Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28526 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #525 on: May 18, 2019, 05:52:40 pm »
1. in regards Hackergate, you're the one that said there was NO THERE, THERE...
2. in your enabler mode (the MH thing) you then proceed to make hay over a couple of scientists and a few emails.
3. The so-called TimG "argument" is his false/fake narrative that you're playing into.
1. There is nothing like a conspiracy, no.
2. 'make hay' means acknowledge some points of my discussion partner, right ?  So yes
3. He comes to incorrect conclusions IMO.  Some of his observations are accurate though.


Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #526 on: May 19, 2019, 08:03:09 am »
Well that is the problem. You place too much weight on the idea that every narrow domain is so specialized that someone who is not a professional academic cannot read the literature and learn what is needed to provide a knowledgeable assessment.

It's a balance.   I will just say I don't see any examples of what you're saying in the criticism.  I do recall reading blogs by people who say " I have a degree in science and this is wrong because .... " then quoting something that's incorrect.

Quote
People with a lot of knowledge of math, statistics and the datasets in question have looked at these issues and provided more than adequate arguments that Mann's methods are junk and violate the basic rules of statistical analysis. I personally have enough knowledge of statistics to read the claims and counter claims to know that the critics have the better argument yet despite that many professional climate scientists refuse to acknowledge the obvious. This is why I say any scientific question that cannot be settled with replicable experiments is subjective and the answers change depending on the biases of the academics providing the answers.

I looked into this in the past and I disagree.

Quote
They convinced me only in the areas where experimental replication can be used to validate the claim. In this case it is the warming effect of CO2 and a measurable increase in air and ocean temperatures over the last few decades. However, this tells us nothing about the amount of warming we will have to deal with or the consequences. The only thing that has been established is that it could be a big problem and therefore it would be prudent to act.

Well... how does Mann's paper broach the topic of 'consequences' ?  If they do anything beyond a high-level summary then I agree they went to far.

Quote
This is entirely the fault of alarmists who decided...

You're mixing in politics with the science that we were discussing.  If you're done, then please limit your response to a quick one so I can look for references to Friis-Christensen etc. in the leaked emails thanks.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #527 on: May 19, 2019, 08:33:39 am »
It's a balance.   I will just say I don't see any examples of what you're saying in the criticism.  I do recall reading blogs by people who say " I have a degree in science and this is wrong because .... " then quoting something that's incorrect.
That is because you don't bother to look because you simply assume that anyone posting an opinion on a blog has not done the work required to provide a knowledgeable assessment. When Climate Audit was active, Steve McIntyre read all of the relevant papers and re-did the math to prove that he could reproduce the results (this was often challenging because scientists and journals would refuse to follow their stated policies and provide the data needed for reproduction of papers). No reasonable observer can argue that he did not do the work required to provide a knowledgeable assessment, however, there are a lot of unreasonable observers out there. If you disagree then explain what a non-academic would have to do to demonstrate that they have done the work needed to  provided an informed opinion? Note that publishing papers in journals is not a legitimate requirement for someone who only wants to understand and critique research done by others. Also you can't argue that critique need to be published in journals because that people can be informed even if they do not bother with the completely ineffective process for commenting on published papers (the problems are nicely summed up in this humorous post).

I looked into this in the past and I disagree.
Well that is my entire point. You can disagree but you can't prove that you are right or prove that I am wrong. That is why this particular field is purely subjective and there are few claims that do not depend the biases of the academics. That is why the the lack of objectivity among climate scientists means their claims cannot be taken at face value and the lack of skeptical voices undermines the credibility of their claims.

Well... how does Mann's paper broach the topic of 'consequences' ?  If they do anything beyond a high-level summary then I agree they went to far.
The reaction of the academic community to the blatantly obvious problems in the Mann is evidence of the lack of objectivity in the field. The substance of Mann's paper is not that significant.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2019, 08:39:03 am by TimG »

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #528 on: May 19, 2019, 08:42:55 am »
That is because you don't bother to look because you simply assume that anyone posting an opinion on a blog has not done the work required to provide a knowledgeable assessment.

Incorrect.  I spent dozens of hours or more on this years ago and I found - at the heart of it - a "spat".  None of the calculations around correlations appeared to me to be wrong and you yourself seem to be accepting the obviosu here.

Quote
No reasonable observer can argue that he did not do the work required to provide a knowledgeable assessment, however, there are a lot of unreasonable observers out there.

Ok - I don't remember the details.  Did he find egregious issues ?  Nit picks ?  Did he publish his findings.

Quote
If you disagree then explain what a non-academic would have to do to demonstrate that they have done the work needed to  provided an informed opinion? Note that publishing papers in journals is not a legitimate requirement for someone who only wants to understand and critique research done by others.

If you are an academic and you find a significant problem with the science then they will accept your paper.

Quote
Well that is my entire point. You can disagree but you can't prove that you are right or prove that I am wrong. That is why this particular field is purely subjective and there are no results that do not depend the biases of the academics.

'Proof' happens in math or philosophy, not physical sciences.  You yourself have been convinced without 'proof' in that the lab experiments can't be replicated, by your own words.
 

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #529 on: May 19, 2019, 08:54:07 am »
I finally looked for the 'real' Climate Scientists I know of that registered skepticism about the science at that time.  Most are not mentioned but Richard Lindzen is, but also given credit as being a 'real' scientist.  It seems to indicated that the scientists you accuse of being biased, are at least begrudgingly objective.

To me, if your thesis is that scientists are 'biased' I say "ok, humans are biased - sorry Waldo" and I also say "enough scientists in a culture that values objectivity will provide a space to discuss reasonable doubt".  They were discussing whether reasonable doubt was in fact being registered. There is such a thing as unreasonable doubt.

And with regards to Lindzen, a real climate scientist who had doubts, the leaked emails say:

"As token skeptic there is Dick Lindzen—but at least he is a smart guy and he does listen."

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #530 on: May 19, 2019, 08:57:32 am »
Incorrect.  I spent dozens of hours or more on this years ago and I found - at the heart of it - a "spat".  None of the calculations around correlations appeared to me to be wrong and you yourself seem to be accepting the obviosu here.
That is your opinion which is proof of my point: there is no truth in this field. Only opinion that depends on the biases of the observers.

'Proof' happens in math or philosophy, not physical sciences.  You yourself have been convinced without 'proof' in that the lab experiments can't be replicated, by your own words.
You miss the point entirely. Replication is a unbiased way to resolve scientific disagreements. i.e. the experiment can be replicated or it cannot. Without replication you only have opinion which is subject to bias.

To put it another way: you expect me to have "faith" that the system works in climate science. Why? Because scientific process works in other fields? I have explained why that is not good enough because of the lack of experimental replication. Do you have another reason that is not simply an appeal to religion?


« Last Edit: May 19, 2019, 09:05:37 am by TimG »
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #531 on: May 19, 2019, 09:16:02 am »
That is your opinion which is proof of my point: there is no truth in this field. Only opinion that depends on the biases of the observers.

The question to me is more about whether the biases cripple the ability to come to a correct conclusion.

Quote
To put it another way: you expect me to have "faith" that the system works in climate science. Why? Because scientific process works in other fields? I have explained why that is not good enough because of the lack of experimental replication. Do you have another reason that is not simply an appeal religion?

Well, I guess there is no alternative so you can maybe suggest something better that manages the problem wherein physical sciences can't always be replicated.  Again, you have bought into the conclusion so it's strange to me that you are invalidating it.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #532 on: May 19, 2019, 09:22:20 am »
The question to me is more about whether the biases cripple the ability to come to a correct conclusion.
And how are we supposed to determine that when it is impossible to know what the "correct" conclusion is? Note that I have a concrete suggestion for managing the biases that inevitability exist: embrace contrarians instead of vilifying them. A larger number of skeptical scientists publishing without fear for their career or livelihoods would only increase the confidence we have in the majority view.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #533 on: May 19, 2019, 09:57:51 am »
1. And how are we supposed to determine that when it is impossible to know what the "correct" conclusion is?
2. Note that I have a concrete suggestion for managing the biases that inevitability exist: embrace contrarians instead of vilifying them.
3. A larger number of skeptical scientists publishing without fear for their career or livelihoods would only increase the confidence we have in the majority view.
1. I think we have to make a best guess.
2. Nice sentiment but the devil is in the details.  Journals have limited space, there is a limit to what we can consider reasonable also - even if we can't articulate it objectively.
3. Turning your first question back "how are we to know if we're not being objective enough or are being objective enough ?". 

As I have shown, skeptical scientists were respected enough and were published.  Do you want every crank to be allowed to be published ?  Your solution seems more like a platitude.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #534 on: May 19, 2019, 10:24:59 am »
2. Nice sentiment but the devil is in the details.  Journals have limited space, there is a limit to what we can consider reasonable also - even if we can't articulate it objectively.
It is about a change in culture rather than the number of papers that starts with an end to the obsession with the "consensus". As long as a value is place on the "consensus" there will be an effort to silence critics to protect the "consensus". Remove this artificial constraint and more diverse voices are inevitable.

3. Turning your first question back "how are we to know if we're not being objective enough or are being objective enough ?".
We don't need objectivity if contrarian voices are valued. Bias is inevitable.  We need to deal with it - not deny it exists.

As I have shown, skeptical scientists were respected enough and were published.  Do you want every crank to be allowed to be published ?  Your solution seems more like a platitude.
In an environment where the "consensus" is valued above all else anyone who disagrees is a called a "crank" so that epithet is not helpful. What is needed are more people who can distinguish between reasonable contrarian arguments that may be wrong from unscientific nonsense. We don't have that today.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #535 on: May 19, 2019, 10:33:13 am »
It is about a change in culture rather than the number of papers that starts with an end to the obsession with the "consensus". As long as a value is place on the "consensus" there will be an effort to silence critics to protect the "consensus". Remove this artificial constraint and more diverse voices are inevitable.

'Consensus' is a mark that enough scientists agree for us to act.  If you hate the word, give it another word.  The real problem is that a minority of scientists were allowed to dissuade the public from believing there was a problem.  Your concern is 100% misplaced given what happened.

Quote
We don't need objectivity if contrarian voices are valued. Bias is inevitable.  We need to deal with it - not deny it exists.
In an environment where the "consensus" is valued above all else anyone who disagrees is a called a "crank" so that epithet is not helpful. What is needed are more people who can distinguish between reasonable contrarian arguments that may be wrong from unscientific nonsense. We don't have that today.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the current problem in front of our face (outliers defining the debate) in case a future situation happens where the consensus is clearly wrong...

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #536 on: May 19, 2019, 10:55:49 am »
'Consensus' is a mark that enough scientists agree for us to act.  If you hate the word, give it another word.  The real problem is that a minority of scientists were allowed to dissuade the public from believing there was a problem.  Your concern is 100% misplaced given what happened.
1) You are basically admitting that the consensus is artificial and that the scientific process has been turned into a political tool. This is why many believe the process cannot be trusted anymore.

2) Climate scientists have no expertise in economics or energy production. They may think it is prudent to act but others have to determine if we should act.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the current problem in front of our face (outliers defining the debate) in case a future situation happens where the consensus is clearly wrong...
The problem in front of our face is that well meaning but misguided people thought they could corrupt the scientific process by introducing political requirements. This inevitably turned climate scientists into partisans and destroyed any credibility they might have had as neutral arbiters of facts.

Skeptics are not going away. Australia just elected a conservative government that will be rolling back climate policies. The question for you is why you think introducing political requirements into the scientific process was such a great idea?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2019, 11:44:48 am by TimG »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #537 on: May 19, 2019, 11:49:05 am »
Skeptics are not going away. Australia just elected a conservative government that will be rolling back climate policies. The question for you is why you think introducing political requirements into the scientific process was such a great idea?

says you, here, attaching politics to presumptive skeptical science - such a hypocrite you are! Point in fact, is that votes are still being counted to determine whether the 'Liberal-National' coalition will remain in its current minority position... notwithstanding this same party has been ruling for 3 terms now - care to speak to what "climate policies" of their own making they, as you say, will be "rolling back"?  ;D

and as I read/interpret it was essentially one 'province' that turned the election - a rural intensive one with strong ties to coal mining... where fossil-fuel interests heavily factored in emphasizing, 'jobs, jobs, jobs''! And just as significant, the overall populace did not "like" the leader of the alternate Labour Party - populist rhetoric ruled the day.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #538 on: May 19, 2019, 11:58:15 am »
well done MH! You're just so malleable  ;D I'm shocked denier TimG managed to, once again, trot out his tried & true "McIntyre/Mann" - shocked, I tells ya! And again, you dredge up your past so-called behemoth effort to show there was, "no there there"... as you, once again, played right into the TimG fake/false narrative. Did you get the same result as last time?

Dumb Dumb x 3 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #539 on: May 19, 2019, 12:00:52 pm »
says you, here, attaching politics to presumptive skeptical science - such a hypocrite you are! Point in fact, is that votes are still being counted to determine whether the 'Liberal-National' coalition will remain in its current minority position... notwithstanding this same party has been ruling for 3 terms now - care to speak to what "climate policies" of their own making they, as you say, will be "rolling back"?  ;D

and as I read/interpret it was essentially one 'province' that turned the election - a rural intensive one with strong ties to coal mining... where fossil-fuel interests heavily factored in emphasizing, 'jobs, jobs, jobs''! And just as significant, the overall populace did not "like" the leader of the alternate Labour Party - populist rhetoric ruled the day.

Yes a third term Liberal coalition government being elected for a third term is hardly "a new conservative government". And this current government has set it's goals to roll back emissions by 26-28 % of 2005 levels by 2030, so they haven't dismissed the4 global warming problem either it would seem.