… enclosed in a Klein Bottle…
Climate change, Keynesian economics, universal health care being more efficient are the three I can think of without stopping to ponder.
You also seem to be fixated on a libertarian view of society that’s simply not supported by the real world.
Lobo, do you know the difference between a fact and an opinion? This post shows that you don’t.
I have a different opinion than you on a number of issues. That doesn’t mean that I ignore facts because I am ideological. It just means I have a different opinion than you.
It’s not an opinion that most climate scientists believe AGW is happening. It is a fact that a tiny, tiny minority are unconvinced. You have decided that you will ignore the vast majority and give special weight to the tiny tiny minority because they are championed by your political allies. That makes you a gullible tool.
Opinions are things like, “I enjoy Pizza.” A fact is, “Pizza, eaten in excess causes health problems.”
Against my better judgment, I will endeavor to fight your ignorance. I have no doubt my efforts will be completely and totally worthless.
A fact is objectively verifiable as true or false. An opinion is not. Sometimes a statement has mixed elements of fact and opinion. If any part of a statement contains an opinion, then the statement as a whole is an opinion (or at least it’s not a fact).
“I enjoy pizza” is indeed an opinion (specifically, it’s an expression of one’s tastes). “Pizza, eaten in excess causes health problems” is a statement that contains opinion elements unless it’s narrowed down (specifically, the amount of pizza that is “in excess” is an opinion).
“Keynesian economics” (by which I assume you mean the idea that government spending in certain fiscal environments is a good thing) is an opinion. Whether a government stimulus package is a good ting or not is not objectively verifiable.
Now, statements by lay people about scientific topics have a special status and warrant further discussion. I think that a person can evaluate statements on scientific topics using a number of different tools to determine whether one will believe the statement. (By the way, I started a thread on this that went nowhere and then got closed.) Specifically, I think a lay person can look at several factors to determine whether a scientific theory adequately explains a phenomenon (and therefore should be believed), including the following: the quantity of studies on the topic, how those studies are constructed, how long the theory has been used as an explanation, the entities that perform the studies, the institutions that fund the studies, and the possible motivations for desiring to achieve certain results from the studies.
So, let’s apply the above to the theory of evolution. There have been almost countless studies on the topic; they’ve been constructed based on verifiable observations of actual data; the theory has been around for a very long time; and the people that perform and fund the studies have no discernible motivation for slanting them towards verifying evolution.
Now let’s apply the above to mainstream AGW (i.e., the theory that the earth is warming, man’s activities are causing it, and a change in man’s activities can stop it): there have been lots of studies on the topic; they’ve been constructed based on building models with a large number of inputs, where the inclusion or failure to include one or more inputs is subjectively determined and can vastly change the results; the theory hasn’t been around for that long, and the people that perform and fund the studies very often have political and financial motivations to reach the result that AGW is true.
So, I think all the above shows that we just have different opinions. I’m not ignoring facts based on my ideology.
(bolding mine)
The part I’ve bolded is completely, 100% wrong. In scientific research, being the first person to publish interesting results carries far greater benefits than results that support the status quo. And if you could produce credible research that shows AGW isn’t happening, you’d be a frickin’ rock star: you could pretty much write your own ticket for the rest of your career.
Believe me, any climate scientist out there would love to be the one to do some ultra high accuracy simulation and discover that global warming is nothing to worry about – it would be the scientific equivalent of winning the lottery. This whole “scientists have financial incentives to confirm AGW” narrative is complete and utter fantasy.
That’s like, an opinion, man. [/Rand_Rover]
I disagree. The funding structures for climate research heavily favor a pro-AGW result. Bodies that are set up to manufacture consensus on the issue (such as the IPCC) favor a pro-AGW result. Scientists that perform studies that reach an anti-AGW result are ridiculed and belittled.
Wow, you’re learning (maybe).
You are incorrect. Completely and utterly incorrect. Do you know how funding works? A call for proposals is issued, people write up what they propose to do and what methods they’re going to use to do it, and those are peer reviewed. It would be pretty hard for them to filter based on results on research that hasn’t been performed yet.
The fact that scientific consensus is trending toward an overwhelmingly pro-AGW viewpoint would be strongly indicative of what the reality is to anyone who wasn’t heavily invested in believing what they want to believe regardless of what the evidence shows. If there were credible anti-AGW results, they would be pounced upon by scientists eager to make a name for themselves. Getting scientists to reach consensus is no easy task – the fact that we’re seeing a clear consensus is pretty strong evidence that there ain’t a lot of gold in them anti-AGW hills.
I disagree, and I don’t think you know how funding and the peer review process works. Of course a funding source doesn’t know the results before funding, but they know the people they are funding. People that reach the wrong conclusion are no longer funded, and their results are not included in peer-reviewed journals.
It is laughable to think that a scientist that reaches an anti-AGW result would be lauded as a conquering hero. Even scientists that say there’s nothing we can do about it are marginalized because they don’t feed into the left’s ideological position.
But I digress. I only meant to try and teach Lobo about the difference between fact and opinion and the special nature of scientific claims. There’s no need to re-hash the AGW debate ad nauseum. Feel free to have the last word if you wish, Giraffe.
You really are so fucking deluded you don’t realize that you’re doing it, aren’t you? This is interesting. You’re the fucking Black Knight and your arm’s off.
Or, and this is crazy, so bear with me: I simply have a different opinion than you.
But the stark difference between you and me is that I know the difference between a fact and an opinion.
But you’re espousing an opinion about how an industry works that is laughably wrong to anyone who actually works in a research field.
You’re some sort of tax attorney, right? Imagine if some blowhard was going on and on about how professional tax preparation should be outlawed because everyone knows that people working in the tax field report to the IRS and despite what they say, really only care about maximizing the amount of taxes the government receives. When you explain how things actually are, based on your experience as a professional in that field, they claim it’s their opinion and if you argue with it, you simply don’t understand the difference between fact and opinion. You’d think they were kind of dumb, right?
Right.
My God, you’re right! Tax attorneys should be shot on sight!
…is what I would say if I was overly impressionable.
I AM a tax attorney, which means I’m not involved in “professional tax preparation.”. But I’m being pedantic, and I know what you mean. How are you involved in the AGW field or in grant-making or whatever? I’m not saying you aren’t, I’m just curious.
I’m a research scientist, although not in a climate-related field. I have direct experience with how proposals work, how federal grant money is disbursed, how peer review works and general how research is done. I promise you you really don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to federal funding. Private funding, maybe, but I think most of that is heading toward the anti-AGW side.
I’m neither a research scientist NOR a tax attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn a week or so ago so…
…um, what was the question again?
-XT
We were wondering where Rand gets his crazy pills.
Oh…that’s easy! That internet thingy. 
-XT