He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on science. Science proved him wrong |310|

Status
Not open for further replies.
Naaaa.... Won't fly.... The quotes speak for themlelves. Rethoric leads and induces to actions. All genocides start with rethoric., Lenin and Hitler started with rethoric. Then, they slaughtered millions. And the quotes I cite are on par with the most hateful rethoric excreted by Lenin or Hitler.
If you say so. Who am I to argue with such certainty? :-)
 
Hi David,
and that making deductions about anything that rely on the value of meaningless digits representing minute changes that are inside the error of the measurements, is wrong.
If I may ... "and that making deductions about anything that rely on the value of meaningless digits representing minute changes that are inside the error of the measurements, is wrong. must be treated with extreme caution in one's conclusions. Therefore seek a methodology that will proceed to more accurate and definitive data in your studies and research."

which is madness.
Well that's an opinion. Many disagree with you. :) I am well aware of the vagaries of weather stations, satellites and data collection practices. Last I heard the UHIE "theory" was utterly debunked by multiple science studies & papers to "high confidence" several years ago now. It's been dropped by the IPCC as an influencing issue (so my memory says). Anyway if you say "The temperature measurements are good to at best 0.5 degrees" then that kind of assumption totally obliterates any significance from an even smaller UHIE, wouldn't it, well logically speaking? You are not trying to have it "both ways" are you? :)

Now the finite accuracy of the original observations, plus all the software manipulation of the data means that it is very hard to believe in the value of this data.
If I may .... "Now the finite accuracy of the original observations aka the recorded measurements, plus all the software manipulation adjustments of the data using science based methodologies, means that it is very hard to be totally DEFINITIVE or 100% ACCURATE with 100% CERTAINTY in the value of this data. Which is why it is treated with much caution by the IPCC and everyone else. However with more advances in the accuracy of assumptions and the reanalysis tests by peer reviewed scientific processes since the 1950s it has been found that the value of data is scientifically sound to draw the conclusions that have been made to date." Does that help clarify the reality? I think it does.

I once saw a website ..... the website that I considered bogus
I addressed this issue in my original comment I believe. It is foolhardy to misconstrue any internet website for what is genuine authentic AGW theory, observations, published papers, and the scientific rigour in climate science. Even the 5 IPCC reports are but 'incomplete summaries' of the actual science being done, and therefore should NOT be made to be anything other than a public information exercise, and NOT the known science of itself.

In fact, if you talk to people with a physical science background,
In fact I have had many conversations online and via email directly with many an active "climate scientist" and associated academics from various fields including in psychology, communication and the media. They are typically really nice people and generous with their feedback and tips when possible (they are busy, but Peter Ward even replied to me from a paleontology dig site in the middle of nowhere) - because they do really care about accuracy and public engagement.

I have even read their published literature as well. If you have a science background plus have the time, I highly recommend doing that. The rest of your musing are of course interesting. Let's not confuse musings and personal opinions and various myths with the actual state of the science though. OK? See The Strawman Fallacy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which, again, was what Alex's podcast sought to point out.
My understanding of what Alex's intentions were was first "The position I’m taking is that the 90 or 97% consensus is completely false." I agree. It's a Myth. That's one point I am trying to point out. I provided published scientific papers as references to support my point, not my opinion nor my beliefs nor my personal values or political ideology, which are all irrelevant to the facts.
Alex's second more important point was this:
Alex Tsakiris: … now that you’ve conceded on the 97% consensus idea (after reviewing the data Rick agreed that the study by Dr. John Cook showing a 97% consensus among climate scientists was bunk), has that significantly changed your opinion on man-made global warming?
Rick Archer: No, not significantly.
My more important point about that is Alex is missing point here. Rick has it right, not Alex. Because based on the above, Alex is then falsely claiming that:
He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on science. Science proved him wrong
There is a galactic difference between believing a non-scientific incorrect publicly accepted myth about "97% of climate scientists concur..." and holding beliefs about AGW based on the science. Alex has created a strawman here and then believes that he has burnt it to the ground. He's done no such thing.

I totally support Alex in any endeavor to destroy myths held in the public domain. He is correct to challenge and expose the affects of personal beliefs people adhere to from all sides of any controversy. That's good and that is healthy. That's what skepticism is supposed be all about. But Alex has not made the tiniest dint into the validity of climate science itself. All he has done is proven that Rick believed something that was in fact not really true ... or at the very least was not and has not been supported by any scientific or academic published paper. And that's it.

Putting what I think Alex believes into my words as it is commonly help myth in it's own right. "People who believe in climate science, including climate scientists only believe in AGW/CC because of their pre-existing beliefs, values and personal ideologies .... and/or out some particular self-interest. And then, even when confronted with genuine scientific rigor, they (and humanity in general) do not and will not change their beliefs as a result of the work of Science and Scientists -- even when that proves beyond all doubt they had it wrong."
(and if I have that wrong, I am open to Alex to correct it)

Now what I am saying here is that, itself, is merely another belief. It's a falsehood but it's a myth that Alex truly believes is correct. I say he is wrong. It's not true and I can prove it. And I only need to prove it once and not under any and all circumstances to show how wrong he is in sticking to that "belief/myth". However he is right to make a big deal about it, because it is also true - or rather a "truism" that persists. But it is not as universal as he (and I suspect you) might believe it is.

My example? In a medieval Europe controlled and run by the powers that be in the Church, Royalty and Professional Guilds despite all the previously known facts that the world was not flat and the Sun did not circle around the Earth a chap called Galileo finally went public about what Copernicus, the Greeks, the Persians, and the Muslims had known for centuries .... the earth was round and the planets revolved around the Sun. He used "early science and a very new technology" to prove that. Over time as a direct result of that scientific research and the publication of same eventually the existing Myths that were being forced upon the populace by the Chruch et al were destroyed. People, both in power circles and the general public and the learned did in fact change their Beliefs.

And in time even those more delusional souls who choose to stick with the young earth mythology of the fundamentalist Christians will likewise change their mythical beliefs as well about Astrophysics, Evolution on planet Earth and their literalist interpretation of the Garden of Eden stories.

To me this thread is not about the validity of Climate Science - it is only about the extent of public disinformation of what Climate Science really is versus what it is not, and how easily people tend to latch onto false beliefs and myths in the public domain and how that happens. My main point is offering some suggestions about how to properly destroy those myths without creating other equally misleading myths at the same time. :)

So let me quote a classic example of a AGW/CC science everyday proponent/believer and what he uses to argue about it: "when 97 out of 100 working climate specialists say one thing and 3 say something else,"
He's using the non-scientific accepted myth .... but that does NOT prove the Climate Science is correct. Just as denying the myth doesn't prove Climate Science is incorrect and totally flawed, or that the only reason people "accept the science" is because they have a faulty BELIEF about it. Which is why Rick has it 100% correct - it makes no difference, in reality - it's just another myth.

Anyone ever heard of the Dunning Kruger Effect? If not do some research about it, for it is really enlightening in more ways than one. It takes cognitive dissonance and similar human difficulties to a much higher level of understanding imo. Check this comment out for how and why it applies to almost all internet discussions and media reporting about climate science:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...sea-level-rise/comment-page-3/#comment-649306
.
 
[Off-Topic] This is worth checking early each month. National Snow and Ice Data Center :: Advancing knowledge of Earth's frozen regions
Interactive Graphs 1979-2016 - Arctic & Antarctic Sea Ice Extent - Area of Ocean with at least 15% Sea Ice
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Get satellite images and information about melting on the Greenland Ice Sheet.
Images are updated daily, and we post analysis periodically as conditions warrant.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

Just some modern Science and Technology in action providing accurate information to the public using our collective tax dollars. :-)
 
My understanding of what Alex's intentions were was first "The position I’m taking is that the 90 or 97% consensus is completely false." I agree. It's a Myth. That's one point I am trying to point out. I provided published scientific papers as references to support my point, not my opinion nor my beliefs nor my personal values or political ideology, which are all irrelevant to the facts.
Alex's second more important point was this:

My more important point about that is Alex is missing point here. Rick has it right, not Alex. Because based on the above, Alex is then falsely claiming that:

There is a galactic difference between believing a non-scientific incorrect publicly accepted myth about "97% of climate scientists concur..." and holding beliefs about AGW based on the science. Alex has created a strawman here and then believes that he has burnt it to the ground. He's done no such thing.

I totally support Alex in any endeavor to destroy myths held in the public domain. He is correct to challenge and expose the affects of personal beliefs people adhere to from all sides of any controversy. That's good and that is healthy. That's what skepticism is supposed be all about. But Alex has not made the tiniest dint into the validity of climate science itself. All he has done is proven that Rick believed something that was in fact not really true ... or at the very least was not and has not been supported by any scientific or academic published paper. And that's it.

Putting what I think Alex believes into my words as it is commonly help myth in it's own right. "People who believe in climate science, including climate scientists only believe in AGW/CC because of their pre-existing beliefs, values and personal ideologies .... and/or out some particular self-interest. And then, even when confronted with genuine scientific rigor, they (and humanity in general) do not and will not change their beliefs as a result of the work of Science and Scientists -- even when that proves beyond all doubt they had it wrong."
(and if I have that wrong, I am open to Alex to correct it)

Now what I am saying here is that, itself, is merely another belief. It's a falsehood but it's a myth that Alex truly believes is correct. I say he is wrong. It's not true and I can prove it. And I only need to prove it once and not under any and all circumstances to show how wrong he is in sticking to that "belief/myth". However he is right to make a big deal about it, because it is also true - or rather a "truism" that persists. But it is not as universal as he (and I suspect you) might believe it is.

My example? In a medieval Europe controlled and run by the powers that be in the Church, Royalty and Professional Guilds despite all the previously known facts that the world was not flat and the Sun did not circle around the Earth a chap called Galileo finally went public about what Copernicus, the Greeks, the Persians, and the Muslims had known for centuries .... the earth was round and the planets revolved around the Sun. He used "early science and a very new technology" to prove that. Over time as a direct result of that scientific research and the publication of same eventually the existing Myths that were being forced upon the populace by the Chruch et al were destroyed. People, both in power circles and the general public and the learned did in fact change their Beliefs.

And in time even those more delusional souls who choose to stick with the young earth mythology of the fundamentalist Christians will likewise change their mythical beliefs as well about Astrophysics, Evolution on planet Earth and their literalist interpretation of the Garden of Eden stories.

To me this thread is not about the validity of Climate Science - it is only about the extent of public disinformation of what Climate Science really is versus what it is not, and how easily people tend to latch onto false beliefs and myths in the public domain and how that happens. My main point is offering some suggestions about how to properly destroy those myths without creating other equally misleading myths at the same time. :)

So let me quote a classic example of a AGW/CC science everyday proponent/believer and what he uses to argue about it: "when 97 out of 100 working climate specialists say one thing and 3 say something else,"
He's using the non-scientific accepted myth .... but that does NOT prove the Climate Science is correct. Just as denying the myth doesn't prove Climate Science is incorrect and totally flawed, or that the only reason people "accept the science" is because they have a faulty BELIEF about it. Which is why Rick has it 100% correct - it makes no difference, in reality - it's just another myth.

Anyone ever heard of the Dunning Kruger Effect? If not do some research about it, for it is really enlightening in more ways than one. It takes cognitive dissonance and similar human difficulties to a much higher level of understanding imo. Check this comment out for how and why it applies to almost all internet discussions and media reporting about climate science:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...sea-level-rise/comment-page-3/#comment-649306
.

The Dunning Kruger effect, according to your link, says:

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

– fail to recognize their own lack of skill
– fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
– fail to recognize genuine skill in others
– recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill, after they are exposed to training for that skill

My contention is that neither of us has the skill to evaluate with complete certainty the truth or falsity of catastrophic AGW. Nor, I believe, does any so-called "expert". However, belief/disbelief in it is something that affects us all, and we tend to form an opinion based on such of the evidence for the theory as we can apprehend, coupled with certain signs put out by its supporters/dissenters. These are evaluated within the context of each of our world views. We all have a predisposition that shapes our response to AGW catastrophism--also to psi, vaccination, Neo-Darwinism, the HIV/AIDS link...and so on.

You appear to be absolutely convinced of the skill and trustworthiness of the catastrophists. I am not. The signs for me are what I have already said, and include their lies and general misbehaviour. I recognise my inadequacy in climate science, but do you recognise your own inadequacy? Do you see that your world view is what predisposes you to accept AGW, just as I see that my own world view is what predisposes me to reject it?

There is no way you can convince me by mere assertion that your belief is correct and mine, incorrect. Likewise, there is no way I can convince you of the reverse. We apprehend the world in different ways: what you see as correct seems to me as absurd and often mendacious; and vice-versa.

One or other of us is mistaken about AGW. I think it's you, and you think it's me. In due course, nature will provide the answer. We shall probably know by the end of the century (or maybe sooner) whether the earth is significantly warmer, whether man-made greenhouse gases will have had much of an effect on that, and whether or not it would actually be a bad thing rather than a good one. The earth has certainly been warmer than it is now, and certainly it has been colder, too. Of the two, coldness is the greater threat to humanity, as is too little CO2, because of its highly beneficial effects on plant growth.

For the record, I am what is known as a lukewarmer. That is, I accept that greenhouse gases may have some effect on global temperatures, but nowhere near as much as touted by AGW supporters: certainly not enough for us to worry about. I believe we have ill-advisedly wasted billions that could have been used to address genuine environmental problems such as deforestation and species denudation, which, ironically, AGW-based policy is exacerbating.

It's my belief also that AGW is being promoted by people--a few of whom are climate scientists--who have a conscious or unconscious agenda: a misguided attempt to bring about world unity/government. I'd be in favour of that myself were it not both premature, and the methods being used, cack-handed and inappropriate. We're not yet ready for it--it can't be forced, must evolve naturally, and certainly can't be guided by fear-mongering.
 
Hi Michael, my part two response.
Aha! I hear you say, 'nuff said.
No. You didn't hear me say that either. :-) As I said before the "devil's in the details". Reading the paper helps. How conclusions are presented in "debates" and the media is not always (maybe rarely) what the peer-reviewed papers are actually about, be they pro or con AGW/CC theory/concerns.

So you mention my use of the term "self-evident". It seems to not be acceptable to you. I beg to differ. Take you referenced paper as an example http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full It says this:
Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists (IPCC, 2007a,2007b),
That's another example of "self-evident" in my book. That comment being made in this peer-reviewed Paper should make it even more obvious, and before Cook had finished High School?

The proportion of papers found in the ISI Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 2008).
However, is it not self-evident that there is a significant difference between 75% and 0% as well as 45% and 6% or not? Given that is not a one off in the field of published climate science papers since the 1950s. What is obvious to some people, is not obvious to others, especially the less well informed and those not involved in a particular field. The consensus is self-evident. It always has been. The consensus on an ~8 billion years old Universe is likewise self-evident not matter how many young earth Christians for a 8,000 year old universe/earth are surveyed by peer-reviewed research papers. They are still all outliers, deniers and skeptics of the scientific consensus. It is what it is.

However, if one looks closely, one will see what the paper you are referencing is actually about, which is not about the issue of "AGW consensus" at all.
"This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures." [...] we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

btw "Self-evident" means the following: adjective
not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious.
eg "self-evident truths"
synonyms: obvious, clear, plain, evident, apparent, manifest, patent; distinct, definite,transparent, overt, discernible, visible, conspicuous, palpable,
glaringly obvious, undisguised, unconcealed, unmistakable, unequivocal,unquestionable, undeniable
eg "the reason for this is self-evident"

In this case, the self-evident truth is that there is a glaringly obvious, manifest, undeniable scientific consensus regarding AGW/CC and the reason for this is self-evident. One only needs to go and look. :-)

I repeat that imo, the paper by Cook et al was not required. However they were doing that in their own 'defensive institutional work' regarding the increasing number of "dubious/outlier" opinions making it through the Peer-Reviewed system. They have a right to defend their positions of what is "self-evident" by adding some hard data to the mix. Now I quoted this before, but it is worth repeating. Cook was addressing inflated assertions, hyperbolic rhetoric, errors and repeated misrepresentations of the 'truth' such as these:
" presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). "
from http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...sessionid=DF543E5ABA79615EA2DD315B77D6FA61.c2

It's a pity when what Cook et al did is then misrepresented by both sides. One myth was replaced with another myth. Science and academia have a long way to go before they are deemed skillful in public outreach and communication of their art and work. But if people don't want to listen it limits the possibilities greatly, yes??? :-)
 
Michael if this really is your view
My contention is that neither of us has the skill to evaluate with complete certainty the truth or falsity of catastrophic AGW. Nor, I believe, does any so-called "expert".
Then I am pleased to announce that you are in 'perfect harmony' with ~99% of the 30,000 plus 'professionals and experts' active in the multi-disciplinary field of AGW/CC and general climate science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
There is no way you can convince me by mere assertion that your belief is correct and mine, incorrect.
Michael, I am not trying to convince you of anything. The only person who can change our beliefs is ourselves, not another. It's self-defeating to even try, imo.
and vice-versa (etc.)
Michael, feel free to speak for yourself. You cross a line when you imagine you can speak for me or assume you know what's going on inside my own head. Please don't do that. :-)
 
Hi Michael, my part two response.

No. You didn't hear me say that either. :) As I said before the "devil's in the details". Reading the paper helps. How conclusions are presented in "debates" and the media is not always (maybe rarely) what the peer-reviewed papers are actually about, be they pro or con AGW/CC theory/concerns.

So you mention my use of the term "self-evident". It seems to not be acceptable to you. I beg to differ. Take you referenced paper as an example http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full It says this:

That's another example of "self-evident" in my book. That comment being made in this peer-reviewed Paper should make it even more obvious, and before Cook had finished High School?


However, is it not self-evident that there is a significant difference between 75% and 0% as well as 45% and 6% or not? Given that is not a one off in the field of published climate science papers since the 1950s. What is obvious to some people, is not obvious to others, especially the less well informed and those not involved in a particular field. The consensus is self-evident. It always has been. The consensus on an ~8 billion years old Universe is likewise self-evident not matter how many young earth Christians for a 8,000 year old universe/earth are surveyed by peer-reviewed research papers. They are still all outliers, deniers and skeptics of the scientific consensus. It is what it is.

However, if one looks closely, one will see what the paper you are referencing is actually about, which is not about the issue of "AGW consensus" at all.


btw "Self-evident" means the following: adjective
not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious.
eg "self-evident truths"
synonyms: obvious, clear, plain, evident, apparent, manifest, patent; distinct, definite,transparent, overt, discernible, visible, conspicuous, palpable,
glaringly obvious, undisguised, unconcealed, unmistakable, unequivocal,unquestionable, undeniable
eg "the reason for this is self-evident"

In this case, the self-evident truth is that there is a glaringly obvious, manifest, undeniable scientific consensus regarding AGW/CC and the reason for this is self-evident. One only needs to go and look. :)

I repeat that imo, the paper by Cook et al was not required. However they were doing that in their own 'defensive institutional work' regarding the increasing number of "dubious/outlier" opinions making it through the Peer-Reviewed system. They have a right to defend their positions of what is "self-evident" by adding some hard data to the mix. Now I quoted this before, but it is worth repeating. Cook was addressing inflated assertions, hyperbolic rhetoric, errors and repeated misrepresentations of the 'truth' such as these:

from http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...sessionid=DF543E5ABA79615EA2DD315B77D6FA61.c2

It's a pity when what Cook et al did is then misrepresented by both sides. One myth was replaced with another myth. Science and academia have a long way to go before they are deemed skillful in public outreach and communication of their art and work. But if people don't want to listen it limits the possibilities greatly, yes??? :)

What the hell has consensus got to do with scientific truth? Consensuses are getting overturned all the time. There's a scientific consensus about materialism. Does that make it right? There was once a consensus that rejected plate tectonics, that doctors didn't need to wash their hands, that planes couldn't fly, that an ether existed, that the universe was eternal, that stomach ulcers weren't caused by bacteria, that there were no such things as jumping genes, that most DNA was junk...on and on.

Consensus means diddly squat. I'd go so far as to say it's a mechanism--constructed by groups of like-minded people--to maintain their hegemony and create a comforting sense of stability and order; and to enable the hoi-polloi, by aligning with it, to bask in a borrowed sense of superiority.

My sense is that there's actually a lot more dissent about catastrophic AGW than is generally recognised. What's more, anyone dissenting publicly is liable to get into trouble, so God knows how many say nothing, but when they do, have to be very careful to at least appear to be towing the line. If consensuses didn't have teeth, one wonders how much more public dissent there might be.

Anyway, I've said all I'm going to say and we'll just have to agree to differ.
 
Michael, I am not trying to convince you of anything. The only person who can change our beliefs is ourselves, not another. It's self-defeating to even try, imo.

Michael, feel free to speak for yourself. You cross a line when you imagine you can speak for me or assume you know what's going on inside my own head. Please don't do that. :)

I wasn't going to say any more, but I have a question: what is your position on catastrophic AGW? Do you accept it, or do you not?
 
Then there's the use of resources, pollution, the animals and plants we've made extinct etc which are all linked to this debate - it's not just whether our activities are changing the climate.
that's the problem... i.e. they are not linked to this debate... you've just been bamboozled into thinking they are. I'm not saying these issues aren't incredibly important... just that they don't have anything to do with the phony 97% at the top of the NASA site.

most folks (like Rick) who buy into the "linked to this debate" meme say something like: "well, these poor well-intentioned scientists, who are, after all, trying to save the planet, are battling these really nasty deniers so they have to stretch the truth in order to get their point across and win the debate," but this is dangerous thinking. it can (and has) been used to justify the worst of human behavior. better to just follow the data... even if it always leads to a conspiracy :)
 
that's the problem... i.e. they are not linked to this debate... you've just been bamboozled into thinking they are. I'm not saying these issues aren't incredibly important... just that they don't have anything to do with the phony 97% at the top of the NASA site.

most folks (like Rick) who buy into the "linked to this debate" meme say something like: "well, these poor well-intentioned scientists, who are, after all, trying to save the planet, are battling these really nasty deniers so they have to stretch the truth in order to get their point across and win the debate," but this is dangerous thinking. it can (and has) been used to justify the worst of human behavior. better to just follow the data... even if it always leads to a conspiracy :)

Hey Alex

I've been getting this comment from climate change skeptics and I'll give you the same response I gave them - just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I can't think for myself or that I've been 'tricked'.

I think they are linked, for example even if you don't think the data that emissions cause the climate to change is compelling, you surely agree that they cause pollution and that that's a bad thing?

I am also intrigued as to what bad human behaviour you might think will happen as a result of pro climate change narrative/scientists?

Cheers!

Roberta
 
Hey Alex

I've been getting this comment from climate change skeptics and I'll give you the same response I gave them - just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I can't think for myself or that I've been 'tricked'.

I think they are linked, for example even if you don't think the data that emissions cause the climate to change is compelling, you surely agree that they cause pollution and that that's a bad thing?

I am also intrigued as to what bad human behaviour you might think will happen as a result of pro climate change narrative/scientists?

Cheers!

Roberta
this is a re-run of the show... pls tell me how you explain the 97% thing on the NASA page?
 
I have a question: what is your position on catastrophic AGW? Do you accept it, or do you not?
That may depend on what you actually mean by "catastrophic AGW". You'll need to define what you believe that is.
Frankly, I don't see such questions or the answers very useful to anyone. To me it's like asking "how long is a piece of string?" And then, do I think it's too long or too short.
Well it depends. :-) Do you see what I mean by that and why it matters in discussions about such complex issues as AGW/CC, the data and the science about it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
What the hell has consensus got to do with scientific truth? Consensuses are getting overturned all the time.
I thought I addressed that well enough in my comment related to Galileo. Yes, taking the long view, "Consensuses are getting overturned all the time." Like the Nobel winning Australian scientists who overturned the consensus on what causes 99% of stomach ulcers. Now there is a "new consensus" about that. Ulcers were being caused by a specific bacteria so now doctors use antibiotics to treat that condition. That's the Consensus today!
So, "What the hell has consensus got to do with scientific truth?" Almost everything, that's what. :)

But be very clear about this point. The hard science comes first. The consensus comes second, and not the other way around. Even Einstein was ridiculed at first. Then came the "consensus" that he was, well shit, actually right! Additional hard science by others proved he was right. The atomic bomb proved he was right. Cause and effect, yeah? Mathematics, yes? :)

There is a very specific reason why there is an overwhelming consensus on AGW/CC issues today. It's called the Science of it. There is not a consensus because there is a consensus. Scientists do not go and get research grants on CC because there is a consensus. That's a Myth. Nor due to a global ideological conspiracy among climate scientists, greenies, anarchists, nor corporations and finance. That's another Myth. They get those grants and write papers on AGW/CC science because of the state of the Science - more data and research is needed because The Science says so.

The Science indicates there is a problem here. This is how the scientific method works. It has always challenged the existing consensus' and the lack of knowledge then "it" aka the individual scientists in a field proceeded to bring to life a new better consensus and understanding of "what is". Einstein himself (if my memory is correct) ridiculed/questioned the validity of quantum theory and mechanics as well. Today some of his early 20th century beliefs/opinions would be seen as a total lunacy. I suspect that Einstein would have accepted the new consensus on this as well as astrophysics today. And have a big smile on his face about the Gravity Waves he has "predicted" a 100 years before. :)

There's a scientific consensus about materialism.... (plate tectonics, hand washing, that planes couldn't fly etc.) Does that make it right?
From the scientific point of view, yes, it does make it right, for now. But that "consensus" (if it exists) has absolutely nothing to do with AGW/CC science. The studies and state of the science on Consciousness also has nothing to do with AGW/CC science. The opinion of an opthamologist has absolutely no bearing on the treatment of brain tumors or climate science either. In the very same way your beliefs and opinions about AGW/CC science Michael, has absolutely no bearing on the existing consensus of the Climate Scientists and the state of the science, nor if it is right or wrong or half right. Disagree all you wish, but you will have no effect upon "what is".

My sense is that there's actually a lot more dissent about catastrophic AGW than is generally recognised.
OK, but what the hell has your sense got to do with scientific truth? Please explain that.

There is nothing stopping you from doing the research of your choosing and then Publishing your own peer-reviewed paper on the topic. If it is really good, those in the field of AGW/CC will read it and then reference your paper in their own Papers. You could even become as famous as other Nobel Prize winners in Science and change the world as a result. You only need to correct the errors of the past. You could even create a whole new Consensus on AGW/CC Science in the process.

Until then ..... Be cheerful and strive to be happy. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesus said:
This comment is just to thank you for all that I’ve learned from you, the RC Team, and specially Gavin Schmidt (NASA). At first I thought I was learning about climate science. But then, after years of reading you (also SkepticalScience, Tamino, Annan & Hargreaves…) and fighting the denialists, I had a daughter and my interests gradually shifted from climate to, initially fetal medicine, then pediatrics and nutrition, and now even economics. I bumped into parenting philosophies, alternative medicine, anti-vaccine movements, the Austrian School, the Modern Monetary Theory… And it wasn’t that hard for me to distinguish evidence from speculation; logic from fallacies; expertise from quackery.

This way I realised that I had learned a lot more than I thought at RealClimate. I had a new mental framework and skills to understand how the world works, when a model does fit facts, and to delimit the things we don’t know. All of you, academics in any field that spend time disseminating science to the laypersons; fighting science denial, prejudices and stupidity; exposing yourselves to personal attacks, slander, defamation and inquiries, all of you are damned heroes that are making the world a better place, by making the people think better.

For all this, thank you very much. Thank you, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Rasmus Benestad, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Steig, David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert, William Connolley, Jim Bouldin and the rest of the contributors. I hope life brings you all the best of the best.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/04/unforced-variations-apr-2016/#comment-649301 - *Twinkle*
 
The trouble I have with the climate "science" is that in order to get the point across it has to make things extremely complicated and use exceptionally convoluted statistical methods to prove their point. A while ago I bought The Hockey Stick Illusion, the book that addresses one of the central concepts in this science, the one that demonstrates that the current temperature increase since the beginning of the 20th Century is like never before. For that they took some tree samples and put the data through the statistical mincer and came up with the "proof". The problem is that the stats is so complex that I lost the direction within 10 pages. When someone with enough patience and time eventually sits down and goes through the methodology he invariably finds the whole theory to be an absolute bullshit. And that only the beginning. Vast majority of dire predictions did not materialise, from rising sea levels to the point of global floods to continuous droughts and other misery, most weather models turned out to be wrong most of the time. Lastly, the exploring the feasibility of investigating anyone who questions climate change science by the Attorney General Loretta Lynch - prodded by the Senator Sheldon Whitehouse - sheds light on how real this science is.

If the effect of human activity on the climate is so great as to cause significant increase in temperature it should be demonstrable without the need of resorting to complicated data massage to show it. I am not buying the "we are experts and you're not educated enough to understand" adage.

Another telltale sign that climate science as it stands now is bullshit is exactly the consensus that is touted by the politicians and journalists. Science does not work by consensus. To the contrary, it works by arguing opposite points of views and addressing controversies. Currently the debate - the hallmark of true science - is absent. Express doubt and instead of being called the opponent of the theory you're marked with the derogatory "denier".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top