Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28530 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #765 on: June 15, 2019, 10:39:09 am »
nothing to see here... move along now!

   
Agree Agree x 1 Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #766 on: June 15, 2019, 04:06:27 pm »
Greenland lost 2 billion tons of ice yesterday. No global warming there.

Over 40% of Greenland experienced melting yesterday, with total ice loss estimated to be more than 2 gigatons (a gigaton is equal to 1 billion tons).
While Greenland is a big island filled with lots of ice, it is highly unusual for that much ice to be lost in the middle of June. The average "melt season" for Greenland runs from June to August, with the bulk of the melting occurring in July.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/us/greenland-sudden-ice-melt-wxc/index.html

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #767 on: June 19, 2019, 03:06:16 pm »
This paper discusses the problems academic research today and why "scientific consensus" should never be confused with "scientific truth". A  "scientific consensus" may represent the "truth" or it may simply reflect the interpretive biases of the academics doing the research. Without a connection to replicable real world experiments we can't know which.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/elimpj5u0aaeup5/JussimEtAl.pdf?dl=0

Quote
We consider how valid conclusions often lay hidden within research reports, masked by plausible but unjustifiedconclusions reached in those reports. We employ several well-known and cross-cutting examples from the psy-chological literature to illustrate how, independent (or in the absence) of replicability difficulties or questionableresearch practices leading to false positives, motivated reasoning and confirmation biases can lead to drawing un-justified conclusions. In describing these examples, we review strategies and methods by which researchers canidentify such practices in their own and others' research reports. These strategies and methods can unmask hid-den phenomena that may conflict with researchers' preferred narratives, in order to ultimately produce moresound and valid scientific conclusions. We conclude with general recommendations for how social psychologistscan limit the influence of interpretive biases in their own and others' research, and thereby elevate the scientificstatus and validity of social psychology

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #768 on: June 19, 2019, 03:19:09 pm »
This paper discusses the problems academic research today and why "scientific consensus" should never be confused with "scientific truth". A  "scientific consensus" may represent the "truth" or it may simply reflect the interpretive biases of the academics doing the research. Without a connection to replicable real world experiments we can't know which.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/elimpj5u0aaeup5/JussimEtAl.pdf?dl=0
[/quote

And when you have better than 97% of professionally trained scientists achieving a consensus on the issues they are specialists in, you shouldn't try to ignore the scientific truth their research has revealed.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #769 on: June 19, 2019, 05:35:56 pm »
This paper discusses the problems academic research today and why "scientific consensus" should never be confused with "scientific truth". A  "scientific consensus" may represent the "truth" or it may simply reflect the interpretive biases of the academics doing the research. Without a connection to replicable real world experiments we can't know which.

social psychology: study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others; Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the interaction of mental states and immediate, social situations

the/your referenced paper: addressing methodological rigor and replicability in social psychology - do you have something relevant to, you know, the foundations of climate change; i.e., physical sciences?

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #770 on: June 19, 2019, 05:49:39 pm »
social psychology: study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others; Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the interaction of mental states and immediate, social situations

the/your referenced paper: addressing methodological rigor and replicability in social psychology - do you have something relevant to, you know, the foundations of climate change; i.e., physical sciences?

Social clubs weighing in on actual science is what I see.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #771 on: June 19, 2019, 06:41:13 pm »
do you have something relevant to, you know, the foundations of climate change; i.e., physical sciences?
Many of the claims made about climate change, like most social sciences, cannot be replicated which means the real world cannot be used as a way to separate the chaff from the grain. Because of this all of the criticisms also apply to many aspects of climate change research. Of course, you will insist that there is some magic that separates a fields where people manipulate tree rings to make unverifiable claims about past temperatures and fields where people manipulate stats on people to make unverifiable claims about why they act in a particular way. There is no magic. They have the same (lack of) merit.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #772 on: June 19, 2019, 07:16:43 pm »
Many of the claims made about climate change, like most social sciences, cannot be replicated which means the real world cannot be used as a way to separate the chaff from the grain. Because of this all of the criticisms also apply to many aspects of climate change research. Of course, you will insist that there is some magic that separates a fields where people manipulate tree rings to make unverifiable claims about past temperatures and fields where people manipulate stats on people to make unverifiable claims about why they act in a particular way. There is no magic. They have the same (lack of) merit.

Studies of social science simply confirm that our recent and current activities have in large part created the findings of the overwhelming majority ofclimate scientists.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #773 on: June 20, 2019, 07:23:45 am »
Many of the claims made about climate change, like most social sciences, cannot be replicated which means the real world cannot be used as a way to separate the chaff from the grain.
you ignored the ask earlier; let me rephrase: given your expressed denial concerning the principal causal tie to CC/GW, which "claims made", have helped shaped and reinforced your denial... of those you claim can't be replicated?

Of course, you will insist that there is some magic that separates a fields where people manipulate tree rings to make unverifiable claims about past temperatures...
you're still clinging to concerns over decades old temperature reconstructions - still? Ah, good times: "hide the decline"... "Mike's Nature trick"... the divergence problem effect!!!  ;D But still? I mean, c'mon... notwithstanding other reconstruction proxies like ice-cores, lake/ocean bottom sediment, corals, etc., aren't there any reliable (confirming) tree-ring proxy reconstructions - not any? Not any multi-proxy reconstructions you accept - even those that don't use tree-rings? None?

I appreciate this board is somewhat obscure, but I understand the Mann has become somewhat litigious in wanting to protect his reputation... perhaps you can spell out your concerns (for him). Wait, what's this... just in recent weeks! C'mon - go for it!  ;D


in any case, imagine the chutzpah of CRU to prominently display this graphic on their home-page! Oh my... he shoots, he scores... with that hockey-stick!


Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #774 on: June 20, 2019, 07:51:32 am »
I appreciate this board is somewhat obscure, but I understand the Mann has become somewhat litigious in wanting to protect his reputation...
Mann winning a lawsuit because it is not possible to prove that Mann is unethical or merely incompetent does not mean much. This issue has never been about Mann per se. It has been how the scientific establishment continues to defend pseudo-scientific gibberish because it happens to support the political narrative that they want. It is about how the garbage that Mann produces is a shiny example of why climate science is not a real physical science because it what is deemed to be "true" is based on political considerations rather than a careful consideration of the proper use of statistics.


Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #775 on: June 20, 2019, 11:32:17 am »
It is about how the garbage that Mann produces is a shiny example of why climate science is not a real physical science because it what is deemed to be "true" is based on political considerations rather than a careful consideration of the proper use of statistics.

how long will you carry the torch for the Mann? Given we're decades beyond the "hockey-stick", well beyond reliance on paleo-reconstructions, from my last reply to you, let me ask you again: "notwithstanding other reconstruction proxies like ice-cores, lake/ocean bottom sediment, corals, etc., aren't there any reliable (confirming) tree-ring proxy reconstructions - not any? Not any multi-proxy reconstructions you accept - even those that don't use tree-rings? None?"

but c'mon, is there not any climate physical science that, to you, isn't based on political considerations? None? Not even if you throw out your perpetualHateOnForTheMann? None? To you, the whole world-wide network of thousands upon thousands of scientists working in fields directly and/or peripherally related to climate science... they're all working under an overarching umbrella to deliver politically considered results? Right; is that your belief?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #776 on: June 20, 2019, 11:44:14 am »
Not any multi-proxy reconstructions you accept - even those that don't use tree-rings? None?
Question: is there any way to go back in the past and measure *actual* temperatures to determine what things are stable long term proxies?
Answer: time travel is not possible at this time.

Question: how do we know what is a stable long term proxy and what is not?
Answer: we do a correlation analysis on part of the record and simple assume the correlation holds for all time.

Question: what happens when the correlation diverges for the modern record?
Answer: If the proxy tells us what we want hear we invent excuses for why the correlation breaks down for the modern period.

Physical science? ROTFL. It is nothing but repeated data mining/p-hacking to find things that tell the academics what they want to hear.




Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #777 on: June 20, 2019, 11:59:39 am »
how long will you carry the torch for the Mann? Given we're decades beyond the "hockey-stick", well beyond reliance on paleo-reconstructions, from my last reply to you, let me ask you again: "notwithstanding other reconstruction proxies like ice-cores, lake/ocean bottom sediment, corals, etc., aren't there any reliable (confirming) tree-ring proxy reconstructions - not any? Not any multi-proxy reconstructions you accept - even those that don't use tree-rings? None?"

but c'mon, is there not any climate physical science that, to you, isn't based on political considerations? None? Not even if you throw out your perpetualHateOnForTheMann? None? To you, the whole world-wide network of thousands upon thousands of scientists working in fields directly and/or peripherally related to climate science... they're all working under an overarching umbrella to deliver politically considered results? Right; is that your belief?

I think we have all become aware that in Tims world all experts who refute his arguments are simply those being "exploited for political purposes"-climate change, immigration, refugees, and I'm sure there are others.

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #778 on: June 20, 2019, 01:06:10 pm »
I think we have all become aware that in Tims world all experts who refute his arguments are simply those being "exploited for political purposes"-climate change, immigration, refugees, and I'm sure there are others.
Yes and the bloggers who support his views are completely unbiased

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #779 on: June 20, 2019, 01:14:34 pm »
Yes and the bloggers who support his views are completely unbiased

Meanwhile in the background, 2 billion ton ice cubes are cracking off Greenland and falling into the oceans.