Every academic department I have been in that was involved in anything even close to controversial or in question was full of ego battles and just really, really nasty politics. Maybe my experience is unusual but I don't think so. And in fact it is much, much worse in fields, like global climatology, where you can't do experiments to physically prove your point. So if you think that some scientist who has made a career of a certain position or even just published a few papers with a certain stance is going to stand up and say "sorry I was wrong" you are way off base. That would be a career killer and very few have the courage to do that. Especially if the evidence that they were "wrong" is unclear, impossible to prove or based on a computer model.
This is exactly why peer review is so valuable. Because even non-controversial publications have to be refereed by competing research groups containing large egos! (often competing for the same research funds)
And, I am sorry, but to say that you can't do experiments to prove your point in climate change is nonsense. There have been CO2 measurements and predictions of temperatures for decades, and they are on-going, as are models based on them.
My basic tenant is if they can't predict the weather next week (which they still can't do very accurately) why should I believe they can predict the weather 20 years from now?
Oh come on, surely you can do better than this. Anyone with even the most minor knowledge in this field understands that long-term predictions have nothing to do with short-term ones. As an example, we can't predict the small-scale nature of vortices in the air flow over an aeroplane wing, but we know that the large-scale nature of flow will generate lift, and we can predict that accurately.
Whoever in this list is not a "climate scientist" is also not allowed to advocate.
Why?
Puleeze...Chemistry? What do they know about Global Warming....BUUUZZZZ
yes of course, because global warming does not involve any chemistry.
Er. Actually it does.
Hold on. So you are deciding personally that chemists aren't allowed to validate the chemistry in climate science? That physicists aren't allowed to validate the physics? That biologists can't validate the biology?
Have you ever heard of the most famous scientific journal in the world? It is called Nature. The idea behind Nature is that science is a general study. That scientific ideas can be at least understood at a basic level by all reputable scientists.
if your one experiment flies in the face of well-established existing theory, is it mor1e likely that (a) you've discovered a fundamental flaw with an enormous body of research, or (b) your findings were a Type I error? It depends on the health of the scientific community.
Utter nonsense. Science is not based on any 'one experiment'. The results of any one experiment alone indicate nothing at all, unless replicated.
I see so much confusion in what gets passed to the public that I can't be sure that the scientific community is in any great amount of health and that raises the likelihood that a fundamental flaw with an enormous body of research has been discovered.
No, all you are seeing is confusion in what gets passed to the public, not any issue with the scientific community.
Simply put the who issue has become so politicized and so much money is involved that there is no room for one true expert who can be trusted.
Nonsense. The issue has only been politicised by politicians. There are plenty of objective scientific experts, but politicians get in the way.
Both sides cannot be 100% correct and neither side can be completely wrong. The only question is, how long before the public shows enough interest to ferret out the truth? Right now both sides are trying to buy public opinion.
Utter nonsense. Most scientists couldn't care less about public opinion. They simply want their research published.
If you looked into the real science behind this, you would find there really aren't two sides.
How is the lay person to tell that which is real, which are nothing more than paid off entities (private or government) or just crack pots?
Obtain summaries of what are the majority opinions in the top journals.
If you go off to the other side with your ideas the side you left will do their best to ruin you. What kind of science can exist in a system like that?
All of the best science. All reputable science has to survive attempts to ruin it. That is what the process of peer review is for! Many of those who review each paper are experts trying to compete for the same funding.
Anyone who suggests that science is a group of friends all supporting each other's ideas really has no idea of how science works or how science gets published.
Thanks for giving us the naive, idealized view of how science should work. Having had the personal experience of an intellectually dishonest "mafia" suppressing my work, I hope you'll forgive me for saying that I think you're missing the point.
Please provide evidence. Point to your data, your experiments, and the reasons for rejection. Let us judge for ourselves. Let's see how the "mafia" have oppressed you.
On the other hand, stories of good ideas being ridiculed and suppressed for years are not hard to come by. And I'm not talking about crackpots. (Bacteria causing ulcers? It is to laugh! Ho! Ho!)
Yeah, it was ridiculed. Until the proposer of the hypothesis actually did experiments to demonstrate his idea. Those experiments could be reproduced.
This is the way science is supposed to work. What is the alternative - everyone's ideas are considered equal?
Excellent point. In fact, Einstein's claims of relativity and quantized 'packets' of light (photons) were considered controversial for well over a decade after he published the papers concerning them in 1905. It is certainly not inconceivable that the 'right' position is not accepted as such in the professional scientific community.
This is irrelevant. Einstein's claims were published and were published enthusiastically. There was no attempt to censor them.
Also, I am afraid that we have to face the fact that there are few Einsteins. Just because Einstein had a minority view and he was right does mean mean that all holders of minority views are right, or are Einsteins. This logical mistake is made surprisingly often.
If he's out of his area of expertise, what about the "vast majority of scientists" that supposedly are on board the global warming train? These geneticists, herpetologists, ichtheologists, nuclear physicists, petroleum engineers, etc. If they've actually weighed in at all, they're certainly out of their areas of expertise.
There is nothing wrong with scientists in one field respecting the expertise of scientists in another field. That shows nothing more than a general respect for the processes of science. What is unreasonable is a scientist in one area assuming that he automatically has expertise in another.
What happens, then, if it's difficult to get a contrarian article into a peer-reviewed journal? That's often the case, as it happens. For someone with results that cut against the grain, it can take years to break through the peer review wall, assuming you're able to keep going that long
That is not why people don't get into peer reviewed journals. Good peer reviewed journals publish 'against the grain' papers all the time. What prevents publications getting into good journals is if their analyses are questionable or their results aren't repeatable. In most areas of science, journals are hungry for interesting papers. Research that simply repeats existing findings gets boring and of no interest.
This isn't unique to climatology - I've seen other situations in which a highly charged issue that has many believers on one side can squeeze out any last dissent.
Again, that is not why people get squeezed out. It is not a matter of 'believers', it is about the quality of research.
At best, the standard for publishing a contrarian view is much higher
And that is as things should be. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary views require extraordinary evidence. Contrary views should require out-of-the-ordinary evidence.
at worst, reviewers can reject these articles out of hand. This makes it extremely difficult for a budding researcher to get established in a tenure-track position, and then to get tenure.
In quality journals, editors don't accept such out-of-hand rejections. There are much-used appeal processes, and the opinion of a reviewer who simply rejected an article 'out-of-hand' would not last long. Reviewers have to justify their rejections in the same way as the authors of papers have to justify their findings.
I know this because I have worked to get controversial papers through review processes, and I have also acted as a peer reviewer.
Right or wrong, there's a serious problem when no one is even taking a serious Devil's Advocate position on things, and I've not seen that.
This is just not true. The entire peer review process is a Devil's Advocate process. The phrase 'peer review' explains it - papers aren't being reviewed by friends of the author, but almost always the reviewing panel includes those who are competitors of the author, often competing in the same country for the same funding!
The peer review process works because it is so much a Devil's Advocate process, and publications have to pass through that.
So you are saying that the BBC does not/did not have it out for Blair?
Oh come on. The UK Conservative government complained about the same thing years ago. The fact that goverments of all politics complain about bias shows there is none.
You don't know why it's funny? I think YOU are the one who is confused here. If you want an example to how amazingly Biased the media is, look at the whole Abramoff schandal. When it's a GOP'r named, it's front page/lead story on CNN,MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc... But when DNC'rs are involved, it drops to the D section of the paper or not reported on at all.
The main stream media is more Biased now than I ever remember.
Firstly, the original post was not funny because it was talking seriously about scientific bias.
Secondly, this is about British media (the BBC is in the title).
Thirdly, what are you talking about? How exactly was the Clinton scandal not front page? I am British, and have never heard of Abramoff, but we all heard about Clinton.
It seems to me that modern news outlets are far too obsessed with presenting a "fair and balanced" viewpoint. Sometimes information doesn't have to be presented with a neat and comprehensive list of counter arguments.
I don't know why this was modded 'funny' - it is very insightful. The media (including the BBC) has long misunderstood how science works; perhaps because so many journalists have no scientific background. So, when they report science, they often like to indicate that there is a debate where little or none exists. They present head-to-head arguments between someone with an extreme view and a mainstream researcher as if both views were of equal merit.
The fact that the BBC are looking for bias shows how little they really understand things. Peer review does shut out minority views to some extent. But that is what it is supposed to do - almost all minority views in science are wrong! There is nothing wrong with putting minority views to the test and expecting them to have to convince a lot of people.
From many posts on Slashdot, one would almost expect that minority views about climate are right simply because they are minority views.
I wonder how many people agitated over the de-indexing of Talk.Origins would be very happy that Creation as an alternate theory of origins be barred from being taught along-side the theory of evolution in public schools.
If you are going to call Creation a theory, you presumably have some testable evidence for that.
How about a simple question: Have climate modellers already proven their ability to accurately model the global climate 100 years out, or not?
Yes, and No:)
What climate modellers have shown is that a range of models, all with different assumptions, when taken together, provide a range of predictions of the global climate for the next century.
This range of predictions can be statistically examined. There is an average prediction, and there are extreme limit predictions. All we can say is that the chances are the future climate will be within these limits.
What I am trying to say is that the procedures and approaches used by climate modellers are respectable and well-tested. Whether or not the results are 'accurate' depends what you mean by accurate! Climate models predict anything from a few degrees rise to ten degrees, and this in turn depends on how much CO2 we continue to produce.
I said it was less certain than other areas of science.
I am am insisting that it isn't. The point of using statistical ensembles is to be able to quantify the uncertainty.
Predicting against the past is not the same as predicting the future or scenarios that we haven't seen before with success.
No, it isn't. But it is done all the time. It is done in economics, in biology, even in physics (cosmology). There is nothing unique about climate modelling in this respect.
But eventually they get into wind tunnels, are driven on roads, and flown in the air, before the consumer is asked to buy them.
And climate models are run against past data before they are accepted. No model is acceptable unless it can produce reproducible results against some real data - there would be no point.
There's a huge difference between trying to divine the rules of physics vs. trying to model a complex and constantly changing system. Gravity, electricty, and chemical reactions haven't changed since we've been studying them. We've built cities and all our technology using the same basic principles over and over again.
We aren't trying to divine the rules of physics - we are trying to model how things behave. Some things are simple to model (as in quantum electrodynamics), some aren't (as in quantum chromodynamics).
I still can't believe you are arguing that climate models are as certain as most areas of science. I'm willing to bet your statements would be ridiculed in a respectable climatology forum. Care to find out?
You are missing the point. What I am saying is that the approach is well established - the simulation techniques, and the statistical methods used to analyse the results of the simulations - it is all extremely well-established and respectable.
That is not to say that the models themselves are certain, or the results are certain. The models are debated, as they should be.
But what happens is that when a significant number of models have been run on sufficient scales and the results tend towards the same indication, it has to be taken seriously.
This is exactly the way this sort of modelling works in other areas of science. For example, in chemistry the way many things behave is still poorly understood, so what happens is that a range of models are run at different scales and with different degrees of simplification, until some understanding of what is happening is achieved.
What would be ridiculed in a respectable forum is your contention that climate modelling is some kind of 'dirty science', in which the normal standards don't apply.
You were asking why the layman questions climate modelers. Climate modelers do not use their technology to make cars or GPS systems. They have no track record of predicting what will happen in 100 years time.
I am glad you mentioned cars. The methods used by climate modellers are indeed used by those who make cars. They are also used by those who make planes. They use statistical methods to analyse turbulent flows to predict air flows, energy transfers and forces. It is very much the same sorts of modelling techniques used in climate studies. Just like climate studies, computing power has only recently reached the level where good models can be run.
Nothing, by definition, can have a track record of predicting what will happen in 100 years time (unless you have a time machine). What a scientific method can have is a track record of predicting retrospectively what has happened over 100-year intervals in the past.
Repeatable experiments and success at prediction are the standard scientific measure. To say that climate modeling should be given the same certainty as all of science is ridiculous.
No, it isn't. The methods of climate modelling use the same statistical methods and are judged by the same statistical criteria as those in all other areas of science.
To claim that climate modelling stands alone in some way, aside from the same criteria applied in other sciences, is ridiculous.
I know well the reasons why the layman questions climate modelling. The reasons are that the consequences are troubling, therefore there is a tendency towards denial.
Umm, if all science was exactly the same, then that would be true. However, fields like quantum mechanics have been experimentally verified to very precise levels, yielding far more certainties than stuff like climate models. That you are arguing this point makes me doubt your claimed credentials as a scientist. And if you are indeed a respected member of the climatology community (link to paper?), well let's just say that I hope you're style of reasoning is in the minority.
You are completely misunderstanding things.
Some parts of quantum mechanics have certainly been experimentally verified to a high precision. This is true for quantum electrodynamics.
On the other hand, other parts of quantum mechanics have not been experimentally verified to any significant precision, and this is where considerable work involving statistical ensembles is undertaken in an attempt to probe things further. This is the case for quantum chromodynamics - the study of quark + gluon interactions and the strong force. However, with sufficient large models, run over a reasonable number of ensembles, progress has been made.
Why do you hope that a detailed understanding of statistical ensembles is a minority view?
I am sorry, but this leads me to suspect preconceived ideas about climate modelling - a desire to reject a scientific approach.
Because other areas often involve repeatable experiments. You can't put the earth in a controlled environment and run the experiment over and over, and see what the outcome is with more or less greenhouse gasses. Sure, you can do this is in a model, but then you can only predict what the model will do.
well, there goes much of science. Much of science consists of running repeatable experiments on models, and seeing what the models do, then comparing what happens to models with reality. That has been the basis of much of science for decades, modelling everything from quantum mechanics to cosmology - areas where you can't re-run things in the phsyical world.
However, I'm just trying to explain why there's more room for doubt than with other fields of science.
There isn't more room for doubt, as I explain above.
The EU won't EVER be satisfied by what Microsoft supplies. It's just a way of damaging Microsoft and by implication American interests in Europe, so that the EU can "catch up" with its own pathetic software industry.
If this were the case, there would have to be some European-based alternatives to Microsoft software that had to catch up.
Well, that's a start. Now try reading and understanding.
I am disapointed, as I assumed we were having a reasoned and friendly discussion.
I do take an agnostic position on this. I very much doubt that the moon is made of cheese, and I would assume it's not, so it's not as if this would come up in conversation and have me ridiculed. But, in fact, most of the time, I don't even consider the question, and when I do, I arrive at two conclusions:
1. It's highly unlikely that the moon is made of cheese, given a whole set of assumptions I have about the way the world works.
2. It's also quite impossible for me to know whether the moon even exists, much less what it's made of.
I am very surprised at this. I find it hard to argue against! I disagree with it fundamentally, but I don't think I can explain any more clearly why.
I think you are. I also think you didn't read my post. Please read this one, I'll try to keep it short.
I did read your post, and this one.
My point is that there are things that are worth being agnostic about, and things that aren't. Some things are so unworthy of such consideration, that I would claim that we aren't even agnostic - almost everyone is naturally 'atheist' about such things.
To give a silly example, almost no-one things that the moon is made of cheese. People aren't even agnostic about it - people are, basically 'acheesists', and anyone who took an agnostic position on this would, justifiably, be ridiculed.
Being agnostic is not a neutral position - it is giving weight to the idea you are agnostic about; suggesting it has some validity, that it is a reasonable possibility. There are somethings that are less reasonable than others.
This is why I really don't think it is sensible to claim that one is agnostic about everything.
Even on the "core issues", I'm sure you'll find a lot more uncertainty than you might expect.
I don't disagree, but I still think any attempt to use the word 'faith' in the context of scientific axioms is mistaken. Even if it is a sort of faith, it is of an entirely different quality from religious faith which is intended to be evidence-free.
I don't understand why you keep using the term 'faith'. You aren't using it in any way I understand. Faith does not mean a general feeling that something is right; it is an unquestioning belief that does not need evidence. That does not apply here.
His descriptions of moderates are consistently descriptions of apathetic fundamentalists; they do not represent any of the other views and models found within Christianity. His whole argument for liberals as "enablers" of fundamentalists depends on the assumption that liberals are just fundamentalists with less conviction.
No, this is not what he says at all. He certainly does not describe moderates as apathetic fundamentalists. To give an example, fundamentalists may have trouble believing in evolution, but moderates don't. Dawkins has never said that moderate are simply apathetic disbelievers in evolution!
If you are going to disagree with a writer, you really should make an effort to understand what he is saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Every academic department I have been in that was involved in anything even close to controversial or in question was full of ego battles and just really, really nasty politics. Maybe my experience is unusual but I don't think so. And in fact it is much, much worse in fields, like global climatology, where you can't do experiments to physically prove your point. So if you think that some scientist who has made a career of a certain position or even just published a few papers with a certain stance is going to stand up and say "sorry I was wrong" you are way off base. That would be a career killer and very few have the courage to do that. Especially if the evidence that they were "wrong" is unclear, impossible to prove or based on a computer model.
This is exactly why peer review is so valuable. Because even non-controversial publications have to be refereed by competing research groups containing large egos! (often competing for the same research funds)
And, I am sorry, but to say that you can't do experiments to prove your point in climate change is nonsense. There have been CO2 measurements and predictions of temperatures for decades, and they are on-going, as are models based on them.
My basic tenant is if they can't predict the weather next week (which they still can't do very accurately) why should I believe they can predict the weather 20 years from now?
Oh come on, surely you can do better than this. Anyone with even the most minor knowledge in this field understands that long-term predictions have nothing to do with short-term ones. As an example, we can't predict the small-scale nature of vortices in the air flow over an aeroplane wing, but we know that the large-scale nature of flow will generate lift, and we can predict that accurately.
Whoever in this list is not a "climate scientist" is also not allowed to advocate.
Why?
Puleeze...Chemistry? What do they know about Global Warming....BUUUZZZZ
yes of course, because global warming does not involve any chemistry.
Er. Actually it does.
Hold on. So you are deciding personally that chemists aren't allowed to validate the chemistry in climate science? That physicists aren't allowed to validate the physics? That biologists can't validate the biology?
Have you ever heard of the most famous scientific journal in the world? It is called Nature. The idea behind Nature is that science is a general study. That scientific ideas can be at least understood at a basic level by all reputable scientists.
So who do we believe - you, or Nature?
if your one experiment flies in the face of well-established existing theory, is it mor1e likely that (a) you've discovered a fundamental flaw with an enormous body of research, or (b) your findings were a Type I error? It depends on the health of the scientific community.
Utter nonsense. Science is not based on any 'one experiment'. The results of any one experiment alone indicate nothing at all, unless replicated.
I see so much confusion in what gets passed to the public that I can't be sure that the scientific community is in any great amount of health and that raises the likelihood that a fundamental flaw with an enormous body of research has been discovered.
No, all you are seeing is confusion in what gets passed to the public, not any issue with the scientific community.
Simply put the who issue has become so politicized and so much money is involved that there is no room for one true expert who can be trusted.
Nonsense. The issue has only been politicised by politicians. There are plenty of objective scientific experts, but politicians get in the way.
Both sides cannot be 100% correct and neither side can be completely wrong. The only question is, how long before the public shows enough interest to ferret out the truth? Right now both sides are trying to buy public opinion.
Utter nonsense. Most scientists couldn't care less about public opinion. They simply want their research published.
If you looked into the real science behind this, you would find there really aren't two sides.
How is the lay person to tell that which is real, which are nothing more than paid off entities (private or government) or just crack pots?
Obtain summaries of what are the majority opinions in the top journals.
If you go off to the other side with your ideas the side you left will do their best to ruin you. What kind of science can exist in a system like that?
All of the best science. All reputable science has to survive attempts to ruin it. That is what the process of peer review is for! Many of those who review each paper are experts trying to compete for the same funding.
Anyone who suggests that science is a group of friends all supporting each other's ideas really has no idea of how science works or how science gets published.
Thanks for giving us the naive, idealized view of how science should work. Having had the personal experience of an intellectually dishonest "mafia" suppressing my work, I hope you'll forgive me for saying that I think you're missing the point.
Please provide evidence. Point to your data, your experiments, and the reasons for rejection. Let us judge for ourselves. Let's see how the "mafia" have oppressed you.
On the other hand, stories of good ideas being ridiculed and suppressed for years are not hard to come by. And I'm not talking about crackpots. (Bacteria causing ulcers? It is to laugh! Ho! Ho!)
Yeah, it was ridiculed. Until the proposer of the hypothesis actually did experiments to demonstrate his idea. Those experiments could be reproduced.
This is the way science is supposed to work. What is the alternative - everyone's ideas are considered equal?
Excellent point. In fact, Einstein's claims of relativity and quantized 'packets' of light (photons) were considered controversial for well over a decade after he published the papers concerning them in 1905. It is certainly not inconceivable that the 'right' position is not accepted as such in the professional scientific community.
This is irrelevant. Einstein's claims were published and were published enthusiastically. There was no attempt to censor them.
Also, I am afraid that we have to face the fact that there are few Einsteins. Just because Einstein had a minority view and he was right does mean mean that all holders of minority views are right, or are Einsteins. This logical mistake is made surprisingly often.
If he's out of his area of expertise, what about the "vast majority of scientists" that supposedly are on board the global warming train? These geneticists, herpetologists, ichtheologists, nuclear physicists, petroleum engineers, etc. If they've actually weighed in at all, they're certainly out of their areas of expertise.
There is nothing wrong with scientists in one field respecting the expertise of scientists in another field. That shows nothing more than a general respect for the processes of science. What is unreasonable is a scientist in one area assuming that he automatically has expertise in another.
What happens, then, if it's difficult to get a contrarian article into a peer-reviewed journal? That's often the case, as it happens. For someone with results that cut against the grain, it can take years to break through the peer review wall, assuming you're able to keep going that long
That is not why people don't get into peer reviewed journals. Good peer reviewed journals publish 'against the grain' papers all the time. What prevents publications getting into good journals is if their analyses are questionable or their results aren't repeatable. In most areas of science, journals are hungry for interesting papers. Research that simply repeats existing findings gets boring and of no interest.
This isn't unique to climatology - I've seen other situations in which a highly charged issue that has many believers on one side can squeeze out any last dissent.
Again, that is not why people get squeezed out. It is not a matter of 'believers', it is about the quality of research.
At best, the standard for publishing a contrarian view is much higher
And that is as things should be. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary views require extraordinary evidence. Contrary views should require out-of-the-ordinary evidence.
at worst, reviewers can reject these articles out of hand. This makes it extremely difficult for a budding researcher to get established in a tenure-track position, and then to get tenure.
In quality journals, editors don't accept such out-of-hand rejections. There are much-used appeal processes, and the opinion of a reviewer who simply rejected an article 'out-of-hand' would not last long. Reviewers have to justify their rejections in the same way as the authors of papers have to justify their findings.
I know this because I have worked to get controversial papers through review processes, and I have also acted as a peer reviewer.
Right or wrong, there's a serious problem when no one is even taking a serious Devil's Advocate position on things, and I've not seen that.
This is just not true. The entire peer review process is a Devil's Advocate process. The phrase 'peer review' explains it - papers aren't being reviewed by friends of the author, but almost always the reviewing panel includes those who are competitors of the author, often competing in the same country for the same funding!
The peer review process works because it is so much a Devil's Advocate process, and publications have to pass through that.
So you are saying that the BBC does not/did not have it out for Blair?
Oh come on. The UK Conservative government complained about the same thing years ago. The fact that goverments of all politics complain about bias shows there is none.
You don't know why it's funny? I think YOU are the one who is confused here. If you want an example to how amazingly Biased the media is, look at the whole Abramoff schandal. When it's a GOP'r named, it's front page/lead story on CNN,MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc... But when DNC'rs are involved, it drops to the D section of the paper or not reported on at all.
The main stream media is more Biased now than I ever remember.
Firstly, the original post was not funny because it was talking seriously about scientific bias.
Secondly, this is about British media (the BBC is in the title).
Thirdly, what are you talking about? How exactly was the Clinton scandal not front page? I am British, and have never heard of Abramoff, but we all heard about Clinton.
It seems to me that modern news outlets are far too obsessed with presenting a "fair and balanced" viewpoint. Sometimes information doesn't have to be presented with a neat and comprehensive list of counter arguments.
I don't know why this was modded 'funny' - it is very insightful. The media (including the BBC) has long misunderstood how science works; perhaps because so many journalists have no scientific background. So, when they report science, they often like to indicate that there is a debate where little or none exists. They present head-to-head arguments between someone with an extreme view and a mainstream researcher as if both views were of equal merit.
The fact that the BBC are looking for bias shows how little they really understand things. Peer review does shut out minority views to some extent. But that is what it is supposed to do - almost all minority views in science are wrong! There is nothing wrong with putting minority views to the test and expecting them to have to convince a lot of people.
From many posts on Slashdot, one would almost expect that minority views about climate are right simply because they are minority views.
I wonder how many people agitated over the de-indexing of Talk.Origins would be very happy that Creation as an alternate theory of origins be barred from being taught along-side the theory of evolution in public schools.
If you are going to call Creation a theory, you presumably have some testable evidence for that.
I'm lost.
:)
How about a simple question: Have climate modellers already proven their ability to accurately model the global climate 100 years out, or not?
Yes, and No
What climate modellers have shown is that a range of models, all with different assumptions, when taken together, provide a range of predictions of the global climate for the next century.
This range of predictions can be statistically examined. There is an average prediction, and there are extreme limit predictions. All we can say is that the chances are the future climate will be within these limits.
What I am trying to say is that the procedures and approaches used by climate modellers are respectable and well-tested. Whether or not the results are 'accurate' depends what you mean by accurate! Climate models predict anything from a few degrees rise to ten degrees, and this in turn depends on how much CO2 we continue to produce.
I said it was less certain than other areas of science.
I am am insisting that it isn't. The point of using statistical ensembles is to be able to quantify the uncertainty.
Predicting against the past is not the same as predicting the future or scenarios that we haven't seen before with success.
No, it isn't. But it is done all the time. It is done in economics, in biology, even in physics (cosmology). There is nothing unique about climate modelling in this respect.
But eventually they get into wind tunnels, are driven on roads, and flown in the air, before the consumer is asked to buy them.
And climate models are run against past data before they are accepted. No model is acceptable unless it can produce reproducible results against some real data - there would be no point.
There's a huge difference between trying to divine the rules of physics vs. trying to model a complex and constantly changing system. Gravity, electricty, and chemical reactions haven't changed since we've been studying them. We've built cities and all our technology using the same basic principles over and over again.
We aren't trying to divine the rules of physics - we are trying to model how things behave. Some things are simple to model (as in quantum electrodynamics), some aren't (as in quantum chromodynamics).
I still can't believe you are arguing that climate models are as certain as most areas of science. I'm willing to bet your statements would be ridiculed in a respectable climatology forum. Care to find out?
You are missing the point. What I am saying is that the approach is well established - the simulation techniques, and the statistical methods used to analyse the results of the simulations - it is all extremely well-established and respectable.
That is not to say that the models themselves are certain, or the results are certain. The models are debated, as they should be.
But what happens is that when a significant number of models have been run on sufficient scales and the results tend towards the same indication, it has to be taken seriously.
This is exactly the way this sort of modelling works in other areas of science. For example, in chemistry the way many things behave is still poorly understood, so what happens is that a range of models are run at different scales and with different degrees of simplification, until some understanding of what is happening is achieved.
What would be ridiculed in a respectable forum is your contention that climate modelling is some kind of 'dirty science', in which the normal standards don't apply.
You were asking why the layman questions climate modelers. Climate modelers do not use their technology to make cars or GPS systems. They have no track record of predicting what will happen in 100 years time.
I am glad you mentioned cars. The methods used by climate modellers are indeed used by those who make cars. They are also used by those who make planes. They use statistical methods to analyse turbulent flows to predict air flows, energy transfers and forces. It is very much the same sorts of modelling techniques used in climate studies. Just like climate studies, computing power has only recently reached the level where good models can be run.
Nothing, by definition, can have a track record of predicting what will happen in 100 years time (unless you have a time machine). What a scientific method can have is a track record of predicting retrospectively what has happened over 100-year intervals in the past.
Repeatable experiments and success at prediction are the standard scientific measure. To say that climate modeling should be given the same certainty as all of science is ridiculous.
No, it isn't. The methods of climate modelling use the same statistical methods and are judged by the same statistical criteria as those in all other areas of science.
To claim that climate modelling stands alone in some way, aside from the same criteria applied in other sciences, is ridiculous.
I know well the reasons why the layman questions climate modelling. The reasons are that the consequences are troubling, therefore there is a tendency towards denial.
Umm, if all science was exactly the same, then that would be true. However, fields like quantum mechanics have been experimentally verified to very precise levels, yielding far more certainties than stuff like climate models. That you are arguing this point makes me doubt your claimed credentials as a scientist. And if you are indeed a respected member of the climatology community (link to paper?), well let's just say that I hope you're style of reasoning is in the minority.
You are completely misunderstanding things.
Some parts of quantum mechanics have certainly been experimentally verified to a high precision. This is true for quantum electrodynamics.
On the other hand, other parts of quantum mechanics have not been experimentally verified to any significant precision, and this is where considerable work involving statistical ensembles is undertaken in an attempt to probe things further. This is the case for quantum chromodynamics - the study of quark + gluon interactions and the strong force. However, with sufficient large models, run over a reasonable number of ensembles, progress has been made.
Why do you hope that a detailed understanding of statistical ensembles is a minority view?
I am sorry, but this leads me to suspect preconceived ideas about climate modelling - a desire to reject a scientific approach.
Because other areas often involve repeatable experiments. You can't put the earth in a controlled environment and run the experiment over and over, and see what the outcome is with more or less greenhouse gasses. Sure, you can do this is in a model, but then you can only predict what the model will do.
well, there goes much of science. Much of science consists of running repeatable experiments on models, and seeing what the models do, then comparing what happens to models with reality. That has been the basis of much of science for decades, modelling everything from quantum mechanics to cosmology - areas where you can't re-run things in the phsyical world.
However, I'm just trying to explain why there's more room for doubt than with other fields of science.
There isn't more room for doubt, as I explain above.
The EU won't EVER be satisfied by what Microsoft supplies. It's just a way of damaging Microsoft and by implication American interests in Europe, so that the EU can "catch up" with its own pathetic software industry.
If this were the case, there would have to be some European-based alternatives to Microsoft software that had to catch up.
Perhaps you could tell us what these are?
Well, that's a start. Now try reading and understanding.
I am disapointed, as I assumed we were having a reasoned and friendly discussion.
I do take an agnostic position on this. I very much doubt that the moon is made of cheese, and I would assume it's not, so it's not as if this would come up in conversation and have me ridiculed. But, in fact, most of the time, I don't even consider the question, and when I do, I arrive at two conclusions:
1. It's highly unlikely that the moon is made of cheese, given a whole set of assumptions I have about the way the world works.
2. It's also quite impossible for me to know whether the moon even exists, much less what it's made of.
I am very surprised at this. I find it hard to argue against! I disagree with it fundamentally, but I don't think I can explain any more clearly why.
I think you are. I also think you didn't read my post. Please read this one, I'll try to keep it short.
I did read your post, and this one.
My point is that there are things that are worth being agnostic about, and things that aren't. Some things are so unworthy of such consideration, that I would claim that we aren't even agnostic - almost everyone is naturally 'atheist' about such things.
To give a silly example, almost no-one things that the moon is made of cheese. People aren't even agnostic about it - people are, basically 'acheesists', and anyone who took an agnostic position on this would, justifiably, be ridiculed.
Being agnostic is not a neutral position - it is giving weight to the idea you are agnostic about; suggesting it has some validity, that it is a reasonable possibility. There are somethings that are less reasonable than others.
This is why I really don't think it is sensible to claim that one is agnostic about everything.
Even on the "core issues", I'm sure you'll find a lot more uncertainty than you might expect.
I don't disagree, but I still think any attempt to use the word 'faith' in the context of scientific axioms is mistaken. Even if it is a sort of faith, it is of an entirely different quality from religious faith which is intended to be evidence-free.
Science expects its "faith" to change.
I don't understand why you keep using the term 'faith'. You aren't using it in any way I understand. Faith does not mean a general feeling that something is right; it is an unquestioning belief that does not need evidence. That does not apply here.
Yes. Aren't you?
I mean, how can you be absolutely convinced, beyond doubt, that they don't exist?
Missing the point here.
There are some things that don't come close to being worth being unsure about.....
His descriptions of moderates are consistently descriptions of apathetic fundamentalists; they do not represent any of the other views and models found within Christianity. His whole argument for liberals as "enablers" of fundamentalists depends on the assumption that liberals are just fundamentalists with less conviction.
No, this is not what he says at all. He certainly does not describe moderates as apathetic fundamentalists. To give an example, fundamentalists may have trouble believing in evolution, but moderates don't. Dawkins has never said that moderate are simply apathetic disbelievers in evolution!
If you are going to disagree with a writer, you really should make an effort to understand what he is saying.