Spinning off climate change discussion

[Northeast Stinger]

Global Warming Science in a nutshell...............

Identifying pseudoscience
1.Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
2.Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
3.Lack of openness to testing by other experts
4.Absence of progress
5.Personalization of issues
6.Use of misleading language

So I guess it is a "global conspiracy" then.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

People change their minds for all kinds of reasons.

For yourself, you should be aware of positions you've taken by faith and those you've taken because you actually understand the arguments on both sides.

Our country has problems, imo, because people lack the humility and honesty to address disputed questions this way. Some people you mock may actually know the science better than you.

So it sounds like if someone accepts the consensus by having reviewed all the arguments it is a matter of them taking something on faith, whereas if the person reviews all the arguments and accepts something that is a marginal argument by a very small group of scientists then they are right thinking and rational. I see.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Great post, I wish I had your optimism about what Government is concerning the part I bolded. The only solace I take is that the older generation always seems to think the younger generation won't able to handle the change that is needed. But somehow we muddle through.

Global warming is real IMHO but not the end of the world as @pinglett said. Yes it will result in realigning many economic interests and causing many people / countries to have to move / adapt. The emerging scarcity of resources for some will result in more wars. But that is the history of humanity.

The hope I have is that the carbon cycle in the world's economy will be broken by more cost effective technology at some point. Either solar as @DTGT said or thermoelectrics harvesting geothermal temperature differences. Both technologies are becoming more cost effective with solar in the lead.

I agree. My point is that when government works like it is supposed to it is the collection of many different interests and constituencies working together to solve big issues that individuals cannot solve on their own. To be sure our political process is completely broken right now. The former CEO of Shell said as much. My problem is when people blame government for this dysfunction rather than blaming those of us who are responsible for government. The old saying used to be, "A democracy is the only system in the world in which the people get exactly the kind of government they deserve." That saying today could be augmented with, "A democracy is the only system in which people get exactly the kind of government they pay for."

 

[Northeast Stinger]

You just reacted emotionally and dismissively to an article from Nature. That's a pretty big clue that it's no longer an issue of science but faith for you.

I read the article when it came out but I did not see what the "controversy" was. Oceans are big. They absorb a lot of heat. How is that startling and new?

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I read the article when it came out but I did not see what the "controversy" was. Oceans are big. They absorb a lot of heat. How is that startling and new?

There is nothing controversial about the oceans taking up most of the measurable heat - the specific heat of the oceans / water is much higher than air. So the oceans have to absorb most of the heat given their size. The average ocean temperature has been going up.

But that is why the one best indicator - to me - is ocean levels. Believe it or not, much of the rise in sea level is due to the expansion of water as it heats. (No I don't have the link.) Water does expand a tiny bit as it warms. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-density-specific-weight-d_595.html

And the sea level is the result of integrating the temperature and melt / freeze effects of the entire world. Living on the East coast and staying through many hurricanes, we see the effect of small increases in sea level by the erosion of land. Also, with higher temperatures in the atmosphere, you see more energy which needs to be dissipated in the form of storms. The end of the world no; but change yes.

 

[Animal02]

So I guess it is a "global conspiracy" then.

To some degree yes......It is a self feeding loop. I see it in my wife's field (special education) Autism is the new diagnosis de jour.....money gets poured into autism research (when it is only a small fraction of mental health issues) New "finding" and expanded diagnosis etc get more funding...more money gets more people involved which creates more attention, which generates more money, which creates more attention which leads to new findings and expanded diagnosis. It is not like a group got together in the start and said we are going to get all this money for autism by doing x, y and z.

Your comment fits right into #5 BTW

 

[Animal02]

I read the article when it came out but I did not see what the "controversy" was. Oceans are big. They absorb a lot of heat. How is that startling and new?

The controversy is that that when alarmist predictions didn't pan out.....they find a new reason for why their predictions were wrong.......and yet everyone is supposed to believe their "new predictions"......it shows that they really do not have a grasp on all the factors that alter climate.

 

[AE 87]

@dressedcheeseside here are the most recent posts of our conversation:

I know it's not a true believer website like @dressedcheeseside likes, but there's this:

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Data was unexpected and needs explanation. That's all I've been saying. When you're argument relies on thinking Nature is conspiritorially anti-science, well may bill nye bless you.

Snarkiness doesn't give you extra credibility, in fact, it has the opposite affect. It works the same on football topics, too, where we usually agree down the line.

Dude, you've been mocking me this whole time and now complain about my snarkiness? Smh. Grow up.

If you want to poke fun at me for what I'm actually saying instead of making stuff up and then mocking that, then go for it. You're the epitome of the strawman, "dude". Shake your head all you want and save your advice about growing up for someone who appreciates your condescension.

Here's some of your own medicine: Go back to your Flat Earth Society meeting and tell them the earth is only 6,000 years old and that man lived with the dinosaurs. Oh, and have fun surfing "dude".

Now, based on your last point, you seem to be suggesting that I was poking fun at you because I distinguished Nature magazine from a website directed at being skeptical of skeptics as a true-believer website. I really don't think that is a serious complaint. I don't think I'm stretching the common use of the English language to paraphrase skeptical of skeptics as true-believer. So, what did I make up? What straw man did I construct to mock?

Look again at how I ended the first post I've quoted here: "Data was unexpected and needs clarification. That's all I've been saying. ..." My only point has been that climate science is a fairly immature field whose drastic predictions have not been realized. Therefore, sound scientific methodology would suggest hesitancy in being dogmatic about the theory.

By the way, if you look into the history of the Flat Earth Society, you'll see that it really reflects the desire of some to hold on to a scientific theory even after the data comes out inconsistent with the predictions and expectations of the theory. Remind you of anyone?

 

[AE 87]

So it sounds like if someone accepts the consensus by having reviewed all the arguments it is a matter of them taking something on faith, whereas if the person reviews all the arguments and accepts something that is a marginal argument by a very small group of scientists then they are right thinking and rational. I see.

No. I asked you to show me the science given the failure of predictions as I've seen reported. It seemed to me that you responded by questioning the need when their seems to be a consensus of scientists. When a person is unable to discuss the scientific data on both sides but points to a consensus, then that suggests they've taken the conclusion by faith. When a person reviews the data on both sides and can discuss why they favor one view over the other, or why, as in my case, they view the question as still open, then their engaged in science.

There's nothing wrong with taking things by faith. We learn most of what we know through taking by faith the answers of authorities in a given field. So, all I was saying was that a person should be aware of what things they know because they've taken them by faith and what things they know because they can actually intelligently discuss the data and arguments of both sides of a disputed question.

On the question of human-contributed climate change, there is no logically necessary connection between the data of global temperatures and water levels etc and a human contribution to climate change. Any such connection relies on a scientific theory of relating the impact of the human contribution, such as greenhouse gasses, to the global ecosystem. Those theories can, in turn, be modeled. When the impact predicted by the model does not occur, then there are two alternatives: either the theory was wrong or it was incomplete. In my opinion, that's where we are now.

 

[DTGT]

No. I asked you to show me the science given the failure of predictions as I've seen reported.

What "failures"? All global predictions are in line. Acceleration of deterioration has progressed faster than the models predicted (worse faster). This has much to due with many positive feedback mechanisms not being included in the model.

It seemed to me that you responded by questioning the need when their seems to be a consensus of scientists. When a person is unable to discuss the scientific data on both sides but points to a consensus, then that suggests they've taken the conclusion by faith. When a person reviews the data on both sides and can discuss why they favor one view over the other, or why, as in my case, they view the question as still open, then their engaged in science.

There is no argument from the man-didn't-do-it side. Their hand waving is full of methodical errors, systemic errors, logical errors, and just plain pseudoscience.

There's nothing wrong with taking things by faith. We learn most of what we know through taking by faith the answers of authorities in a given field.

I disagree. You can test this. You can take measurements. You can review the data. You can decide if the conclusion is correct based on said data. I have seen too many pseudoscience papers masquerading as true science. Read the papers. You will be surprised at how bad corporate sponsored science is today. Typical: Data and statistics shows X either causes A or has no relevance to A; conclusion and headline state that it prevents A.

So, all I was saying was that a person should be aware of what things they know because they've taken them by faith and what things they know because they can actually intelligently discuss the data and arguments of both sides of a disputed question.

I can only dream of a day when more than 0.1% of the population actually reads papers. I am extremely tired and agitated of hearing the complete lies and misunderstandings that come from the months of people parroting verbatim from Fox "News", Rush, Beck, etc...

On the question of human-contributed climate change, there is no logically necessary connection between the data of global temperatures and water levels etc and a human contribution to climate change. Any such connection relies on a scientific theory of relating the impact of the human contribution, such as greenhouse gasses, to the global ecosystem. Those theories can, in turn, be modeled. When the impact predicted by the model does not occur, then there are two alternatives: either the theory was wrong or it was incomplete. In my opinion, that's where we are now.

So, because the trend (climate) is being modeled very close to reality but it can't predict that the noise (weather) would cause it to be colder than the trend suggests for a limited time in a limited number of locations? I can't help you. Your problem is math-based.

 

[AE 87]

A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate.

From September of last year,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...dmit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

 

[Northeast Stinger]

No. I asked you to show me the science given the failure of predictions as I've seen reported. It seemed to me that you responded by questioning the need when their seems to be a consensus of scientists. When a person is unable to discuss the scientific data on both sides but points to a consensus, then that suggests they've taken the conclusion by faith. When a person reviews the data on both sides and can discuss why they favor one view over the other, or why, as in my case, they view the question as still open, then their engaged in science.

There's nothing wrong with taking things by faith. We learn most of what we know through taking by faith the answers of authorities in a given field. So, all I was saying was that a person should be aware of what things they know because they've taken them by faith and what things they know because they can actually intelligently discuss the data and arguments of both sides of a disputed question.

On the question of human-contributed climate change, there is no logically necessary connection between the data of global temperatures and water levels etc and a human contribution to climate change. Any such connection relies on a scientific theory of relating the impact of the human contribution, such as greenhouse gasses, to the global ecosystem. Those theories can, in turn, be modeled. When the impact predicted by the model does not occur, then there are two alternatives: either the theory was wrong or it was incomplete. In my opinion, that's where we are now.

I remember watching a computer model some 25 years ago that produced said results. I want to say it was called the "daisey" model but my memory is not as good as it once was. The program was probably pretty crude at the time but models have been run with increasing sophistication as we have learned more. You are right though. I no longer argue about it because I wasted a lot of years arguing with people who did not know the science.

Since I am a lay person I continue to read but I no longer have time to "study up" for those who remain skeptics. Perhaps you are different and I should have had the good fortune of talking to you a long time ago but previously I always found I knew more than the other person and they were always arguing from their conclusion based on ideology rather than science.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

From September of last year,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...dmit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

That is old news and pretty much meaningless given more recent research.

I actually have no argument with your earlier statement in which you said, "Look again at how I ended the first post I've quoted here: "Data was unexpected and needs clarification. That's all I've been saying. ..." My only point has been that climate science is a fairly immature field whose drastic predictions have not been realized. Therefore, sound scientific methodology would suggest hesitancy in being dogmatic about the theory." I agree completely. But there is a difference between hesitancy (as in you may be onto something but I am not ready to declare a final verdict) and ridiculing those who find the science compelling.

A second quote from you helps me clarify further why you and I see this differently: "When the impact predicted by the model does not occur, then there are two alternatives: either the theory was wrong or it was incomplete. In my opinion, that's where we are now." It seems to me that the climate scientists have been right on the money in terms of the big picture climate trends. It is comparable to human evolutionary science. We have "missing links" and missteps but with each discovery (whether Peking man, or Java man or Lucy) the bigger theory seems more and more solid. You seem ready to throw the whole theory out which strikes me as pushing skepticism to mere gainsaying.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

To some degree yes......It is a self feeding loop. I see it in my wife's field (special education) Autism is the new diagnosis de jour.....money gets poured into autism research (when it is only a small fraction of mental health issues) New "finding" and expanded diagnosis etc get more funding...more money gets more people involved which creates more attention, which generates more money, which creates more attention which leads to new findings and expanded diagnosis. It is not like a group got together in the start and said we are going to get all this money for autism by doing x, y and z.

Your comment fits right into #5 BTW

I guess smiley faces are personal.

 

[DTGT]

From September of last year,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...dmit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

The part that it was "wrong" about was that it was warm between 950 and 1250 AD. Here's more from that article:

“It is a complete fantasy to think that you can compile an infallible or approximately infallible report, that is just not how science works.

“It is not a bible, it is a scientific review, an assessment of the literature. Frankly both sides are seriously confused on how science works - the critics of the IPCC and the environmentalists who credit the IPCC as if it is the gospel."

Scientist were constantly revising their research to account for new data, he said.

Despite the uncertainties and contradictions, the IPCC insists that it is more confident than ever – 95 per cent certain - that global warming is mainly human’s fault.

 

[AE 87]

That is old news and pretty much meaningless given more recent research.

I actually have no argument with your earlier statement in which you said, "Look again at how I ended the first post I've quoted here: "Data was unexpected and needs clarification. That's all I've been saying. ..." My only point has been that climate science is a fairly immature field whose drastic predictions have not been realized. Therefore, sound scientific methodology would suggest hesitancy in being dogmatic about the theory." I agree completely. But there is a difference between hesitancy (as in you may be onto something but I am not ready to declare a final verdict) and ridiculing those who find the science compelling.

A second quote from you helps me clarify further why you and I see this differently: "When the impact predicted by the model does not occur, then there are two alternatives: either the theory was wrong or it was incomplete. In my opinion, that's where we are now." It seems to me that the climate scientists have been right on the money in terms of the big picture climate trends. It is comparable to human evolutionary science. We have "missing links" and missteps but with each discovery (whether Peking man, or Java man or Lucy) the bigger theory seems more and more solid. You seem ready to throw the whole theory out which strikes me as pushing skepticism to mere gainsaying.

@Northeast Stinger Thanks for this post.

I agree that you and I may be closer, or able to get closer, in this discussion than where we began. However, I think I need to clarify my position a little more. I never mocked those who find the science compelling, when they can discuss the science, its strengths and its unmet challenges.

All I did was turn your mockery of those who take the skeptical position back on those who take by faith the findings of scientists without fully appreciating the strengths and limitations of the science involved. Faith in the authority of modern scientists is no more science than faith in the medieval scientists who spoke in the name of the church. I think you would agree with that.

I'm worried that your reference to evolutionary science is completely apt since it has become an ideology and no longer a coherent scientific theory. I suggest you look at this site:
http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

The word, "Evolution" here is used as an umbrella term for the change of species over time. However, it begins by saying that empirical evidence no longer supports Neo-Darwinism, the scientific theory of evolution being taught in public schools. Evolution in terms of Neo-Darwinism is a cogent scientific theory or paradigm. However, the empirical data does not support it, and so it is no longer a cogent theory. The contributors to this website are seeking a new paradigm but have not yet agreed on one, hence my earlier claim that evolution has simply become ideology.

Anyone who believes that science has demonstrated evolution does not understand the science. I'm worried that climate science is the same sort of deal.

 

[DTGT]

@Northeast Stinger Thanks for this post.

I agree that you and I may be closer, or able to get closer, in this discussion than where we began. However, I think I need to clarify my position a little more. I never mocked those who find the science compelling, when they can discuss the science, its strengths and its unmet challenges.

All I did was turn your mockery of those who take the skeptical position back on those who take by faith the findings of scientists without fully appreciating the strengths and limitations of the science involved. Faith in the authority of modern scientists is no more science than faith in the medieval scientists who spoke in the name of the church. I think you would agree with that.

I'm worried that your reference to evolutionary science is completely apt since it has become an ideology and no longer a coherent scientific theory. I suggest you look at this site:
http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

The word, "Evolution" here is used as an umbrella term for the change of species over time. However, it begins by saying that empirical evidence no longer supports Neo-Darwinism, the scientific theory of evolution being taught in public schools. Evolution in terms of Neo-Darwinism is a cogent scientific theory or paradigm. However, the empirical data does not support it, and so it is no longer a cogent theory. The contributors to this website are seeking a new paradigm but have not yet agreed on one, hence my earlier claim that evolution has simply become ideology.

Anyone who believes that science has demonstrated evolution does not understand the science. I'm worried that climate science is the same sort of deal.

The reason that Neo-Darwinism is incorrect is that it applied to the science before the discovery of population genetics. The term was coined in 1895 and was dead long before I was born. Neo-Darwinism is "still a thing" because the religionists need a strawman to attack (Mendelian genetics).

The correct term for the current body of evolutionary science is Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. MES includes all forms of microevolution and macroevolution. MES is what is taught in the schools that aren't under the rule of bible thumpers.

I don't see your worry. It doesn't matter what you call the current body of science. It still is the current body of science and the third way is not needed. Intelligent design and creationism are still absurd, insane, and worthy of ridicule.

 

[Animal02]

@Northeast Stinger Thanks for this post.

I agree that you and I may be closer, or able to get closer, in this discussion than where we began. However, I think I need to clarify my position a little more. I never mocked those who find the science compelling, when they can discuss the science, its strengths and its unmet challenges.

History is full of theories once widely studied and widely accepted (and well funded)......only to be proven false later.

 

[AE 87]

The reason that Neo-Darwinism is incorrect is that it applied to the science before the discovery of population genetics. The term was coined in 1895 and was dead long before I was born. Neo-Darwinism is "still a thing" because the religionists need a strawman to attack (Mendelian genetics).

The correct term for the current body of evolutionary science is Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. MES includes all forms of microevolution and macroevolution. MES is what is taught in the schools that aren't under the rule of bible thumpers.

I don't see your worry. It doesn't matter what you call the current body of science. It still is the current body of science and the third way is not needed. Intelligent design and creationism are still absurd, insane, and worthy of ridicule.

No. The neo in Neo-Darwinism as used there refers to the incorporation of population genetics.

I appreciate your consistent religious faith in scientific theories even when the empirical data no longer fits their predictions. I guess conversation is useless. Thanks.

 

[DTGT]

No. The neo in Neo-Darwinism as used there refers to the incorporation of population genetics.

I will quote from the links I provided because you did not read them:

Neo-Darwinism is the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics, the latter being a set of primary tenets specifying that evolution involves the transmission of characteristics from parent to child through the mechanism of genetic transfer, rather than the 'blending process' of pre-Mendelian evolutionary science.

The modern evolutionary synthesis is a 20th-century union of ideas from several biological specialties which provides a widely accepted account of evolution. It is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, millennium synthesis or the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

The synthesis, produced between 1936 and 1947, reflects the consensus about how evolution proceeds.[1] The previous development of population genetics, between 1918 and 1932, was a stimulus, as it showed that Mendelian genetics was consistent with natural selection and gradual evolution. The synthesis is still, to a large extent, the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.[2]

The modern synthesis solved difficulties and confusions caused by the specialisation and poor communication between biologists in the early years of the 20th century. At its heart was the question of whether Mendelian genetics could be reconciled with gradual evolution by means of natural selection. A second issue was whether the broad-scale changes (macroevolution) seen by palaeontologists could be explained by changes seen in local populations (microevolution).

The synthesis included evidence from biologists, trained in genetics, who studied populations in the field and in the laboratory. These studies were crucial to evolutionary theory. The synthesis drew together ideas from several branches of biology which had become separated, particularly genetics, cytology, systematics, botany, morphology, ecology and paleontology.

There is a difference between Mendelian genetics and population genetics.

There is a difference between neo-Darwinism and neo-Darwinian synthesis (aka modern evolutionary synthesis).