Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by steingar, Feb 17, 2014.
Learn something every day - or hope to.
Great - thanks.
The false dichotomy of "kinds" of science by Ham was by far his weakest "argument".
So you don't have a link? If not, can you at least provide the date the Guardian published it? Otherwise, it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Do you find the explanations unsatisfactory? If so, why?
As for the amount of money spent defending themselves, that has no effect on whether their explanations are valid or not.
Do you have any reason to believe that the 1% published by the Guardian are unrepresentative?
I haven't seen all of the email excerpts that have been claimed to prove that there was something wrong going on, but the ones I have seen only make the case if you interpret them in a manner consistent with the belief that there is something wrong going on; in other words, by circular reasoning.
That the explanations occurred "after-the-fact" has no effect on whether the explanations are valid or not. And how does one respond to criticisms before the criticisms are made?
Is this the needle you seek?
And the issue I was getting at was that, according to the article linked earlier in the thread, this was a result of external pressure that was applied by an industry that didn't like what a scientist was saying.
I certainly don't think that scientists are perfect, but the fact that they can be pressured by external forces does not invalidate the premise that they would rather pursue the truth.
There has probably never been a time in history when scientists haven't disagreed with each other, so it seems obvious that one shouldn't automatically believe something merely because a scientist says it. That's one reason why they are expected to publish not only their conclusions, but their methods of reaching those conclusions as well, so that others can judge for themselves whether their conclusions are supported by the data, and can see whether it is possible to independently repeat the observations and get the same data.
That looks like the one. Thanks!
What damaged their credibility was a persistent propaganda campaign funded largely by commercial interests.
Exactly. Science is settled on this. But the science is bad for some large companies so a massive effort is created to discredit and counter. Every statement written is gone over and any and all apparent inconsistencies are brought up in an effort to cast negative light on the whole issue.
Right leaning media supports and promotes and you end up with pilots on forums saying, 'well...it's cold here', or, 'the science is settled', or, 'so what? Earth goes through changes', or, 'no proof it was man made'.
Failing to grasp that its pretty obvious if you release the carbon that the earth took millions of years to store in the ground over night into the atmosphere it's gonna have repercussions. Also, even if you take cause away...so what? If the oceans rise 15 feet that's gonna be a real problem. Also, we need current weather patterns to remain to make our farm investments work or million (billions?) will starve.
This is one where we really should all get behind our scientists and do what they say...even if it costs a little money.
They say to eat margarine. Bon appetit.
And shouldn't we fix the global cooling problem we had in the 1970's first?
Science has been settled on a lot of things that later turned out to be incorrect.
That's simply not an argument for anything other than scientists have in the past been proven wrong. Which is trivially true and not in contention.
Do you think it means anything more than that?
This little straw man keeps popping up in these conversations. Just for the record, the idea of global cooling was never widely accepted by the science community. Even in the 70s there was more concern over the possibility of global warming than global cooling.
Deniers keep throwing this out there as an example of how generally accepted science, especially in the fields of climate study, have been wrong before. And you know what, there have been plenty of missteps along any path of scientific inquiry. But global cooling wasn't one of them. It was suggested by some, doubted by most, and ultimately shown to be false.
The moment people start talking about majorities and consensus, there's precisely one science where "consensus" means anything...political science. There is no physical science that depends on any type of consensus.
Other terms that set off "politics" alarm bells are things like "deniers". It was deniers that took the time to document the US Historical Climatology Network of monitoring stations and show that they put thermometers over top of air conditioning units, and build parking lots around them, and wondered why the temperature went up.
It's deniers who note the fact that there has been no warming for 17 years now (and counting). It's deniers that point out that 90% of climate models over-estimate the amount of warming when compared to observations, the vast majority of those models overestimate warming considerably:
It is deniers who aren't members of organized religion.
Hmmm... I wonder why you never post any similar observations when your compatriots use terms like "alarmists", "tree huggers", and "climate whores"?
If you still have to ask "So what?" I don't know if I can dumb it down any further.
Because none of it is science. It's pure politics and rent-seeking.
I like how you ignored the facts there (you know how the models don't match reality) and just went to the political side there. Thanks for providing another data point.
When did time travelers start sending us data from 2028?
You'll note the "data" lines stop in 2013, the model lines run out to 2028.
Looks to me like the models are too warm but the overall trend is still upwards. I'd like to see a few more years of data points before I decide if this is a local maximum. Crossing the temps in 1983 on the way down would be an excellent indication of this.
Ahhh...but the science is settled. No need to wait, just pour trillions of dollars into fixing the problem.
See the models prove that we're all gonna die! ("Models prove" is another phrase that indicates that it's not science BTW.)
And Jeff, "I like how you" answered my question. You lambast the use of "deniers" but don't apply equal indignation to opposing terms because "none of them are science". WTF?
The truth is that you apply different standards to the two opposing groups. Your group gets a pass, the other group gets an attack. You are a prime example of someone who uses a different microscope for each side of an argument.
Regarding the graph you included, looks like a pretty obvious upward trend to me. I'm not going to spend the day studying all the different models to address your assertion (that they don't match reality). You have, time and again, shown that you are only going to present data that supports your arguments so I'm not giving them too terribly much credence. From what I see, you present nothing but biased data and even that data supports an upward trend in temperatures.
Oh, btw, your graph doesn't address ocean temperatures at all. That's a fairly big omission.
I know, and that's the issue I have with anyone who says "it's settled." Really? Things that haven't even happened yet are fact? And they are too stupid to realize the folly of making such an inane statement.
Too warm compared to what?
Funny how you won't study the graph presented, but believe whole heartedly in the religion of MMGW.
Compared to some arbitrary date that was cherry picked in order to convince governments they needed to exercise more control over people. Like governments needed more reasons to do so.
The forecast was warmer than the actual readings for most models. It was not a controversial statement. I was agreeing with Jeff.
"My side" is not claiming that we need to spend trillions of dollars to fix a problem that has not been proven to exist. That's not a different standard. If you want to demand people's money, the burden is on you to prove it.
"My side" does not claim that we are absolutely right, but that things have not been proven. We do not claim the mantle of "science" as our rightous cause. We understand it's pure politics and rent-seeking, and as such we are 100% justified in using political language in support of our arguments. Consensus and denier are political terms, not scientific terms. If you want to claim the mantle of science, then you should not rely upon them. If you want to cloak politics in the regalia of science, don't be shocked if people call you on it.
In quality control, if you have more than 7 data points above or below a median, your process is defective and needs to be redesigned. 87 of those 90 models have almost every single data point well above the actual data, and as such, would be discarded as invalid in a statistical analysis.
Funny how you keep making the type of "political" references that Jeff abhors so much (you just edited out your previous post removing parts that referred to the opposing group of people as "sheep" and "leftist scientists".)
Also funny how you ignored my statement that the graph does show an upward trend in measured atmospheric temperatures and that it ignores oceanic temperatures.
I think you might do better in a different thread. Maybe one on Duck Dynasty or something.
I agree. There's no such thing as settled science. Even Newton's Laws were eventually found to have limitations. Theories can be well supported by evidence, and still require later revision.
I don't know what type of "quality control" you are trained in, but there is nothing magic about "7" data points. Your use of the term "well above the actual data" is also equally flawed. That is a highly relative assessment and can easily be misleading by simply changing the scale of the Y-axis.
There is also the issue of what "models" are these? Neither you nor I know if they are old and obsolete, or even simply made up to bolster someone's argument.
I spent a number of years doing econometrics modeling for one of the largest utility companies on the planet. We dealt primarily in time-series regressions (linear and multivariate) and ANOVA. I'm quite familiar with this type of analysis. It's not the type of stuff you're going to learn on the Discovery Channel.
And even if we accept your assertion as a given, if you draw a simple least squares regression using the observed data, the trend remains upward.
As a group, I find scientists, and engineers, to be far more accepting of the views of others than do artists and politicians. By their very training, scientists are inclined to look for another possibility; artists and even worse, art critics (at least those I have met) tend to believe that their view is the only correct one. Very few working scientists are as arrogant or narrow-minded as you describe. At least not the good ones.
Care to name a few? For example, Newton's laws are only a subset of general relativity, but they still work to describe the world around us. There aren't wrong, just incomplete. My guess is in every example you care to name the science was actually correct, but not in context. I can specify a Nobel prize that went out for something that was incorrect (can you?) but the science was correct in its own right, just not in context.
Be interested to hear what you have to say.
It looks like a departure from model from 2005 onward. Trend has been steady (if not slightly declining) over that time period.
Part of the problem lies in the statement "...science was settled...", as though science consists of a list of facts. At many times in history, the accepted explanation of the time was incorrect; but this error was later corrected by the ongoing science, which is the process of continued investigation. Lavoisier accepted the principle of phlogiston; Newton believed in numerology; van Helmont spent five years growing a tree and concluded that water was an elemental force of life; the list of mistakes is long, but the action of scientific process eventually corrects them.
I like to tell students at the beginning of a semester that much of what we read in the textbook is incorrect - we just don't know which parts, yet. My grandfather's chemistry text bears only a passing resemblance to mine today. But the science is still working.
When I get home let me dig out an Astronomy book I have from the 40's or 50's, I should be able to list a metric crap ton of them.
That came to my mind as well.
Beyond that, I guess things haven't been dumbed down enough for us to grasp.
My guess is you'll come up with lots of outdated observations that were clarified when more powerful telescopes came on line. That doesn't make the older observations incorrect, just lacking in context. We'll see what you come up with. Astronomy definitely isn't my bag.