<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Why I’m disappointed with yesterday’s Supreme Court hearings]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by jjwfmme http://www.grist.org/article/the-uncertainty-agenda/ Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:28:08 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/the-uncertainty-agenda/1 Uncertainty

The argument that there is too much uncertainty to act is a value decision, not a scientific one.

Isn't it still partly scientific, though? The word uncertainty gets thrown around a lot, but the people who use it are rarely precise about what is uncertain. I think this is by design. They just want maximum uncertainty without conceding anything.

Reasonably these days, at the very least you have to concede that CO2 is an agent of the warming we're seeing. These days I don't run into anyone who denies this and who either 1) isn't up on the facts, 2) is engaging in sophistry, or 3) both 1 and 2.

]]> Uncertainty

The argument that there is too much uncertainty to act is a value decision, not a scientific one.

Isn't it still partly scientific, though? The word uncertainty gets thrown around a lot, but the people who use it are rarely precise about what is uncertain. I think this is by design. They just want maximum uncertainty without conceding anything.

Reasonably these days, at the very least you have to concede that CO2 is an agent of the warming we're seeing. These days I don't run into anyone who denies this and who either 1) isn't up on the facts, 2) is engaging in sophistry, or 3) both 1 and 2.

]]> Comment #2 by Andrew Dessler http://www.grist.org/article/the-uncertainty-agenda/ Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:19:41 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/the-uncertainty-agenda/2 is it scientific?

jjwfmme-

In theory, the disagreement COULD be about science.  If we disagreed about a particular scientific fact, then our estimates of the risks of climate change might be different.  In that case, a disagreement about action might arise because of that.  

In the climate change debate, however, the "uncertainty" argument is never associated with particular scientific disagreements.  In fact, what we know and don't know is quite well agreed upon, so it's very difficult to disagree with the scientific consensus.  Thus, I would argue that in this debate the uncertainty argument is NOT grounded in science.

Ultimately, however, the reason this argument arises is because IT WORKS.  As I said in my post, focus group data show that this argument has traction with the general public.

Regards

]]> is it scientific?

jjwfmme-

In theory, the disagreement COULD be about science.  If we disagreed about a particular scientific fact, then our estimates of the risks of climate change might be different.  In that case, a disagreement about action might arise because of that.  

In the climate change debate, however, the "uncertainty" argument is never associated with particular scientific disagreements.  In fact, what we know and don't know is quite well agreed upon, so it's very difficult to disagree with the scientific consensus.  Thus, I would argue that in this debate the uncertainty argument is NOT grounded in science.

Ultimately, however, the reason this argument arises is because IT WORKS.  As I said in my post, focus group data show that this argument has traction with the general public.

Regards

]]>