Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by denverpilot, Aug 8, 2017.
GTFO! Climate changes?
Also note the title:
Also, the research paper itself also allows for some MMGW, within the range of the various models (and there is a lot of variation between the models)
In addition, a Google search shows both authors of that paper questionable in their bias and qualifications on the subject. It seems that Jennifer is known and ignored in Australia and John is pretty much of little note. However, that doesn't mean that they don't have a point, or their conclusions might not be valid. Clearly they have published and clearly others have read, or will read what they have published. It's up to their peers and experts to validate their findings, not so much the court of popular, or unpopular opinion.
Yes and if you like that graph you can read their book (edited by Randy). $1.99 on Amazon right now.
Basically, I prefer science for future climate predictions. Anybody with a computer can make a graph with colors. People have looked at it. People have debunked it. Use Google, there is plenty of info about these guys. Both debunking and laughter as well as far right websites that hold it up as truth that the Libtards are running a conspiracy.
In one of the other threads, a common view that is being expressed is the one that says "I don't care what you do or what you believe, as long as it isn't hurting other people." The issue of MMGW is a perfect example of why that libertarian approach doesn't work. We have politicians who are chomping at the bit to enact burdensome restrictions on people's lives because everyone on the planet is now a threat to the future of humanity. Their persuasive power lies in what Science can influence people to believe. Anyone who thinks that the whole Climate Change argument is simply science following the evidence isn't being honest about history, or the highly charged political atmosphere in which it operates.
Cap'n Jack, you can believe whatever you want to about MMGW, but science is fallible. Sometimes the assumptions are wrong and sometimes the models are wrong. And sometimes, those outside of science can see more clearly than those on the inside. Man doesn't always recognize his motivations and even those in science can fall prey to the herd mentality. I personally remained unconvinced. When Al Gore, De Caprio, and others like them preach one thing and live another, I am led to believe that they really aren't convinced either.
One can also have arguments that there are politicians chomping at the bit to reduce restrictions to allow industries improve their profit margins by allowing them to dump industrial waste into the ground, water or air. The persuasive power of a politician isn't in science, but in their personality and their ability to speak. Politicians usually say anything to get elected. It seems you fear the change to your lifestyle from people over-reacting without sufficient data, and that is a valid worry. Some people do go too far.
When do those outside of science see better than those inside? When have scientists fallen into a "herd mentality"? The blog you cited is actually evidence against a herd mentality since they posit that most global warming is natural. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal which suggests people took their work seriously.
Also, Al Gore et al are actors and politicians. They speak to "their base" like any politician or actor. One might argue that, when some Christians preach one thing and do another, they aren't convinced of Christianity either. However, MMGW isn't a religion. It is merely a best guess based on available knowledge of what our climate might be at some point in the future. The bad models will fall out of the range of actual climate data and will either be corrected or discarded.
You're right and if it weren't for the politics, I wouldn't really care at all. But, MMGW is seen as a tremendous opportunity for those who want to bring about cultural change that I do greatly fear. Not so much for myself, but for the pain that will necessarily accompany it.
But, to answer your question, a couple of things come to mind offhand. One is the big-bang. Another is the Cambrian explosion, and one more recently in the news is soft tissue being found well preserved in dinosaur fossils. The appendix's role in preserving gut flora, Haekle's embryo distortion, and "junk" DNA not being junk are others. I'm sure you can go through and find the dissenting voice to each of these, but in general they were accepted science at one time.
One more point just from a logical standpoint, a herd mentality doesn't necessarily exclude all others. It's presence isn't exclusive, so to point to an exception is not sufficient to disprove its existence.
It would help if you describe your problem with these.
Big Bang? That's just the current best model we have for the origin of the universe. Scientists are well aware of its limitations such as the horizon problem, magnetic monopole problem, flatness problem, for which they created a "patch" called inflationary theory. Dark energy and dark matter, and baryon asymmetry are also some problems in modern science related to the big bang theory. There's a Nobel prize waiting for someone with a better theory.
Cambrian explosion? As far as I know, that is merely in observation that by the fossil record, lots of different, more complex, life forms appeared in a relatively short time where there were simpler forms prior to that. What is your problem with that?
Soft tissue being well preserved in dinosaur fossils? Again, what's the problem with that? It was thought that it wouldn't survive such a long time, and the fossils found supported that thought. That is, until they found some particularly well-preserved fossils that apparently did have soft tissue remnants. The scientists involved with those fossils had to demonstrate the tissues were actually really associated with the bones and weren't part of another biological process. Such fossils aren't very common and have actually been found for some time. Those fossils are the basis for changing the dinosaurs from what appeared to be large lizards to animals with coloration , including some with feathers.
Appendix's role in preserving gut flora? I'm not familiar with this.
Haekle's embryo distortion? That really doesn't makes your point. His drawings were questioned at the beginning, and have been continued to be questioned through the modern times. His recapitulation theory for biological systems hasn't been accepted since the 1970's, if not earlier. His drawings have been questioned from the days that anyone with a microscope could look at the embryos in question and see the differences in the drawings, and since the days of photography, the correct images have been published.
Actually, look in the paper references (link to the paper from the blog), as the authors cite other papers (some very recent) and models that support their hypothesis. They also cite models that support their range of predictions their simulation creates. They couldn't do so if there were such a herd mentality
There is actually more of a herd mentality about science with the average citizen. What is taught is school is merely a scratch of the surface of any subject. It has to be, since learning about any subject in detail would reduce the time needed to learn about other subjects needed to live in a complex machine society. Likewise the popular press (over)simplifies things as well. To see the discussion, one really needs to look at the original papers and not a summary from someone on either side who takes the subject matter out of context (and sometimes needs to do so due to time or space limitations). One needs to go back to the original published articles to see the discussion that created (and still shapes) theories.
This is one of the reasons why I support the call for an open debate on the science of climate change that fairly allows both consensus scientists and the more skeptical ones to explain their positions and the basis for them in an open, public forum. Essentially the red team/blue team approach. It would need to be presided over by an impartial organization, perhaps the AGU or the AAAS, and interpreted for the public by qualified science reporters -- people of the caliber of Dennis Overbye (to name only one), and with a variety of viewpoints (e.g. Matt Ridley and his ilk to balance the views of the Chris Mooneys). But in the end, I think the public would have a better picture of which parts of the science have the strongest support in the data and where the open questions still lie.
You're missing my point, it isn't simply that there were flaws in the theories. You asked when those outside science could see more clearly, and I listed instances where the prevailing theories pointed in the wrong direction. A direction that others with different assumptions could see was likely to be wrong.
You want to respond that the science eventually corrected itself with better data and it is acting exactly the way it supposed to. But that doesn't negate what I'm saying. It seems that you agree that the popular theories can be wrong at times, I am saying that that understanding can be applied to the present time. When politicians start acting on the science of the moment and attempting to incite panic, the population is right to be skeptical and to say slow down.
I don't have time to go through all of them but I will expand on Haeckel's embryo. Attempts were made at the time to popularize Darwin's theory of evolution. Haeckel was described as a "primary enthusiast and popularizer"* of evolutionary theory. In his attempts to convince the public, he exaggerated and manipulated the images of the embryos to fit into the prevailing theory that he was trying to advance. There were disputes and I'm sure many scientist were skeptical, but his fraudulent drawings gained enough acceptance to be included into science textbooks and remained there for decades. I have my old biology book downstairs, and I'm quite certain his embryos are included. That means that almost 100 years later, the bad science was still being taught.
Add to the list the Piltdown Hoax. It was accepted for 40 years, and according to Wikipedia, it led science down a dead end road and resulted in other artifacts being ignored.
"The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution. Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils such as the Taung child found by Raymond Dart during the 1920s in South Africa were ignored due to the support for Piltdown Man as "the missing link," and the reconstruction of human evolution was confused for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown Man caused a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers written on the topic."
I don't have a problem with acting on the best data that we have at the time. But it needs to be with humility and the understanding that it could be wrong.
*https://books.google.com/books?id=M... "primary enthusiast and popularizer"&f=false
I agree. But what do you think is the likelihood of that happening? Its hard not to get the impression that the opposite is occurring.
That's the problem @azure ... Anthony Watts and his associates have tried repeatedly for many years to set up debates with the top climate scientists in the world. They always turn him down, or if by luck one is scheduled, they never show up. I've watched this "dancing around the facts" charade go on for years with Schmidt, Mann, Hansen, and other so-called climatologists. What are they afraid of?
Geez... had to go back and edit a name or two. Seems a couple of those guys I mentioned that were initially adamant climate change proponents, have now since changed their theories and are publishing papers against the climate change debacle. I guess they found out the truth.
Which others? Wrong in what way?
I think you mean acting on incomplete information or pandering to whoever will vote them into office. Politicians will act on information that has been proven false so long as they get the support of people.
You actually just proved my point about the herd mentality of the general public rather than the scientists. The textbooks aren't written by the scientists, at the high school level. You know there were (and probably still are) textbooks that claim Columbus discovered America (the people living here would have been surprised by that, as would be the Norse). There are still biology textbooks used in the USA that only mention creationism, and have no mention of the big-bang theory or evolution- the text on this subject hasn't been updated from before World War 1. That "prevailing theory", evolution, still is generally accepted although Haeckel's contribution is no longer considered part of the theory and that probably hindered removal of that material from texts.
Such a fraud would be much more difficult to pull off today. If nothing else, analysis of the DNA between the different parts would expose the fraud very quickly, in addition to other molecular biology techniques. That fraud made scientists much more skeptical, but the fraud was discovered, exposed, and the corrections applied. It took some time, but remember the fraud occurred at an early point in the research of evolution, when there wasn't much evidence to indicate a fraud was happening.
No argument there.
Yep, he wrote books for the general public. But those books didn't influence other scientists much who had access to more data.
I hope your threshold for proof demands a higher standard in your scientific endeavors than in argument!
I'm not sure how you think it proves your point though. My initial statement acknowledged that the herd mentality exists, my point was that it also exists in the science community. By saying that it exists outside of science is to only restate what has already been said, it doesn't provide any proof of your argument that I can see. To refute my claim you would have to demonstrate that it doesn't exist inside, not just that it exists outside.
It was in my college textbook, and my wife's as well. Seems like quite the cop out to say that science isn't responsible for this. One of my college roomates' father wrote mathematics textbooks, I'm pretty sure he was a mathematician.
You seem to still be under the delusion that the exceptions somehow disprove the rule. I doubt anyone with a public education over the last 30 years or so has learned biology from a textbook that taught only creationism or failed to mention evolution. My children are being educated at a Classical Christian Academy, and in that school, there is more information not less in regards to the current theories out there. I wouldn't say it doesn't exist, but I have never seen it. If there is some element that chooses to totally ignore modern cosmology and evolutionary theory, they are not statistically significant enough to be considered representative.
So when given given an example the demonstrates the point that I initially made, your response is to say that it couldn't happen today? Your excuse is that Evolutionary theory was in its early stages so that it made fraud more possible that it would be now. Well, I would suggest that climate science is in its early stages as well. If that is what made it possible in evolution, why does that not apply to Climate Science?
Haeckel was a scientist. He operated within the realm of science and he had the support of others within the scientific community. Others covered for him or were easily duped in to believing his fraud. This is an example of herd mentality existing within the scientific community. I'm not sure if you are referring to Gould or Haeckel but I can link to Gould's own assessment of this hoax and science's complicity in it. I'm honestly not real sure what point you're making with this. Taking science public doesn't mean it is no longer science.
Actually, I did provide evidence that there is less herd mentality within the sciences, from your own reference. Follow the link back to the journal article (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/ ) and you will find recent references used to support their paper. They claim there is little MM about MMGW and cite recent papers and models to support their claim. Azblackbird just claimed that some unnamed scientists changed their mind about MMGW- again, this doesn't support a herd mentality.
However, my point is that the general public often have a herd mentality since they really don't have the time, resources, or education to look at the original papers to see how the debate actually played out. School books often lag the science by many years. Maybe "mentality" is the wrong word, but many people tend not to question what they learned when younger.
Perhaps you are older than I thought, or it is listed and an example theory that is no longer considered supportive of evolution. I know my p-chem book listed "anomalous water" as an example of how science reacts to an announcement of great discovery and either confirms or denies it. Many experiments initially confirmed the results until other experiments showed it was an artifact of the tools they were using. It took about 3 or 4 years for the experiments to show "water II" didn't really exist. Likewise, my organic chem text shows pictures of benzene with alternating full single and double bonds as well as the accepted resonance structure. It would be helpful to image your book to better understand the context for those pictures. There is little question about math. 2+2 = 4 always,
Actually, exceptions can disprove a rule, depending on how the "rule" are written or how the items in a set were defined. Showing a single example of a crow of any other color (including grey) is sufficient to disprove the "rule" that states "all crows are black". There are, unfortunately, a number of schools in LA and TN that teach only creationism. This does their students a disservice in that they less able to support their beliefs and what they learned.
First, the fraud made people much more sensitive to the possibility of "pwned". Do you really feel people can't learn from the past? Secondly, your suggestion that climate science is in it's infancy is incorrect. From your own reference (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/): This sensitivity may have been grossly overestimated by Svante Arrhenius more than 120 years ago, hardly an infant science.
Remember your private pilot ground school? They discussed climate patterns such as trade winds, the intratropical convergence zone and so forth? The pictures showing general wind movement (below) shows the Hadley cell on either side of the equator- Hadley published this in 1735, building on a model by Edmond Halley. this was further refined by William Ferrel in the 1800's (Ferrel cells). So climate science is hardly in its infancy. These theories are used to explain the location of many deserts, the ICZ, trade winds, doldrums, and many other climate features.
This is getting a little tedious, but I will press a little further in order to provide some clarity. Maybe we are simply misunderstanding each others positions, but it seems as if you are responding to my comments as you wish to read them.
You are selective in your application of logic as you are attempting to apply consistency to my argument that you have failed to apply to your own. If this was a Lincoln/Douglas debate in high school, I would now say " you have made my point for me"!
Yes, as I mentioned in the first paragraph of my previous post, the burden of proof is on those who have made a negative claim. In this discussion, it is you who have taken the position of a negative claim. It is simply a distraction to keep pointing out that there is a herd mentality among the general population. I acknowledged that in my previous post, it is you who are denying that it exists in science. Whether it is more or less prevalent outside of science is irrelevant.
Let me summarize it as I see it:
1) All people are subject to bias (herd mentality or whatever description you wish).
2) Scientist are people.
3) Scientist are subject to bias (herd mentality).
Your attempts to defend science from this charge have put you in the position of trying to prove a negative. In this case, yes, one example will disprove your rule. I provided several examples of where bias affected the science. Therefore, I need go no further to make my point. Your shift to saying it is less common in science further admits my point that it does indeed exist.
The general herd mentality is important since you have mentioned several times that it is the politicians who are taking potentially un-needed, damaging action, and that worries you. We both agree that the politicians will do/say anything to get elected, so they will speak to their "herd". That herd is not the scientists. There aren't enough of them to affect an election, and they have very little voice. Hollywood people, as you noted, have a much larger voice.
The argument I see from you is that the scientists have a bias, and that bias leads an incorrect result. That's like saying that since Haeckel was wrong, and many people followed that his writings, that evolutionary theory should be discarded. And you haven't even convinced me that a bias exists, but have merely said it does. I showed you where it didn't (in MMGW, your own citation), and also with Haeckel.
Now how about a discussion about the science instead of the personalities involved?
And how about voting out politicians who pander to the herd/polls instead of doing their own research?
No, its like saying that Science has been wrong before and it will likely be wrong again.
That has actually been the point that several people have tried to make in this thread. Science isn't an infallible, pristine, or incorruptible entity that somehow remains above the temptations that others face. The overwhelming political push to enact legislation and the money that flows from it cannot be ignored. I don't think all science is corrupt. But the regular folks out there (like me) would have a lot more confidence in it if they were more honest about their failures and the internal disputes. And, they made a better effort to distance themselves from the media hysteria. You seem to define science a lot more narrowly than I do, so maybe it refines itself the deeper it gets (to some degree).
But science, politics and media have joined together in a way that gives many people a cause for concern. Science has been popularized and politicized, and it often appeals directly to the lay people through PBS and the Discovery Chanel, people like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. We are now exposed to it in a way that we weren't previously, science now has its own celebrities. Perhaps they are more disconnected than it seems, but I don't think so.
I'll let it go at that. I'm not a scientist, I'll leave it to others to discuss it with you on those points. As to voting out the politicians, if you can find me a politician who doesn't pander, let me know. I 'd like to meet him.
Is this over already?...I just came back from refilling my popcorn bag. (Kidding!)
All you really have to do is follow the exceptionally long Climate Change (formerly Global Warming) money trail. Not very far along this path you'll come to the crossroads where politicians and scientists intersect. The fact these two paths intersect at all should be a huge red flag IMO.
Today's high temp was lower than that of the past few weeks. Crisis averted.
I never said that science was infallible, nor pristine, nor incorruptible. The big-bang theory is flawed, but it is the best model we have for now. I even told you where it was flawed. The current climate models are many and varied, and time will shake out which make reasonable predictions. As for the internal disputes, I've pointed you several times to look at the original papers. Your own citation explains why they feel other citations are incorrect in their methods and conclusions. Go beyond the blogs, see the original papers. Most of the scientists doing the real work really don't involve themselves with the media.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson was terrible, he was no Carl Sagan in his version of Cosmos. Carl and Stephen made real contributions to science. Neil did some numbers refinement at best (Hubble constant). But Popular Science, Scientific American, National Geographic, and Popular Psychology have also been around for a long time (over 100 years for some of those) and brought science to the general public. Also Tyson, in using hurricane Harvey as evidence for global warming, is confusing weather for climate.
I think anyone truly qualified to be a part of running the country just won't do it because they don't want to deal with the BS of the career politicians nor the special interest groups.
Want to be the first scientist billionaire? Find proof that MMGW doesn't exist, knock on Exon/Mobile's door and say: "Here, pay me and I'll publish this.".
The money trail argument is really getting old. Yes, there's money, but there's money on both sides.
I have heard that sort of thing from meteorologists within the last two years though, that we are at the point where we can ascribe individual weather events to climate change. IIRC that statement was made about Superstorm Sandy. I've never understood that and don't see how it is possible even in principle. Certainly not for storms for which historical precedents exist. Even individual events several standard deviations from those seen in an average year have always been possible, and indeed have occurred, e.g. Hurricane Camille. The statistical nature of weather makes it imho impossible to say that any single storm or meteorological disaster was CAUSED by climate change.
BTW I think "terrible" is going a little far... Sagan's original Cosmos was a classic, but I thought Tyson's version was a worthy update. Besides, though Tyson was the narrator, my understanding is that most of the material was due to Ann Druyan, who indeed was the producer for the series. Druyan was Sagan's wife and also co-wrote the original Cosmos.
I guess we'll agree to disagree. Maybe "terrible" is a bit far, but it surely wasn't the original. Tyson had some huge shoes to fill and probably would have been far more successful with an entirely new show instead of the one he did.
Hate it too when anybody does that. Every time you tie a particular storm or hot day to global warming, you're legitimizing people on the other side who says: "But it snowed today, so global warming doesn't exist".
I'm not saying it was unavailable, but less available . With the exception of NG, which I wouldn't consider scientific, the others targeted a smaller demographic and was probably subscription based. Go to a Barnes and Noble and look in the science section, its full of "physics made easy", "quantum physics demystified", etc. Usually, the front display has a whole host of the "---in 30 seconds" type offerings which targets the very average Joe. I find all kinds of cool stuff on Amazon Prime that is science that just gives the surface level explanations to keep it interesting. (Designed for those of us who will quickly lose interest when the math shows up.)
And now you can add the Podcasts, which is taking it to a whole new level of casually interested people. Jordan Peterson is now taking his sociology/psychology university level curriculum to the masses through his podcast. I'm certain others will follow, if they haven't already.
Anyway, it seems like science is cool now. I don't remember it being that way before.
Edit: Another thing is what is available to kids now. My kids are like little encyclopedias, always reciting facts and stats from shows they watch. All I had was Looney Tunes, World Book Encyclopedia and Ranger Rick.
Funny that this is being discussed here. I was at a local watering hole last night and a couple of guys next to me were discussing Harvey and global warming.
First guy stated that Harvey is proof of global warming due to its size and power and that it is the strongest storm to hit US in a decade or more.
Second Guy retorted that Havey is the only major hurricane (Cat 3+) to hit the US in a decade so how could global warming be true. If Harvey is a result of global warming, wouldn't we have had more major storms?
They went on and on with each bringing up one weather event after another to prove his side of the argument.
Global warming? Maybe... probably. All I know is the beer was cold.
Jalopnik used to be on my daily reading list, they had a lot of great articles on there and the writing was good. In the last year or so, particularly after the whole Gawker meltdown, I read it less and less and the articles have been weaker and weaker and have a greater and greater political Bend. If I want to read politics there are literally thousands of sites for that, Jalopnik used to be just a good car, truck, and overall gearhead place to go. Oh well
Yep, but that point is lost on so many people...
It is important that we are are all shepherds of the earth, don't waste and pollutr, and all that good stuff. But I think the whole global warming and climate change obsession now is unfortunately becoming more just a political tool for people to either get ahead somewhere or to make a couple dollars
Yeah, he definitely had huge shoes to fill. I thought he did a decent job with the material he was given, but it wasn't the groundbreaking, visionary series that the original was. Of course it couldn't be, Sagan was one of a kind.
I loved the original Cosmos. I remember, as a grad student, checking his statements about relativity making it possible to circumnavigate the visible universe in a single human lifetime (proper time, of course). I didn't really know how to do the calculation within special relativity since the traveler's reference frame would be accelerated, but made the simplest assumption - treated the frame as "instantaneously inertial" and just did the integral, and got the same answer as Sagan did. It was a definite, "oh yeah, how about that?" moment.
There's been no evidence that money doesn't affect the outcomes yet, so as a science exercise, it's probably time to call up an social economist and ask them to check.
Give them all the numbers. All public and private payments to all climate scientists, and let them build a case for or against corruption.
That... would be some interesting science. Not that most of the scientists would agree and hand over their fiscal information to another scientist for testing the theory. A large percentage would have science stop before it was allowed to look into their wallet.
So... "Getting old"... so what? Prove or disprove. Science.
FWIW, most papers in peer-reviewed journals list the funding sources. You'll find them at the end of the paper, like the one from Cooter's reference below (easiest to grab). It doesn't say how much money was spent. I think NIH and some of the other agencies list their grant recipients and their intended research, I used to use such lists to see who had grant money to burn to buy equipment. It's not perfect, but it helps to show potential bias or conflicts of interest. There may be papers that don't require this sort of disclosure, but I'm not familiar with them.
The biggest example of herd mentality the world has ever seen is all the world's numerous organized religions over the ages. What I like about science is it gives us all a chance to question. We can open our minds to other possibilities and then go and test to see it it's true or not.
Scientists can fall prey to herd mentality, but unlike others, they have the mindset and the training to question the herd. Some may be lazy and comfortable and not question, but others will not because questioning is in their very core nature. Many want to know the truth and will question the status quo if it just doesn't fit the data.
I agree with most of this. But I would say the herd mentality affects science most in the realm of meta-narratives.
How about the money trail from oil companies to climate change "skeptics"? Is anyone looking at that? Or is money only capable of affecting one side? And who has a bigger financial stake in the outcome of the debate than oil companies?
Big Oil need to ask for their money back. That's a poor investment if I've ever seen one.
I get monthly commission checks from Exxon, Marathon, Devon, Koch Oil, Continental Resources and several others to be a consummate global warming "denier". Little did I know I was caught up in some sort of a huge mega-conspiracy, when I found out that many of those very same oil companies I received my checks from, were investing their profits and research technologies into solar/wind farms and other alternative forms of energy. I am so torn and upset I don't know what to do. Should I tell them to quite sending me checks? Am I taking the devil's money?
How about the money trail from oil companies funding anti nuclear and pro solar/wind.
The oil guys knew where the real threat to their bottom line was and it will never be wind or solar.
Pffftt... some day the oil will dry up and everybody knows it, or they should.
That doesn't tell us anything at all about whether there are oil companies that support the spreading of misinformation on the subject. Are you saying that it's safe to assume that only one side is capable of being affected by financial interests?