PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: azure on May 10, 2019, 05:33:46 PM
-
A good read here, an article I found linked to on Judith Curry's site a month or so ago. I hesitate to post it here since it is preaching to the choir, but I can't resist. IMO it's a very accurate analysis of what makes the "march for science" people tick, and why I make sure to stay as far away from those events as possible.
https://thebulwark.com/why-i-dont-believe-in-science/
-
A good read here, an article I found linked to on Judith Curry's site a month or so ago. I hesitate to post it here since it is preaching to the choir, but I can't resist. IMO it's a very accurate analysis of what makes the "march for science" people tick, and why I make sure to stay as far away from those events as possible.
https://thebulwark.com/why-i-dont-believe-in-science/
That's an excellent article! I might pick a nit with what he says about Kuhn, I've read Kuhn and I can talk about his philosophy; well he does say Kuhn is responsible for elevating consensus over science and if that is true that's not what Kuhn meant, but it wouldn't be the first time a wise person's words were completely twisted and misused.
-
That's an excellent article! I might pick a nit with what he says about Kuhn, I've read Kuhn and I can talk about his philosophy; well he does say Kuhn is responsible for elevating consensus over science and if that is true that's not what Kuhn meant, but it wouldn't be the first time a wise person's words were completely twisted and misused.
I haven't read Kuhn in the original, but from what I have read *about* his work, I agree that reducing science to a matter of consensus appears to be a significant distortion of what Kuhn was all about. I'd also agree that that is a nit! ;)
I especially like Tracinski's example of plate tectonics vis. climate change, since PT was indeed a fringe theory for nearly 50 years because no one (before Harry Hess) could dream up a plausible mechanism for continental drift, and because critical evidence was lacking for whether it was actually happening. Dismissing CD was scientifically defensible until both of those factors changed. Similarly, there is sufficient evidence today for increasing greenhouse warming to justify the consensus belief - but that doesn't make it true, and the climate system is complex enough that people continue to debate about the relative magnitude of the greenhouse effect vs. aerosols vs. internal variability. The people for whom support for science is code for fighting climate change reduce a legitimate - and necessary - scientific debate to a purely political issue driven by competing philosophical and financial interests. That's about as anti-science an attitude as I can think of.
-
I haven't read Kuhn in the original, but from what I have read *about* his work, I agree that reducing science to a matter of consensus appears to be a significant distortion of what Kuhn was all about. I'd also agree that that is a nit! ;)
I especially like Tracinski's example of plate tectonics vis. climate change, since PT was indeed a fringe theory for nearly 50 years because no one (before Harry Hess) could dream up a plausible mechanism for continental drift, and because critical evidence was lacking for whether it was actually happening. Dismissing CD was scientifically defensible until both of those factors changed. Similarly, there is sufficient evidence today for increasing greenhouse warming to justify the consensus belief - but that doesn't make it true, and the climate system is complex enough that people continue to debate about the relative magnitude of the greenhouse effect vs. aerosols vs. internal variability. The people for whom support for science is code for fighting climate change reduce a legitimate - and necessary - scientific debate to a purely political issue driven by competing philosophical and financial interests. That's about as anti-science an attitude as I can think of.
Well put.
-
The antiscience bias that's crept into the American mainstream is alarming at best. Due to activities of the anti-vaccine movement (based entirely on falsehoods) there are now routine outbreaks of easily preventable viral disease. I'm just glad we're not finding off smallpox or polio, yet.
The farcical anti-GMO movement is preventing the distribution of enormously beneficial crop species, despite the fact that practically every plant and animal with which you come into contact is genetically modified. I'm probably the only one who routinely comes into contact with an animal that hasn't been genetically modified (my little red-footed tortoise Rosita).
The creationist movement would see all aspect of cosmology rolled back to the fifth century, and in lots of states they're writing the textbooks.
And we'r eon the cusp of the larges mass extinction since the dinosaurs got theirs, and all you lot can do is scream HOAX! at the top of your lungs and hope it catches on. Congrats, looks like it did.
What worries me the most though is what kind of young person wants to go into scientific endeavors in this sort of environment? That's not a good thing for a nation that bases a large chunk of its GDP on science and technology.
-
Michael, everything you say in the first three paragraphs is true and all are major concerns of mine. Then you say that all the "lot of you" can do is scream HOAX! ... I'm not sure who you are including in that lot. I certainly do not believe that climate change is a hoax, I think you know (if you've read my posts) that my position is a lot more nuanced than that. My objection is to climate scientists indulging in activism and outright alarmism, and in spinning the data to inspire greater confidence in a conclusion than is warranted. Largely BECAUSE greenhouse warming is a concern of mine, and by lying about or misrepresenting the evidence, they give ammunition to the camp who disbelieve the science for political reasons.
As to the piece I linked to, I don't think it's possible to argue that the majority of people who "march for science" have any real understanding of the science. It is as much a purely political issue to them as "climate change is all a big hoax" is to the other side. I place much of the blame for this situation on activist climate scientists, and that's why I posted that link. Prominent skeptic Roger Pielke Jr. recently wrote something similar that rather surprised me, but I've lost the link.
I don't know if you're an AAAS member, but there's an interesting discussion going on right now about carbon capture and sequestration on their Community forum. IMO that's the kind of debate the public should see as it's largely accessible to anyone who is math literate. Framing the issue as catastrophe vs. hoax gets everyone exactly nowhere.
-
Science, like Education has become politicized by the Leftists, and the greed of government funding. There is a lot of bias in science today, and peer review does nothing because the peers are all Leftists who want to agree with the other Leftists. It is a huge cabal, and a form of corruptions. Sad.
-
What I don't understand is why the perfesser lives in Ohio.
Wouldn't he be happier in say, California? I mean California is right up his ideological alley. For a progressive it must be utopia on earth.
-
The antiscience bias that's crept into the American mainstream is alarming at best. Due to activities of the anti-vaccine movement (based entirely on falsehoods) there are now routine outbreaks of easily preventable viral disease. I'm just glad we're not finding off smallpox or polio, yet.
Agree for the most part. I think some vaccines are not sufficiently effective to be worth the down sides and are pushed onto the public for the sake of profit. But I'm proud to be one of the smallpox eradicator generation, loved my scar and I'm sad it seems to have faded away.
The farcical anti-GMO movement is preventing the distribution of enormously beneficial crop species, despite the fact that practically every plant and animal with which you come into contact is genetically modified. I'm probably the only one who routinely comes into contact with an animal that hasn't been genetically modified (my little red-footed tortoise Rosita).
Agree!
The creationist movement would see all aspect of cosmology rolled back to the fifth century, and in lots of states they're writing the textbooks.
Agree!!! I don't get creationism at all, or any kind of Biblical literalism if that's a word. It's language... open to interpretation and you end up with people arguing over which interpretation is what God really meant. But I don't think people should be prevented from teaching their children what they believe. It's not society's business to tell you your religion is wrong and you can't teach it to your kid! But my personal belief is that science is the expression of the divine. If fossils yield evidence of their age, then it is through the laws of physics, and if the laws of physics aren't creation, nothing is. So if you believe God created the universe and all its physical laws, why not believe the science? I see no conflict believing in God AND accepting science.
And we'r eon the cusp of the larges mass extinction since the dinosaurs got theirs, and all you lot can do is scream HOAX! at the top of your lungs and hope it catches on. Congrats, looks like it did.
The earth is always experiencing extinctions, constantly, as well as the rise of new species. Mass extinctions have happened more than once and will happen again naturally. Comets hitting the planet and ice ages. If you think we are on the cusp of a mass extinction due to MAN, I think you are drinking Kool-Aid. Or just watching too much MSM and not getting away from the university enough.
What worries me the most though is what kind of young person wants to go into scientific endeavors in this sort of environment? That's not a good thing for a nation that bases a large chunk of its GDP on science and technology.
There are always people who will base beliefs on emotion or religious fervor which amounts to the exact same thing. I like to base my beliefs on logic, facts and truth, to the best of my ability to discern them.
I get the feeling that emotion and fear is what drives the belief in man made global climate change. I haven't been convinced by hard evidence. The evidence I have looked at seems to show that we are coming out of an ice age, warming, yes, but no more nor less than before in natural cycles, and little if any evidence that man is causing it more than the sun or our orbit or volcanoes.
-
Michael, everything you say in the first three paragraphs is true and all are major concerns of mine. Then you say that all the "lot of you" can do is scream HOAX! ... I'm not sure who you are including in that lot. I certainly do not believe that climate change is a hoax, I think you know (if you've read my posts) that my position is a lot more nuanced than that. My objection is to climate scientists indulging in activism and outright alarmism, and in spinning the data to inspire greater confidence in a conclusion than is warranted. Largely BECAUSE greenhouse warming is a concern of mine, and by lying about or misrepresenting the evidence, they give ammunition to the camp who disbelieve the science for political reasons.
If you want to give me a good laugh you can tell me the majority here are climate science believers. The saddest thing is I remember the climatologist guys talking about this stuff in the 80's, and everything they said has come true, except the hurricane drought. And that seems like its ended with a vengeance.
As to the piece I linked to, I don't think it's possible to argue that the majority of people who "march for science" have any real understanding of the science. It is as much a purely political issue to them as "climate change is all a big hoax" is to the other side. I place much of the blame for this situation on activist climate scientists, and that's why I posted that link. Prominent skeptic Roger Pielke Jr. recently wrote something similar that rather surprised me, but I've lost the link.
You don't have to understand the nuts and bolts of the science. Heck, when it comes to climatology I certainly don't, I'm a geneticist. I do understand basic thermodynamics and the relationship between heat and energy, which is why I understand global warming means more energetic climate, not necessarily hotter (though is certainly is tending that way). All that said, I've known researchers in climate science. They're no different than me, just trying to figure out what's going on. It just so happens that what they're figured out has far more profound consequences.
I don't know if you're an AAAS member, but there's an interesting discussion going on right now about carbon capture and sequestration on their Community forum. IMO that's the kind of debate the public should see as it's largely accessible to anyone who is math literate. Framing the issue as catastrophe vs. hoax gets everyone exactly nowhere.
I've seen that, though I already know a way to sequester lots and lots of carbon. Its called trees.
-
I get the feeling that emotion and fear is what drives the belief in man made global climate change. I haven't been convinced by hard evidence. The evidence I have looked at seems to show that we are coming out of an ice age, warming, yes, but no more nor less than before in natural cycles, and little if any evidence that man is causing it more than the sun or our orbit or volcanoes.
All I can say is there are a bunch of really clever people who study this stuff for a living and disagree with you.
-
The antiscience bias that's crept into the American mainstream is alarming at best. Due to activities of the anti-vaccine movement (based entirely on falsehoods) there are now routine outbreaks of easily preventable viral disease. I'm just glad we're not finding off smallpox or polio, yet.
From a small sample size, practically all of the anti-vaxers I know are liberal women that spend the majority of their day, and get the majority of their news, on Facebook.
The farcical anti-GMO movement is preventing the distribution of enormously beneficial crop species, despite the fact that practically every plant and animal with which you come into contact is genetically modified. I'm probably the only one who routinely comes into contact with an animal that hasn't been genetically modified (my little red-footed tortoise Rosita).
I mostly agree with this, but I also believe some of the "kooky" theories that a big part of our obesity problem is due to GMO'd wheat. Lots of evidence that I don't have time to go into, but unintended consequences can often bite you in the ass.
The creationist movement would see all aspect of cosmology rolled back to the fifth century, and in lots of states they're writing the textbooks.
I'm not part of the "creationist movement". But I still don't understand your point about how they want cosmology rolled back to the 5th century. And I see a bigger movement among the textbook writers to exclude creationism.
And we'r eon the cusp of the larges mass extinction since the dinosaurs got theirs, and all you lot can do is scream HOAX! at the top of your lungs and hope it catches on. Congrats, looks like it did.
This is actually the statement that got me to reply to your post. As a pure coincidence, my wife and I were going through a bunch of old clutter looking for stuff to get rid of. She used to be an out-of-control scrap-booker. One of the scrap books she kept was of old newspaper articles from the '70s and ''80s. It was hilarious not only reading that old stuff, but seeing the stuff she kept. I regret allowing her to throw it away because it was such a neat historical archive. But the one that really stuck out to me was the one (from around 1980) that predicted that by the year 2000, man will have caused over 50% of the earths species to disappear. I'm not certain, but I don't think that has happened, even now in 2019.
What worries me the most though is what kind of young person wants to go into scientific endeavors in this sort of environment? That's not a good thing for a nation that bases a large chunk of its GDP on science and technology.
What worries me is all the helicopter parents and "lawn mower" parents that make things so easy for their kids that the kids never learn to do anything for themselves. And the liberal entitlement culture that reinforces that belief. I am ashamed to admit that I have two nephews who are living with their babies mothers. They won't get married and the girl won't get a job because the "single mother" would then lose her "government benefits".
-
I mostly agree with this, but I also believe some of the "kooky" theories that a big part of our obesity problem is due to GMO'd wheat. Lots of evidence that I don't have time to go into, but unintended consequences can often bite you in the ass.
This is where the subject gets to wonderfully ironic. Wheat is a GMO. It was created by humans from wild grasses millennia ago to have larger grassland be more easily threshed.
-
All I can say is there are a bunch of really clever people whose careers and livelihoods depend upon supporting this stuff as they are told to do. Anything short of lockstep with their masters is career suicide, and you know it.
-
All I can say is there are a bunch of really clever people whose careers and livelihoods depend upon supporting this stuff as they are told to do. Anything short of lockstep with their masters is career suicide, and you know it.
Bingo!
And if they are not lockstep, and God forbid don't worship at the alter of the Democrat Party, and far left progressive thought they are ostracized, don't get tenure, and/or let go.
-
All I can say is there are a bunch of really clever people whose careers and livelihoods depend upon supporting this stuff as they are told to do. Anything short of lockstep with their masters is career suicide, and you know it.
You know nothing about the scientific process. If you had data that proved the Earth wasn't warming you could publish it in the best journal there is. You'd get grants out the wazoo to support your research. Scientists are just like everyone else, we love new stuff, especially when it busts paradigms. Don't tell me it doesn't happen because I've done it myself.
-
You know nothing about the scientific process. If you had data that proved the Earth wasn't warming you could publish it in the best journal there is. You'd get grants out the wazoo to support your research. Scientists are just like everyone else, we love new stuff, especially when it busts paradigms. Don't tell me it doesn't happen because I've done it myself.
I haven't seen anyone say the earth isn't warming. That's not in question. What's unknown is the extent to which man contributes to it. There is absolutely no agreement nor proof of any kind, addressing this.
-
How easy, or hard would it be to determine if the earth's axis has shifted, say .1 degree?
-
I haven't seen anyone say the earth isn't warming. That's not in question. What's unknown is the extent to which man contributes to it. There is absolutely no agreement nor proof of any kind, addressing this.
But, there's been no evidence of warming for about fifteen years, that's why they changed the name to Man Made Climate Change. Also, NASA, and NOAA were caught changing historical temperature data to make it seem like there was warming occurring. Why would they need to do that. The models being used are also a big question. As you know being an engineer it is all the assumptions you use in the analysis, and tweaking the assumptions allows you to get a desired result. Unless you built the analysis, or are very involved with that type of analysis it can be difficult to determine the integrity.
-
But, there's been no evidence of warming for about fifteen years, that's why they changed the name to Man Made Climate Change. Also, NASA, and NOAA were caught changing historical temperature data to make it seem like there was warming occurring. Why would they need to do that. The models being used are also a big question. As you know being an engineer it is all the assumptions you use in the analysis, and tweaking the assumptions allows you to get a desired result. Unless you built the analysis, or are very involved with that type of analysis it can be difficult to determine the integrity.
Agree over the last few years but my understanding is we are still in a very looooooooooong term gradual warming trend over eons. But like the stock market it varies up and down a lot in the short terms.
-
You know nothing about the scientific process. If you had data that proved the Earth wasn't warming you could publish it in the best journal there is. You'd get grants out the wazoo to support your research. Scientists are just like everyone else, we love new stuff, especially when it busts paradigms. Don't tell me it doesn't happen because I've done it myself.
You can’t offer a scintilla or real evidence to support any of the current crop of lies disguised as climate science.
It’s all conjecture and bullshit coupled with leftist politics and wrapped in the shiny pathetic religion of professional parasites and politicians pretending to care about the environment while flying alone in private jets and burning more fuel in a weekend than a family typically burns in a year.
-
Bingo!
And if they are not lockstep, and God forbid don't worship at the alter of the Democrat Party, and far left progressive thought they are ostracized, don't get tenure, and/or let go.
This is a good point. Liberals have taken over the universities and the research is suffering badly from confirmation bias.
-
You know nothing about the scientific process. If you had data that proved the Earth wasn't warming you could publish it in the best journal there is. You'd get grants out the wazoo to support your research. Scientists are just like everyone else, we love new stuff, especially when it busts paradigms. Don't tell me it doesn't happen because I've done it myself.
The "scientific process" has nothing to do with the Science-Industrial Complex. Anyone who debunked the "hockey stick" became a pariah.
Signed,
YOLT
MSEE
-
You can’t offer a scintilla or real evidence to support any of the current crop of lies disguised as climate science.
It’s all conjecture and bullshit coupled with leftist politics and wrapped in the shiny pathetic religion of professional parasites and politicians pretending to care about the environment while flying alone in private jets and burning more fuel in a weekend than a family typically burns in a year.
There are journals chock full of data and models. You've just been willingly brainwashed by the fossil duel industry so they can keep lining their pockets with profits. They don't care that they're destroying the planet, and they won't until it's profitable to do so. i suspect at that point it will be far, far too late.
The only good thing about all this is I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I haven't any offspring, and am glad of it. I would hate to pass onto my offspring a broken world. It's bad enough they're goignto inherit our monumental debt.
-
There are journals chock full of data and models. You've just been willingly brainwashed by the fossil duel industry so they can keep lining their pockets with profits. They don't care that they're destroying the planet, and they won't until it's profitable to do so. i suspect at that point it will be far, far too late.
The only good thing about all this is I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I haven't any offspring, and am glad of it. I would hate to pass onto my offspring a broken world. It's bad enough they're goignto inherit our monumental debt.
You don't have a dog in this hunt?
You buy and burn 100LL, LEADED gasoline for fun
You buy and burn 87UL for your cars
You use electricity to power your home, appliances, lights etc which is largely generated by coal and gas.
You use fossil fuel to heat your home, or use electricity (see above)
You buy and use Plastic Products made largely by petroleum products
You buy and use products and services transported by Diesel Fuel
You have a large pack of dogs in this hunt. More like a menagerie of dogs.
-
I haven't any offspring, and am glad of it.
So are we perfesser.
I would hate to pass onto my offspring a broken world. It's bad enough they're goignto inherit our monumental debt.
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FDQYrO-VUQAEXotM.jpg&f=1)
-
There are journals chock full of data and models. You've just been willingly brainwashed by the fossil duel industry so they can keep lining their pockets with profits. They don't care that they're destroying the planet, and they won't until it's profitable to do so. i suspect at that point it will be far, far too late.
The only good thing about all this is I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I haven't any offspring, and am glad of it. I would hate to pass onto my offspring a broken world. It's bad enough they're goignto inherit our monumental debt.
Do the journals tell how they picked and chose which models to report? Do they talk about how the base assumptions going into the models are just that, assumptions?
Do you really understand the electric power generating industry? Take fossil fuels away and we are bankrupt instantly. Everyone but the Annointed Elite would go back to Stone Age subsistence. It would be an economic and human disaster. Misery and death in a scale unimaginable.
-
Do the journals tell how they picked and chose which models to report? Do they talk about how the base assumptions going into the models are just that, assumptions?
Do you really understand the electric power generating industry? Take fossil fuels away and we are bankrupt instantly. Everyone but the Annointed Elite would go back to Stone Age subsistence. It would be an economic and human disaster. Misery and death in a scale unimaginable.
Libs think that is a good thing. Especially if it impacts rich white people. As Stan used to quote Maggie, "Liberals would rather the poor be poorer, as long as the rich are less rich".
-
Libs think that is a good thing. Especially if it impacts rich white people. As Stan used to quote Maggie, "Liberals would rather the poor be poorer, as long as the rich are less rich".
Except them of course. It’s just conservative rich people they want to be less rich.
-
Do you really understand the electric power generating industry? Take fossil fuels away and we are bankrupt instantly. Everyone but the Annointed Elite would go back to Stone Age subsistence. It would be an economic and human disaster. Misery and death in a scale unimaginable.
And the beginning of a civil war. Wonder how that would turn out?
-
And the beginning of a civil war. Wonder how that would turn out?
I have always feared the fragility of our power grid. Terrorists would just have to take out large portions of the power grid in an around metro areas, and the U.S. would devolve into regional conflict over commodities. Gasoline, food, medical supplies, ammunition, etc.
-
And the beginning of a civil war. Wonder how that would turn out?
It would not even be as organized as a civil war. It would be roaming hordes. The country would decay into various tribes, factions and territories as the armed and the aggressive would quickly seek to grab resources for themselves, and the desperate would ultimately resort to cannibalism in the face of mass starvation. It would be the zombiepocalypse we subconsciously fear so much.
-
(https://www.whatfinger.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/78979-300x232.jpg)
-
Somehow I missed this post the first time around.
You don't have to understand the nuts and bolts of the science. Heck, when it comes to climatology I certainly don't, I'm a geneticist. I do understand basic thermodynamics and the relationship between heat and energy, which is why I understand global warming means more energetic climate, not necessarily hotter (though is certainly is tending that way). All that said, I've known researchers in climate science. They're no different than me, just trying to figure out what's going on. It just so happens that what they're figured out has far more profound consequences.
I don't expect the average person to understand the nuts and bolts of the science, and I'm certainly not disparaging them because they don't. My point is that BECAUSE they don't understand the science, they are in no position to judge whether an argument casting doubt on some or other element of the "climate change consensus" is based on science or not. Did Mann go too far with the pasting together of data from different sources to make the "hockey stick" graph? Has there really been a hiatus in global warming in the first two decades of this century? If you don't have the intellectual tools to evaluate those claims, then you're vulnerable to being manipulated by people who are motivated by politics instead of science. And if a scientist makes claims that aren't 100% supported by hard science, the more literate skeptical pundits will have a field day with him and damage not only his credibility, but that of everyone in the field. That's why IMO scientists working in areas that are highly charged politically have a special responsibility to avoid premature release of results to the public, and above all to avoid making alarmist claims that can't be backed up with airtight evidence. If your results indicate that a dire outcome is a possibility, then you also need to be honest and forthcoming about the uncertainties involved.
This is NOT an easy tightrope for climate scientists to walk, and I think several modern climatologists have overstepped, to various degrees, and the reputation of the field has suffered as a result. At least some of the original luminaries were acutely aware of the problem though. In the thread on AAAS I mentioned earlier, climate scientist Robert Kandel posted a quote yesterday from Steve Schneider that's worth reading, if you're on that forum. Unfortunately, Schneider died a few years back and there seem to be only a few today who take their responsibility to not mislead the public seriously. Kandel seems to be one such, but he's from the old guard, and most of the younger regulars on sites like RealClimate are unabashed activists who advocate for carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and other schemes to make burning fossil fuels prohibitively expensive, never mind the effect that would have on the economy.
I've seen that, though I already know a way to sequester lots and lots of carbon. Its called trees.
And Kenneth Towe on the AAAS thread has countered that argument effectively: at the rate we're putting CO2 into the air, there just aren't enough trees on the planet to manage the excess, and wouldn't be even if we could replace the ones we've chopped down in short order.
IMO Curry is right, it's a wicked problem with no clear solution and no clear way to determine the optimal solution. Science may be under attack, but people who think the arguments over global warming are all about attacking science are being misled. We as scientists should be trying to present the full truth in ways the lay public can understand, not manipulating them to demand drastic actions that will have side effects we may not be able to accept.
-
We as scientists should be trying to present the full truth in ways the lay public can understand
This is where it largely has gone wrong. When "scientists" are manipulating the science in order to achieve their desired result, it cast doubt on the validity of all the science. Before you can present the full truth, you have to repair the damage done to the reputation of the science. You could lay out completely logical evidence that the earth is going to be uninhabitable in 12 years...and I heard Bill Nye the Lyin' Guy say that yesterday...and people would still be saying "yeah, but you faked the data before".
Personally, I've been hearing about global cooling and then warming all my life. NYC is supposed to be under 10 ft of water right now from the icebergs melting. Now I'm hearing the damage is more like 10cm of ocean level rise in 100 years. And all of that is built on computer models which have a human bias because the people building the models want to create a doomsday scenario
Y'all come back when you figure out what the science really is.
-
Somehow I missed this post the first time around.
I don't expect the average person to understand the nuts and bolts of the science, and I'm certainly not disparaging them because they don't. My point is that BECAUSE they don't understand the science, they are in no position to judge whether an argument casting doubt on some or other element of the "climate change consensus" is based on science or not. Did Mann go too far with the pasting together of data from different sources to make the "hockey stick" graph? Has there really been a hiatus in global warming in the first two decades of this century? If you don't have the intellectual tools to evaluate those claims, then you're vulnerable to being manipulated by people who are motivated by politics instead of science. And if a scientist makes claims that aren't 100% supported by hard science, the more literate skeptical pundits will have a field day with him and damage not only his credibility, but that of everyone in the field. That's why IMO scientists working in areas that are highly charged politically have a special responsibility to avoid premature release of results to the public, and above all to avoid making alarmist claims that can't be backed up with airtight evidence. If your results indicate that a dire outcome is a possibility, then you also need to be honest and forthcoming about the uncertainties involved.
This is NOT an easy tightrope for climate scientists to walk, and I think several modern climatologists have overstepped, to various degrees, and the reputation of the field has suffered as a result. At least some of the original luminaries were acutely aware of the problem though. In the thread on AAAS I mentioned earlier, climate scientist Robert Kandel posted a quote yesterday from Steve Schneider that's worth reading, if you're on that forum. Unfortunately, Schneider died a few years back and there seem to be only a few today who take their responsibility to not mislead the public seriously. Kandel seems to be one such, but he's from the old guard, and most of the younger regulars on sites like RealClimate are unabashed activists who advocate for carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and other schemes to make burning fossil fuels prohibitively expensive, never mind the effect that would have on the economy.
And Kenneth Towe on the AAAS thread has countered that argument effectively: at the rate we're putting CO2 into the air, there just aren't enough trees on the planet to manage the excess, and wouldn't be even if we could replace the ones we've chopped down in short order.
IMO Curry is right, it's a wicked problem with no clear solution and no clear way to determine the optimal solution. Science may be under attack, but people who think the arguments over global warming are all about attacking science are being misled. We as scientists should be trying to present the full truth in ways the lay public can understand, not manipulating them to demand drastic actions that will have side effects we may not be able to accept.
Brilliant post.
-
So called climate science has been so whored out by everyone from the academics to al gore that no one should believe a single thing the alarmists say about anything, including the current weather forecast.
Every word these people say is carefully scripted to generate emotional responses leading to bigger government and smaller liberty.
No where do these make believe scientists address the utter falsehoods of their religion. Neither do they address what steps are being taken to guard against those kinds of lies in the future.
Our own academic with zero background in climate science regularly attacks us for not simply taking his word for the bullshit he slings constantly, as if doubting the utterances of a failed cabal of fakes is some kind of unforgivable heresy.
-
So called climate science has been so whored out by everyone from the academics to al gore that no one should believe a single thing the alarmists say about anything, including the current weather forecast.
Every word these people say is carefully scripted to generate emotional responses leading to bigger government and smaller liberty.
No where do these make believe scientists address the utter falsehoods of their religion. Neither do they address what steps are being taken to guard against those kinds of lies in the future.
Our own academic with zero background in climate science regularly attacks us for not simply taking his word for the bullshit he slings constantly, as if doubting the utterances of a failed cabal of fakes is some kind of unforgivable heresy.
That is why we've been told for years that "The Science is Settled" and "The Debate is Over". They don't want you peaking behind the curtain. That confirmed MMGE as just a ridiculous cult like religion designed to indulge people's egos that they can "make a difference".
They can never answer the questions of "How do you know the difference between man made and natural climate change"?, and also "Where will the money from the extra taxes, fees, fines, costs etc go to "FIX" man made climate change?"
-
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/)
-
The next bullshit from the fake science community will be to accuse doubters of being racist for refusing to be brainwashed by lying assholes and hypocrites, hiding behind the title of scientist.
-
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/)
Wow.
-
Formerly neutral government agencies have now become weaponized political groups thanks to our hope and change man Obama.
-
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/)
The "Scientists" everyone is supposed to just roll over and believe are mostly corrupt when it comes to Climate Science. NASA, NOAA and other climate change ALARMIST organizations have bee caught changing and manipulating data. In fact they've admitted it. In addition they use assumptions and models to get the outcomes they want. The MEDIA covers for them. Our schools repeat their LIES as if they are FACT.
-
To be fair, adjusting data to account for sensor bias and measurement errors is perfectly reasonable.
However, when the measurement/model sensitivities are on the order of the data adjustment, a careful conscientious researcher needs to be very very careful and thorough about justifying the adjustments. Especially when the adjustments are so very convenient to a (possibly) desired conclusion.
-
To be fair, adjusting data to account for sensor bias and measurement errors is perfectly reasonable.
However, when the measurement/model sensitivities are on the order of the data adjustment, a careful conscientious researcher needs to be very very careful and thorough about justifying the adjustments. Especially when the adjustments are so very convenient to a (possibly) desired conclusion.
Especially when they adjust it in one direction for distant past data and in the opposite direction for recent data.
There is a reason science has the concept of “double blind” studies. We wisely know that humans can be biased and not only that, they can subconsciously affect data even if they believe they are not. (Blind to their own bias.)
Our educational institutions are now 90% left and buy into the MMGW hysteria and so with every passing day more young take over these jobs and come with the preconceived bias being programmed into our children. And it’s more than just a bias; it’s being taught as a forgone conclusion, a premise that’s already fact. So when they make these adjustments they actually believe they’re “correcting” things.
That is how insidious beliefs are when you pound it into little kids’ heads.
-
Haaaaahahahahaha!!!
Greta Thunberg is TIME’s person of the year! Debated whether to put it here or in the Reasons for Trump Term 2 thread.
Haaaaaaaahahahaha!!!
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/how-dare-they.php
-
quite the low bar needed to become Man of the Year (excuse, person....)
-
Hitler and Stalin were both Time Men of the Year. Stalin twice. Hitler killed 6 million and Stalin 20 million. Greta just kills common sense, reason, rationality...........
-
Trump should have been, for being the only president in recent history to actually keep his campaign promises.
And for setting a completely new standard in connecting with the people directly.
-
Hitler and Stalin were both Time Men of the Year. Stalin twice. Hitler killed 6 million and Stalin 20 million. Greta just kills common sense, reason, rationality...........
(https://i0.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/greta8.jpg?w=600&ssl=1)
(https://i1.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/greta18.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
-
Hitler and Stalin were both Time Men of the Year. Stalin twice. Hitler killed 6 million and Stalin 20 million. Greta just kills common sense, reason, rationality...........
If you're going down that line, we should probably remember that Trump was also person of the year in 2016...so you can't denigrate the award that much without punching yourself in the nose too.
-
If you're going down that line, we should probably remember that Trump was also person of the year in 2016...so you can't denigrate the award that much without punching yourself in the nose too.
Not really. So Time never put "good" people on the cover as Person of the Year? Time puts the influential, and famous, or infamous people on the cover. If you think they did that because Trump is infamous, which I am sure they did, then you are aligned with their Progressive thought.
-
If you're going down that line, we should probably remember that Trump was also person of the year in 2016...so you can't denigrate the award that much without punching yourself in the nose too.
I don't think anyone is claiming or implying that the award always goes to people who are a waste of DNA.
However, for sure and for certain, the award is meaningless because some of the past Men of the Year were such scum (Hilter, Stalin).
-
I don't think anyone is claiming or implying that the award always goes to people who are a waste of DNA.
However, for sure and for certain, the award is meaningless because some of the past Men of the Year were such scum (Hilter, Stalin).
...obama, clinton...
-
I don't think anyone is claiming or implying that the award always goes to people who are a waste of DNA.
However, for sure and for certain, the award is meaningless because some of the past Men of the Year were such scum (Hilter, Stalin).
I don't think it is meaningless because they acknowledge evil people, as they don't discriminate between Good and Bad. I also don't think it carries much weight anymore. Neither does the Nobel Prize as Obama got it for being half Black. Something in which he had no control. It was NOT an accomplishment.
-
I don't think it is meaningless because they acknowledge evil people, as they don't discriminate between Good and Bad. I also don't think it carries much weight anymore. Neither does the Nobel Prize as Obama got it for being half Black. Something in which he had no control. It was NOT an accomplishment.
The "accomplishment" belonged to those that shaped and marketed him and made him President.
-
The "accomplishment" belonged to those that shaped and marketed him and made him President.
True, and Biden helped by calling him a clean, Black "man". Well, I guess Obama being the first Black (half Black) President is an accomplishment in and of itself, but you're right. It was more the people that packaged and promoted him. The non-threatening Negro that may be a closet Communist, but that people will make an exception for, because it is the Black Man's turn.
-
I don't think it is meaningless because they acknowledge evil people, as they don't discriminate between Good and Bad. I also don't think it carries much weight anymore. Neither does the Nobel Prize as Obama got it for being half Black. Something in which he had no control. It was NOT an accomplishment.
The Nobel (Peace Prize anyway) has been lowered in value and meaning by the Obama selection. It was not given to him because of his color. It was given to him in the first year of his presidency because of what he MIGHT do, what he was EXPECTED to do, what lefties all over the world and apparently on the Nobel Committee breathlessly and with heaving chests just KNEW he would do ... make the world a more peaceful place.
Leftism is always about the possible, never the real. They leave that to conservatives, then eviscerate them for trying to deal with it.
-
Agree!!! I don't get creationism at all, or any kind of Biblical literalism if that's a word. It's language... open to interpretation and you end up with people arguing over which interpretation is what God really meant. But I don't think people should be prevented from teaching their children what they believe. It's not society's business to tell you your religion is wrong and you can't teach it to your kid! But my personal belief is that science is the expression of the divine. If fossils yield evidence of their age, then it is through the laws of physics, and if the laws of physics aren't creation, nothing is. So if you believe God created the universe and all its physical laws, why not believe the science? I see no conflict believing in God AND accepting science.
It's science that actually makes me a believer. Think of entropy. Things slowly degrade, they fall apart, they lose energy, they decay, and in the end they cease to work. If so, how in the world was this life, earth, and fabulous galaxy created? Did it devolve from an even better thing? God perhaps?
Or was it the big bang, or other spontaneous event that created the universe? If so, how did it happen? Entropy says no way.
I also believe in the watchmaker analogy.
-
The entropy of a closed thermodynamic system will increase. The earth is not a closed system--it receives an enormous amount of energy from the sun every day. In fact if it didn't radiate most of it off during the night, the place would be incinerated in short order.
Tim
-
Isn't the universe a closed system?
-
Isn't the universe a closed system?
Possibly. If so, presumably its entropy is increasing. But that doesn't prove anything, does it?
Tim
-
Isn't the universe a closed system?
I don't think anyone has the faintest idea? Theoretically, the universe is still expanding. Where is it expanding into, and what is the effect of all that new volume of universe?
-
Isn't the universe a closed system?
Interesting thought. There is no outside to the universe.
-
Interesting thought. There is no outside to the universe.
Then where does the universe keep expanding into? After all, an expanding universe seems to be "settled science".
-
Then where does the universe keep expanding into? After all, an expanding universe seems to be "settled science".
The belief today is that the universe is infinite and we are just discovering it. Otherwise we have to resolve how new matter poofs into existence.
The observable universe is growing. Like a field of light getting brighter, it is revealing things that have always been there, but we are only now just seeing. And it keeps going on forever.