Right-wing vs Left-wing science

Post Reply New Topic

Pretty sure college professors of all disciplines are highly-disproportionately (and infamously) liberal.

Except maybe Theology. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Even then, the theology professors that rant about the God beyond God and so on are pretty liberal.

The exception is probably economists and business admin folks. Business schools are definitely conservative, many economists are Democrat but centre-right ones. But there is a divide in the economics profession between "Saltwater Schools" that teach a limited rationality, pro-interventionist kind of economics (so they're centre to perhaps even "centre-left") and the "Freshwater Schools" that are beacons of free-market fundamnetalism.

I thought right wing science amounted to the earth being only six thousand years old, and created in the span of six literal days. Oh, and that we can pump as much pollution into the atmosphere, and dump as much filth into the water without any consequences.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Don't forget the right wing geology that says that oil is a renewable resource, constantly generated at replacement levels within the earth for our benefit.

The only science is physical science which is not political.

Everything else is either stamp collecting or tiddlywinks.

ruveyn

Except for climate science I suppose. Climate models are not at all designed on the basis of physics, fluid dynamics, and mathematics. The sciences of fluid dynamics and radiative energy transfer have a definite liberal bias.

Radiative energy transfer? That sounds like a typical Commie redistribution of wealth scheme

Republicans favor war and war is incentive to fund scientific projects (applied science, not theoretical).

ruveyn

Republicans favor war and war is incentive to fund scientific projects (applied science, not theoretical).

Our military needs are the reason we have GPS. World War II made radar the major thing that it is. The e-mail and the internet were originally motivated by military applications. War is good for science funding.

ruveyn

right wing science circles around in an anticlockwise direction (constantly veers to the left), and left wing science circles around in a clockwise direction (constantly veers to the right).

You mean like a typical Pinko Stinko Commie redistribution scheme? I guess that would depend on whether the energy is transported upward or downward in the atmosphere.

Climate models have too many adjustable parameters. They can be fiddles to fit with whatever data is found. They are perfect models for eco-phreaks and others who have an Agenda.

Contrast with the General Theory of Relativity which has no adjustable parameters. If it does not fit the data it cannot be fixed.

ruveyn

The problem is even the General Theory of Relativity does not fit perfectly. If it did we wouldn't have string theorists arbitrarily fiddling with the local topology and number of dimensions of the space-time fabric on the atomic scale in order to try and get their model to conform with the observed quantum mechanical results. No model ever fits the data perfectly.

I'll agree that GR and unified field theory may be more mathematically elegant than a big clunky climate model, but that doesn't mean that atmospheric science is not based on real physics.

Badly based, because it does not weigh ALL possible climate drivers properly. Cosmic Rays which affect cloud formation are not properly factored in. Also the variations in earth orbit and earth axis tilt are not factor in properly. Also the underling dynamics is chaotic dynamics which is not modeled properly by mathematics. Chaotic systems are for the most part mathematically intractable and cannot be simplifield faithfully with linear models.

Bottom line: there is no "climate science". There are only climate models which are fitted to the political landscape to get the most funding.

ruveyn

Don't be ridiculous. Variations in orbit and axial tilt affect the climate on time scales much too long to be relevant on a decadal time scale.

Also, it can be shown that decadal scale signals in solar output have a small input on climate compared to variations in greenhouse gas on the same time scale. You don't even have to rely on the sophisticated dynamical models to show it. You can just use physical reasoning and observe the relative sizes of the numbers. Also, the decadal scale solar output trends don't align at all with the climate trend over the past century. The level of radiation entering the top of the atmosphere has been decreasing since roughly 1940 while the overall climate has been warming. The numbers just don't hold up for that theory to hold any water.


This is only half true. Chaotic systems are not totally unpredictable at all time and space scales. Certain aspects of a system can be chaotic on certain scales while other aspects have predictability. The thing is you really have to look at the time and space scale at which small errors grow. In the sun + earth/ocean/atmosphere sytem Local errors (i.e. weather systems + small eddies) grow at a much faster pace than global errors (i.e. changes in the global atmospheric heat budget).

Another way of looking at it... You don't have to build a computer model that accurately predicts the turbulent convection and chaotic formation of vapor bubbles in a boiling pot of water to predict how long it will take the water to completely evaporate.


Comparing climate science to theoretical physics is comparing apples to oranges. Climate science is an applied science.

As for the unfounded accusations that climate models are fitted to the political landscape. This is just another example of when people who are opposed to certain environmental policies decide to shoot the messenger. Most climate scientists do not make decisions on environmental policy. Politicians do that.

People also confuse media-hype and political environmentalist op-eds on climate change with actual science. Al Gore is not a politician, not a climate scientist, so attacking him does not invalidate the real scientists.