And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[milk]

That's an interesting topic which begs two questions.

1. What do you mean by "scientific qualifications"?

2. What are the criteria for assessing "the extent of understanding of science in general"?

It may be as "innocent" as "is it possible that some GMG members work in the field of science" and therefore might have some expertise. I wouldn't suggest that you need expertise to have an opinion or understand but I would say that you need something to go against scientific consensus. I asked this before and didn't get a strong answer: what evidence do "skeptics" have that goes against global warming - its causes and effects. But I don't want to derail the thread. Just my two cents but I find the answers weak and fallacious. You need something if you are going against well-established scientific consensus. 

[Madiel]

That's an interesting topic which begs two questions.

1. What do you mean by "scientific qualifications"?

2. What are the criteria for assessing "the extent of understanding of science in general"?

1. I mean qualifications in science from having studied science.

2. There are no specific criteria, but when it comes to people who reject the consensus of scientists on this particular issue I'm curious to know the basis on which they do so. It's very rare that one of the bases is a solid grounding in science.

[71 dB]

I just did a Google search for "Bernie Sanders News" for the last 24 hours.

I'm not seeing the hostility.

Googling Bernie you get stuff from corporate to progressive so it evens things up. If you limit your search to corporate media you should start seeing a pattern. Do you think the corporate media would ever write "Bernie is strong fourth" if Bernie polled at 8 % or so? No. They would write something along the lines of "Bernie's agenda to turn the US into Venezuela is over."

[71 dB]

EDIT: Have any of the people on this board been good enough to disclose their scientific qualifications? Just curious if any of them have any. Not necessarily in climate science, just wondering about the extent of understanding of science in general.

I have done science for about 5 years in the field of acoustics (so no expertise of climate science of any kind) and I have university degree in engineering so I think I have an idea of what science is about. What is surprising to me is how many people don't see how climate change denialism originates from fossil fuel industry. Especially in the US the oligarchs have managed to make people distrust scientists so that science can't hurt their profits, at least much. Another reason why oligarchy must be ended and democracy restored. This planet may survive demcoracy, but it won't survive oligarchy.

[Florestan]

I mean qualifications in science from having studied science.

Each and every person who has completed his secondary education can claim to having studied science, including but not limited to, mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology.

[Madiel]

Each and every person who has completed his secondary education can claim to having studied science, including but not limited to, mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology.

And that right there is the problem. People believing that having the same baseline level of science education as the general population is enough to stand against the people who spent more time than that specifically studying science.

I said a qualification IN SCIENCE. Not a generic qualification that happened to have a science component because it had a bit of everything in it and as a kid you didn't have a choice about it anyway.

[Madiel]

This is the kind of things that happens when people try to wield their baseline level of science as if they know all there is to know: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.teenvogue.com/story/teacher-destroys-transphobia-science/amp

[Florestan]

And that right there is the problem. People believing that having the same baseline level of science education as the general population is enough to stand against the people who spent more time than that specifically studying science.

I don't disagree, in principle. And the problem is compounded by the widespread availability of such scientific luminaries as Youtube, Wikipedia and Google Search.

There is also a reverse to this, in that sometimes people who are super-qualified in a scientific field feel entitled to pontificate about other fields, where their expertise is entirely irrelevant. Economy, philosophy and history are particularly vulnerable to such treatment.

I said a qualification IN SCIENCE.

As far as I know, on GMG we have one mathematician, one physicist (no longer active), a radiologist and two engineers (one of them yours truly). Not sure, though, how relevant and helpful are these qualifications for understanding climate science, its hypothesis, tests, results and predictions. When it comes to laymen in this respect, the advantage is certainly on the side of the "alarmists", who can always refer to the authority of scientific consensus even if they themselves are little able, if at all, to understand the science behind it; while the "denialists" must always offer evidence that they understand it themselves before expressing skepticism about it .

[Madiel]

My point was that a grounding in science helps understand the basic approach of science, with hypotheses and so on, and how a consensus develops.

And that knowing scientists also is likely to inoculate you against the whole conspiracy angle.

I have a science degree. Mostly chemistry and biochemistry.

[JBS]

My point was that a grounding in science helps understand the basic approach of science, with hypotheses and so on, and how a consensus develops.

And that knowing scientists also is likely to inoculate you against the whole conspiracy angle.

I have a science degree. Mostly chemistry and biochemistry.

Query: do you know how many of 1100 scientists in that link Simon posted are actually climate scientists? If you want to emphasize qualifications, shouldn't you weed out scientists in other fields.

You mentioned in an earlier post the struggle for funding. Isn't that itself corrupting? How often will a scientist trim his sails to the prevailing wind so as not to draw the opposition of those who hold the institutional keys to success? Scientific training conveys no immunity to the normal human flaws..

I have other comments to make, but I will make them in reply to a post that they are more relevant to.

[JBS]

Save your breath, a good number of people on this board are also climate change deniers and there's a few more who think climate change is happening but it'll be good for them personally so nothing should be done (except build the wall).

The latter will eventually become the mainstream conservative position even in Australia: "climate change will be fine for us, we'll survive, we just need to end all (nonwhite) immigration and refugee intake so we can keep our standard of living." (isn't that basically what Peter Dutton already believes?) And that position was always the endgame for climate deniers—denial was just a tactic they used for a few decades to prevent action that would meaningfully reduce their own access to cars, luxury yachts and so on, before they could pivot to "ah its too late now we just gotta hold on to what we have"

That is a radical distortion of the skeptical position, which can be reduced to three basic points
1) the scientific evidence supporting the idea that human actions have more than a marginal effect on warming climate is much weaker than proponents claim, and (corollary) human actions will only have a marginal effect on impeding warming.

2) the claims of impending catastrophe are progandistic, highly speculative, and always assume maximal effects.

3) the Left tries to use warming as a hook to justify all its pet ideals. The article Simon linked is an example. The authors use climate change to justify demands for population control and enforced vegetarianism.  The Green New Deal envisages government regulation, if not outright control, of all economic activity, but wants to impose as goals a lot of "social justice" ideals that have absolutely nothing to do with pollution.

It's that last point that explains why the Right adheres to skepticism. Climate change has been hijacked by the Left as a way to force its ideas on everyone else.

[SimonNZ]

Query: do you know how many of 1100 scientists in that link Simon posted are actually climate scientists? If you want to emphasize qualifications, shouldn't you weed out scientists in other fields.

You mentioned in an earlier post the struggle for funding. Isn't that itself corrupting? How often will a scientist trim his sails to the prevailing wind so as not to draw the opposition of those who hold the institutional keys to success? Scientific training conveys no immunity to the normal human flaws..

I have other comments to make, but I will make them in reply to a post that they are more relevant to.

Eleven thousand, not eleven hundred.

And I would imagine the walls between various fields of scientific inquiry are more blurred or overlapping than you allow, making practitioners of one field more than capable of analyzing the data and sources of another.

[SimonNZ]

3) the Left tries to use warming as a hook to justify all its pet ideals. The article Simon linked is an example. The authors use climate change to justify demands for population control and enforced vegetarianism.  The Green New Deal envisages government regulation, if not outright control, of all economic activity, but wants to impose as goals a lot of "social justice" ideals that have absolutely nothing to do with pollution.

It's that last point that explains why the Right adheres to skepticism. Climate change has been hijacked by the Left as a way to force its ideas on everyone else.

Which Left? Where? Whose pet ideals, and which?

This is a broad consensus across disparate peoples.

[JBS]

Eleven thousand, not eleven hundred.

And I would imagine the walls between various fields of scientific inquiry are more blurred or overlapping than you allow, making practitioners of one field more than capable of analyzing the data and sources of another.

You're assuming they stop and analyze the data, as opposed to automatically signing onto something which they know it's beneficial to sign on to.

I don't know about the link  you posted, but I've seem similar things in which only a small number were from fields that were relevant, and most from fields of no relevance to climate science, and whose opinions are therefore of no more weight than yours or mine.

[JBS]

Which Left? Where? Whose pet ideals, and which?

This is a broad consensus across disparate peoples.

Here's what be called the official American version, as put forth in a proposed Congressional resolution

"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."
"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and 'smart' power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
"Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible." [50]

What do the items I bolded have to do with climate change?

[SimonNZ]

You're assuming they stop and analyze the data, as opposed to automatically signing onto something which they know it's beneficial to sign on to.

I don't know about the link  you posted, but I've seem similar things in which only a small number were from fields that were relevant, and most from fields of no relevance to climate science, and whose opinions are therefore of no more weight than yours or mine.

I don't agree with that at all.

What do you mean by "beneficial to sign on to"?

[JBS]

I don't agree with that at all.

What do you mean by "beneficial to sign on to"?

Going along to get along, as the phrase has. Not making waves, as another phrase has it.If a person has no risks from signing on, but does have risks from not signing on, and no personal stake, why wouldn't they sign on?

In short, I am assuming scientists are subject to the same flaws as everyone else.

[SimonNZ]

Going along to get along, as the phrase has. Not making waves, as another phrase has it.If a person has no risks from signing on, but does have risks from not signing on, and no personal stake, why wouldn't they sign on?

In short, I am assuming scientists are subject to the same flaws as everyone else.

Again: I don't believe that at all. I think they're genuinely concerned.

[JBS]

Again: I don't believe that at all. I think they're genuinely concerned.

They may be genuinely concerned. That doesn't mean they are genuinely knowledgeable, or have any reason to sign such a thing other than knowing their colleagues expect them to do so.

[Florestan]

My point was that a grounding in science helps understand the basic approach of science, with hypotheses and so on, and how a consensus develops.

That is true. For understanding how a consensus develop, though, some basic notions of sociology and psychology are as helpful as, say, basic notions of physics or chemistry.

I have a science degree. Mostly chemistry and biochemistry.

I thought you were a lawyer and your area of expertise is legislation drafting.