I read the interview. Well, parts of it anyway. I had a pretty good idea of what it was about. And I didn’t like it. I didn’t stop there, though. I wasn’t going to dismiss the whole thing just because of what I thought was a crappy interview. So I looked the book up on Amazon. I wanted to see what people had to say about it. People who had read the book. Not people who want to use the book to express and support their opinions, but people who had actually read the book. And I didn’t like what I found there either. IMO, being open minded means that I’m willing to listen. It does not mean that I have to agree. You may have a different opinion. Sorry. I did't mean to give the impression that you are either obligated to keep your opinions to yourself or that you had to agree. The last thing I recall you writing was that you had looked at the interview questions and that you didn't like the way they were framed. Then I believe you went on to say that you didn't read the answers. I understood your point about the questions. I wasn't crazy about them either. But I did read the answers. I didn't learn anything new. I'm not ready to dismiss him as a crackpot nor will I say that he's right or wrong. I think his point of view is interesting. In the end I can't say how much those opinions will affect my own. I believe that I still need to know a lot more about this issue. And I'll admit that things have arrived at the point that I'll have a high degree of skepticism about anything I read. I can't disagree with you about the reviews. I don't regard them as differing greatly from most reviews I see. That's why I've stopped paying much attention to reviews of any kind.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 21, 2016 11:35:45 GMT -5
Off to one side, about self-publishing: Last night Andy Weir's The Martian got a Hugo Award (the People's Choice of the SF world) for Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form). The novel it was based on was originally self-published, sold 35,000 copies on Amazon, was then picked up by a commercial publisher, and finally made into the movie. (I got the commercial edition to review but found it not compelling enough to read beyond the first few pages. I am clearly in the minority there. But I had a similar response to last year's Hugo winner for Best Novel, so at least I'm consistent.) Forget what I wrote about ignoring reviews. Consistency is important. Russell, if you could post a few negative reviews I could check out the books to see if I find them worthwhile. If I like them I would know that I can count on your reviews for guidance. This could open up a whole new career for you. By the way, I'm partial to detective novels, cop stories, mysteries, and political intrigue.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 11:46:32 GMT -5
Yeah, but you’re an accountant. Your profession has standard practices and accepted methods of analyzing and quantifying data. You look at payables and receivables. You look at revenues and profits. You look at assets and liabilities. You look at a whole bunch of crap and fit that into a regulated and somewhat predetermined framework. Nowhere in your report would you include that the CEO has a big wart on his nose, that his secretary has a hairstyle from the 60s, or that the guy in shipping has a great sense of humor.
Climate change is not at all the same, first and foremost because climate change has been politicized. I’m going from memory here so I might be a little off, but 75% of people used to believe that global warming and climate change was real and that we were causing it. It didn’t matter if you were red, blue, green, conservative or liberal. 3/4 of the population believed that it was real. Then something happened. Conservatives started believing that it was all a hoax. Liberals still believed that it was real. Climate change became part of identity politics.
Personally, I don’t get it. I’m not a scientist. I don’t use a thermometer to make sure my water is boiling at 220 degrees Fahrenheit. I don’t use two thermometers to make sure that 220 degrees Fahrenheit is still 100 degrees Celsius. I’m willing to take their word for it. Even though it seems counterintuitive, I don’t feel the need to drop a bowling ball and a marble from a bridge to see if they really do hit the ground at the same time. Scientists tell me my intuition is wrong, and I take their word for it. Scientists say they’re observing something through a telescope that actually happened thousands of years ago . . . and I take their word for it.
You see where this is going, right?
97% of scientists say that we are responsible for changing our climate and that we are reaching an irreversible tipping point. What do I do? I take their word for it. Sure, I could say that those other 3% of scientists are right because they agree with my conservative pundits and my conservative friends. I could, but I just don’t see how that makes much sense.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 11:52:08 GMT -5
Off to one side, about self-publishing: Last night Andy Weir's The Martian got a Hugo Award (the People's Choice of the SF world) for Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form). The novel it was based on was originally self-published, sold 35,000 copies on Amazon, was then picked up by a commercial publisher, and finally made into the movie. (I got the commercial edition to review but found it not compelling enough to read beyond the first few pages. I am clearly in the minority there. But I had a similar response to last year's Hugo winner for Best Novel, so at least I'm consistent.) I read that. I thought it was pretty good, particularly the dry sense of humor that kept taking me by surprise. But around halfway or maybe two-thirds into the book, it was no longer enough. Finishing the book turned into a task, and I finished it wanting only to get to the end so I could be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 21, 2016 11:57:27 GMT -5
"Personally, I don’t get it. I’m not a scientist. I don’t use a thermometer to make sure my water is boiling at 220 degrees Fahrenheit. I don’t use two thermometers to make sure that 220 degrees Fahrenheit is still 100 degrees Celsius. I’m willing to take their word for it. Even though it seems counterintuitive, I don’t feel the need to drop a bowling ball and a marble from a bridge to see if they really do hit the ground at the same time. Scientists tell me my intuition is wrong, and I take their word for it. Scientists say they’re observing something through a telescope that actually happened thousands of years ago . . . and I take their word for it."
Since 220F isn't 100C, 212F is, I think we can safely discount any scientific knowledge by FP.
Incidentally, NASA is monitoring the polar ice cap and although it is smaller this year it will not get to its previous minimum although they say it's not recovering. I'm not sure what they mean by that.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Aug 21, 2016 12:03:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 12:07:41 GMT -5
"Personally, I don’t get it. I’m not a scientist. I don’t use a thermometer to make sure my water is boiling at 220 degrees Fahrenheit. I don’t use two thermometers to make sure that 220 degrees Fahrenheit is still 100 degrees Celsius. I’m willing to take their word for it. Even though it seems counterintuitive, I don’t feel the need to drop a bowling ball and a marble from a bridge to see if they really do hit the ground at the same time. Scientists tell me my intuition is wrong, and I take their word for it. Scientists say they’re observing something through a telescope that actually happened thousands of years ago . . . and I take their word for it." Since 220F isn't 100C, 212F is, I think we can safely discount any scientific knowledge by FP. Incidentally, NASA is monitoring the polar ice cap and although it is smaller this year it will not get to its previous minimum although they say it's not recovering. I'm not sure what they mean by that. Oops. Too much time in logistics converting kilograms to pounds. That you can do in your head. Sometimes. For real fun, try calculating volume weight.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 21, 2016 12:29:12 GMT -5
The Heartland institute is a powerful free-market lobbying group, much funded over the years by fossil fuel interests. They are a leading funder of climate scepticism initiatives as they were a leading player, funded by the tobacco industry, in rejecting the scientific consensus on the harmfulness of smoking.
Michael Hart is one of many Heartland Institute people to declare that climate scientists are not credible but rather that they are, wittingly or otherwise, conspiring to promote/support harmful political orthodoxy which will underpin a new global economic order.
I look at the work of climate scientists and their near universal consensus on (the unprecedented rate of) anthropogenic global warming and, unlike Michael Hart, not being a Heartland Institute guy, find justification for measures to address the issue and mitigate it's effects.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 21, 2016 13:01:43 GMT -5
97% of scientists say that we are responsible for changing our climate I asked James this question, as he politely demurred, so i will ask you: What precisely do you believe 97% of scientists agree with?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 13:39:18 GMT -5
97% of scientists say that we are responsible for changing our climate I asked James this question, as he politely demurred, so i will ask you: What precisely do you believe 97% of scientists agree with? Man made global warming and climate change.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 21, 2016 13:39:44 GMT -5
An elaboration - "Abstract The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies." iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002More related stuff - climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 21, 2016 13:44:44 GMT -5
How many of those "scientist" are biologist, chemist, or physicist? "Climate science" isn't science. Show one publication with repeatable results.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Aug 21, 2016 14:09:04 GMT -5
How many of those "scientist" are biologist, chemist, or physicist? "Climate science" isn't science. Show one publication with repeatable results. Shouldn't you be asking how many are meteorologists/climatologists?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 21, 2016 14:14:05 GMT -5
I asked James this question, as he politely demurred, so i will ask you: What precisely do you believe 97% of scientists agree with? Man made global warming and climate change. And nothing else? Is that the full extent of what you are claiming that 97% of scientists agree to, or is there more?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 14:24:44 GMT -5
Man made global warming and climate change. And nothing else? Is that the full extent of what you are claiming that 97% of scientists agree to, or is there more? Are you saying you agree with that part?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 21, 2016 14:26:47 GMT -5
How many of those "scientist" are biologist, chemist, or physicist? "Climate science" isn't science. Show one publication with repeatable results. Shouldn't you be asking how many are meteorologists/climatologists? Weather girls? Woops
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 21, 2016 14:29:52 GMT -5
I asked James this question, as he politely demurred, so i will ask you: What precisely do you believe 97% of scientists agree with? Man made global warming and climate change. Two different things. Climate change, yes. Man made climate change something entirely different. People should hope that man made climate change is bogus cause if it's true then the only cure is mass genocide.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 21, 2016 14:33:06 GMT -5
And nothing else? Is that the full extent of what you are claiming that 97% of scientists agree to, or is there more? Are you saying you agree with that part? No. I just want you to define with precision exactly what you mean when you say 97% of scientists agree.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 15:01:03 GMT -5
And I'd like you to correlate your poor conclusions on climate change to your poor conclusions on the economic advantages of slavery.
|
|