George Will: Willfully ignorant, plain and simple.
Economic models: Demonstratably less robust than climate models, psuedo-skeptics assume Friedman's economic theories are devine truth and therefore immune to critisisim.
Scientific consensus: Simply another way to say "established theory", the very act of submiting a paper for peer review is the formal act of asking other scientists for a "consensus" that the predictive theory contained in a paper cannot be disproven.
Judging by the way "scientific consensus" is shat apon in this thread there are sure one hell of a lot of "nerds" who have never heard of the "republic of science", let alone have a clue about what it means.
The IPCC SPM was peer-reviewed and agree apon by every national science body on the planet. Getting 2500 scientists to agree on a 20 page report about a "fuzzy" and contraversial subject is indeed an extrodinary effort, like all "established theroy" the report is consertative.
But hey, George Will and the op/ed pages of the WSJ can cut through all that scientific mumbo-jumbo and have found that "enviromentalists" are plotting to take SUV's away from the fun-loving public. Give us a fucking break and go and read something rather than simply cherry-picking psuedo-skeptics that agree with your politics.
"All I and Mr. Chrichton want is clean science. No consensus, no politics. Capice?"
If Chrichton wants "clean science" why did he accept an invitation to give evidence on "the facts behind climate change" to a senate commitee. The guy is entitled to his opinion but I and many others object to his fiction being misrepresented as science to policymakers and the public.
It's not even really about politics either, Chrichton does what he does to sell science fiction books. Capice?
Actually I agree, see my post below answering the same critisim.
"But my point, which I would empathically assert is equally fair and demand to make, is - if these pieces are MISSING and UNKNOWN, why are we in the course of changing the entire global political, economic and social systems and the daily life of every person in the world based on pure speculation about them?"
No argument here either, extrodinary claims require extrordinary eveidence and all that...
"IFF you don't mind, I will do everything I can to stop that until such knowledge exists"
I find it extrodinary that 2500 scientists can agree on a single 20 page report, you might find figure SPM-2 informative.
It's good to double check your sources and after doing so I have to admit you are absolutely correct.
"Actually, the linked article is fairly good for Real Climate.
After a second reading I find it below par, here is the evidentary link, they normaly don't forget stuff like that.
"while villifying anyone who works on studying the Sun"
On the contrary, (and coincidentally), from the above link...
"The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth's climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how..."
"assuming that these [cosmic ray] researchers aren't denied funding..."
I'm not sure what "reasearchers" you are talking about but here is a list of "reputable" articles/papers on the subject of '"cosmic rays" and climate'. I say "reputable" since it comes for RC"s "google coop search", the list of sites in their search includes (Science, Nature, NASA, NOAA, AGU, ect), it even includes their "other opinions" list. If you don't wan't to be "censored" then there is always google wher I am sure TFA's linking of cosimc rays to climate change will find plenty of support (none of it scientific but it is well funded).
"...on the basis of having become "too controvercial", which is the typical fate of anyone who brings the "consensus" into question."
Politically contraversial is entirely different to scientifically contraversial (re: Darwin). Also a political consensus is entirely different to scientific consensus (re: Dogma vs Established theory), a scientists job is to attack established theory via consensus, the relationship between dogma and a politicians job is fairly self-eveident. The very act of submitting or performing peer-review is by definition a consensus of informed opinion using a formal methodology.
Just out of interest where is the "RC != science" FUD coming from - WSJ editorial page? I only ask because your "skeptcisim" seems reasonably coherent?
In otherwords nobody has ever demonstrated "cause and effect" via the scientific method. The usefullness of science is it's proven ability to predict the future.
"I think he meant serious, peer reviewed investigation"
Have a look again, RC is attacking a PRESS RELEASE similar to the PRESS RELEASE that is TFA. If this guy (or anyone else) publishes a paper on cosmic rays and climate I am sure it will be treated with more respect.
"In case the writers didn't know - environmentalists are also widely regarded..."
Perhaps RC contributors are also evil boogey-men "environmentalists" in their spare time, but they are climatoligists first and foremost. The guy who started the blog is the hockey stick guy and has been a lead authour in the IPCC reports, many of the contribitors also have a long list of current peer-reviewed publications under their belt, there is a bio for all of them on the site and (unlike psuedo-skeptical sites there is a prominent list of "other opinions. OTOH: The guy in TFA is a journalist who's claim to fame is that he was once the editor of New Scientst.
Having said that I doubt it will slow you from dogmatically defending a psuedo-skeptical press release in the face of overwhelming contra-evidence.
"Namely the behavior of destroying those who disagree with you instead of just trying to prove them wrong. As a good example, Edison did it to Tesla, and at no point was religion involved. People do it in politics everyday"
I think what you are describing is the definition of politics! The scientific method is demonstratably the best tool known to man for weeding dogma and politics out of any predictive theory. As for who's name is remebered, often that's just politics.:)
Agreed, and that is why NASA should drop the "man on Mars" crap and refocus on our own biosphere.
"...enough --- that is one reason why global warming proponents have to *declare* that the debate is decided, rather than let the evidence speak for itself."
This is a totally assinine assumption on your part, "not accurate" != "not usefull".
As for "evidence speaking for itself" please refer to figure SPM-2(PDF warning) in the 2007 IPCC SPM.
PS: Getting 10 scientists to agree on anything that is even slightly "fuzzy" is difficult, just ask anyone in forensics. Getting 2500 scientists to agree on a twenty page report is both remarkable and by the very nature of scientific consensus (ie: established theory), it is also bound to be remarkably conservative.
"Peer review and consensus aren't the same thing. They're barely related. Consensus is the process of finding a bunch of people who will attest to the same thing, while peer review is a process of criticism for an unproven idea."
Nothing is "proven" in science, theories survive because they cannot be disproven.
The more other scientists (ie: "a bunch of people") inspect a particular theory via peer-review (and peer-reviewed replication), the more confident science becomes that the theory is a predictive model of what has been observed in nature.
There are (at least) two parts to a scientific consensus that any "buch of scientists" must arrive at...
1. Agreement (ie:consensus) on the accuracy of the observations.
2. Agreement (ie:consensus) on the techniques used to draw a conclusion.
The most wonderous part of this method is that an inexperienced "nobody" like Albert can turn physics upside down with nothing more than three pages of unreferenced scribble and a powerfull imagination.
There is much more to skeptcisim than simply saying "bullshit". Anyone who claims to be a skeptic should be appling the technique to their own ideas in the first instance, if a scientist can't manage that (and many can't) then they are practising psuedo-skepticism that will inevitably produce psuedo-science.
BTW: I thought this site was for "nerds", I can't belive you have a 3 digit ID and nobody has explained this stuff yet.:-o
"Since science doesn't operate by consensus, any "consensus" is irrelevant."
BULLSHIT! Peer-review is an integral part of science, without it everything deteriorates into "he said - she said" politics.
Also the red herrings in TFA have been around for years and have been debunked ad-nauseam.
For all those wondering about attribution please look at the latest IPCC SPM, it has a diagram that has been peer-reviewed and agreed apon by ALL the national science bodies on the planet. It includes such things a volcanos, solar variation, ect, most impotantly it also includes error bars. The reason this guy has picked on clouds as other so called "skeptics" have done before him is because NOBODY has a good model of cloud formation.
"The short conclusion is, we have NO CLUE how the climate really works..."
The alternative conclusion is that you were deliberately aiming for the +Funny mod that you recieved.
Yep, metaphorically that's what Ghandi's followers did, there were some atrocities by the British but we all know who won. There is a chapter on the usefullness of a "suicidal" strategy in "The ancient art of war".
One issue votes based on a candidates apparent desire to lobby for an amendment to the constitution are just plain silly, eg: gay marrige. If you don't want the POTUS to act like a medieval king then stop assuming he has that sort of power.
I was simply trying to point out that longer term "predictions" are available and have a fair degree of accuracy. I fully understand that climate != weather => outlook != forecast.
A government that is "for the people" is by definition "socialisim".
However in practice even governments with the best of intentions can only manage to govern "for some of the people". Human nature ensures "equality" will ever happen but it remains a noble "goal".
The comparitive worth of government regulation and intervention on everything from spotted owls to the reserve bank should be judged by quantitative statistics not vauge qualitative "ism's". Of course then the problem is how do you put a dollar value on the benifits derived from spotted owls as a wild species, a pacemaker that gives granny a few more active retirement years, a picture from the Hubble, a public library?
"My problem isn't really how it works down there. It is how it will work up here."
You have 50 states, we have 7, you have 300M people we have 20M. I see the US political positions on health as similar to what we saw here in the 70's, the Australian system was not politically accepted by "everyone" until well into the 90's the most persistent objectors were the AMA and insurance lobbyists. There will always be a tug of war between private/public and doctors will always be wealthy and are thus selected from the cream of academic achivers (not an ideal measure of intelligence, but there you have it).
Waiting lists were a political football for the first couple of decades, and still go up and down. I am not a big fan of unions either but I would have to say the nurses union has at times kept the politicians honest. Anyway the basic power sharing principle is that the fed's collect the tax and dish it to the states in line with their needs and importantly prior performance on things such as waiting lists.
I think the US will eventually gets it's system sorted out in the next decade or so and could even be the envy of the medical world again like it was in the 60's but before anything can happen you need all the states and the feds to agree that any system should be measured in a rigourous statistical manner with health outcomes for patients tied to financial support for providers. The more "the people" look past their own borders the angrier they will become about their health system and that can only speed a benificial change to the "average" citien, the rich will scream like stuck pigs for a decade or so before most start to see the improvements and feel good about the "indirect philanthropy" of the system. There are plenty of things wrong with Australia, but (on a bi-partisan basis) the health system and "retirement system" look very attractive and sustainable when compared to what's available overseas.
Anyhow, I am glad we could talk to each other this time rather than talking past one another. I hope you do come and see the place sometime (and don't need a doctor). Let me know when you are serious about coming, my younger brother (a zoologist by training) has a "safari" bus in Darwin, he has only just started out on his own but he has been doing the same thing for 15yrs now. He will give you the camping trip of your life across the "top end", show you some breathtaking wilderness that is overflowing with life, meet the native tribes, the kind of stuff that inspired the steve irwin / crocodile dundee charactitures (although Steve wasn't doing much acting). Finally (depending on the group) the trip may end with a couple of "coldies" at the Humpty Doo pub (keep an eye out for the water buffallo). In the (short) video, "Harry" is my brother's ex-boss who helped set him up on his own last year, the guys with fake beards are two "pommy" filmakers, being a "yank" you would also be expected make an effort to "blend in".:)
Slashdot Mirror
George Will: Willfully ignorant, plain and simple.
Economic models: Demonstratably less robust than climate models, psuedo-skeptics assume Friedman's economic theories are devine truth and therefore immune to critisisim.
Scientific consensus: Simply another way to say "established theory", the very act of submiting a paper for peer review is the formal act of asking other scientists for a "consensus" that the predictive theory contained in a paper cannot be disproven.
Judging by the way "scientific consensus" is shat apon in this thread there are sure one hell of a lot of "nerds" who have never heard of the "republic of science", let alone have a clue about what it means.
The IPCC SPM was peer-reviewed and agree apon by every national science body on the planet. Getting 2500 scientists to agree on a 20 page report about a "fuzzy" and contraversial subject is indeed an extrodinary effort, like all "established theroy" the report is consertative.
But hey, George Will and the op/ed pages of the WSJ can cut through all that scientific mumbo-jumbo and have found that "enviromentalists" are plotting to take SUV's away from the fun-loving public. Give us a fucking break and go and read something rather than simply cherry-picking psuedo-skeptics that agree with your politics.
"All I and Mr. Chrichton want is clean science. No consensus, no politics. Capice?"
If Chrichton wants "clean science" why did he accept an invitation to give evidence on "the facts behind climate change" to a senate commitee. The guy is entitled to his opinion but I and many others object to his fiction being misrepresented as science to policymakers and the public.
It's not even really about politics either, Chrichton does what he does to sell science fiction books. Capice?
So youz an aussie, a. She'll be right mate? No wukers?
---Fucking yobbo, try wearing a hat, it prevents the brain boiling and the neck from turning red.
"The article does not refute anything."
Actually I agree, see my post below answering the same critisim.
"But my point, which I would empathically assert is equally fair and demand to make, is - if these pieces are MISSING and UNKNOWN, why are we in the course of changing the entire global political, economic and social systems and the daily life of every person in the world based on pure speculation about them?"
No argument here either, extrodinary claims require extrordinary eveidence and all that...
"IFF you don't mind, I will do everything I can to stop that until such knowledge exists"
I find it extrodinary that 2500 scientists can agree on a single 20 page report, you might find figure SPM-2 informative.
"This work in no way ANSWERS any questions."
It's good to double check your sources and after doing so I have to admit you are absolutely correct.
"Actually, the linked article is fairly good for Real Climate.
After a second reading I find it below par, here is the evidentary link, they normaly don't forget stuff like that.
"while villifying anyone who works on studying the Sun"
On the contrary, (and coincidentally), from the above link...
"The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth's climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how..."
"assuming that these [cosmic ray] researchers aren't denied funding..."
I'm not sure what "reasearchers" you are talking about but here is a list of "reputable" articles/papers on the subject of '"cosmic rays" and climate'. I say "reputable" since it comes for RC"s "google coop search", the list of sites in their search includes (Science, Nature, NASA, NOAA, AGU, ect), it even includes their "other opinions" list. If you don't wan't to be "censored" then there is always google wher I am sure TFA's linking of cosimc rays to climate change will find plenty of support (none of it scientific but it is well funded).
"...on the basis of having become "too controvercial", which is the typical fate of anyone who brings the "consensus" into question."
Politically contraversial is entirely different to scientifically contraversial (re: Darwin). Also a political consensus is entirely different to scientific consensus (re: Dogma vs Established theory), a scientists job is to attack established theory via consensus, the relationship between dogma and a politicians job is fairly self-eveident. The very act of submitting or performing peer-review is by definition a consensus of informed opinion using a formal methodology.
Just out of interest where is the "RC != science" FUD coming from - WSJ editorial page? I only ask because your "skeptcisim" seems reasonably coherent?
In otherwords nobody has ever demonstrated "cause and effect" via the scientific method. The usefullness of science is it's proven ability to predict the future.
"I think he meant serious, peer reviewed investigation"
Have a look again, RC is attacking a PRESS RELEASE similar to the PRESS RELEASE that is TFA. If this guy (or anyone else) publishes a paper on cosmic rays and climate I am sure it will be treated with more respect.
"In case the writers didn't know - environmentalists are also widely regarded..."
Perhaps RC contributors are also evil boogey-men "environmentalists" in their spare time, but they are climatoligists first and foremost. The guy who started the blog is the hockey stick guy and has been a lead authour in the IPCC reports, many of the contribitors also have a long list of current peer-reviewed publications under their belt, there is a bio for all of them on the site and (unlike psuedo-skeptical sites there is a prominent list of "other opinions. OTOH: The guy in TFA is a journalist who's claim to fame is that he was once the editor of New Scientst.
Having said that I doubt it will slow you from dogmatically defending a psuedo-skeptical press release in the face of overwhelming contra-evidence.
I don't have a problem with doing both, but trading research for joy rides is kinda silly.
Either that or what you wrote was terribly misleading, consensus is an essential part of the scientific method, no?
"Namely the behavior of destroying those who disagree with you instead of just trying to prove them wrong. As a good example, Edison did it to Tesla, and at no point was religion involved. People do it in politics everyday"
:)
I think what you are describing is the definition of politics! The scientific method is demonstratably the best tool known to man for weeding dogma and politics out of any predictive theory. As for who's name is remebered, often that's just politics.
"And he wasn't formally forgiven until the 1990s. So it was a bit worse than a plea bargain."
They may have "forgiven him" 300yrs later, but they are still hanging on to his telescope in the vatican.
"The measurements are not accurate..."
Agreed, and that is why NASA should drop the "man on Mars" crap and refocus on our own biosphere.
"...enough --- that is one reason why global warming proponents have to *declare* that the debate is decided, rather than let the evidence speak for itself."
This is a totally assinine assumption on your part, "not accurate" != "not usefull".
As for "evidence speaking for itself" please refer to figure SPM-2(PDF warning) in the 2007 IPCC SPM.
PS: Getting 10 scientists to agree on anything that is even slightly "fuzzy" is difficult, just ask anyone in forensics. Getting 2500 scientists to agree on a twenty page report is both remarkable and by the very nature of scientific consensus (ie: established theory), it is also bound to be remarkably conservative.
"Peer review and consensus aren't the same thing. They're barely related. Consensus is the process of finding a bunch of people who will attest to the same thing, while peer review is a process of criticism for an unproven idea."
:-o
Nothing is "proven" in science, theories survive because they cannot be disproven.
The more other scientists (ie: "a bunch of people") inspect a particular theory via peer-review (and peer-reviewed replication), the more confident science becomes that the theory is a predictive model of what has been observed in nature.
There are (at least) two parts to a scientific consensus that any "buch of scientists" must arrive at...
1. Agreement (ie:consensus) on the accuracy of the observations.
2. Agreement (ie:consensus) on the techniques used to draw a conclusion.
The most wonderous part of this method is that an inexperienced "nobody" like Albert can turn physics upside down with nothing more than three pages of unreferenced scribble and a powerfull imagination.
There is much more to skeptcisim than simply saying "bullshit". Anyone who claims to be a skeptic should be appling the technique to their own ideas in the first instance, if a scientist can't manage that (and many can't) then they are practising psuedo-skepticism that will inevitably produce psuedo-science.
BTW: I thought this site was for "nerds", I can't belive you have a 3 digit ID and nobody has explained this stuff yet.
"....it makes it worth at least looking at his claim"
It has been looked at, and will definitely be "looked at" again iff someone were to come up with a new idea.
"Since science doesn't operate by consensus, any "consensus" is irrelevant."
BULLSHIT! Peer-review is an integral part of science, without it everything deteriorates into "he said - she said" politics.
Also the red herrings in TFA have been around for years and have been debunked ad-nauseam.
For all those wondering about attribution please look at the latest IPCC SPM, it has a diagram that has been peer-reviewed and agreed apon by ALL the national science bodies on the planet. It includes such things a volcanos, solar variation, ect, most impotantly it also includes error bars. The reason this guy has picked on clouds as other so called "skeptics" have done before him is because NOBODY has a good model of cloud formation.
"The short conclusion is, we have NO CLUE how the climate really works..."
The alternative conclusion is that you were deliberately aiming for the +Funny mod that you recieved.
Yep, metaphorically that's what Ghandi's followers did, there were some atrocities by the British but we all know who won. There is a chapter on the usefullness of a "suicidal" strategy in "The ancient art of war".
One issue votes based on a candidates apparent desire to lobby for an amendment to the constitution are just plain silly, eg: gay marrige. If you don't want the POTUS to act like a medieval king then stop assuming he has that sort of power.
...ads watch you.
And just to be sure there is no confusion, a genuine skeptic attacts his own ideas first.
Choose the type of post:
-Fence-
-Slashdot-
-Last-
You chose -last post-, do you want help writing a suicide note?
I was simply trying to point out that longer term "predictions" are available and have a fair degree of accuracy. I fully understand that climate != weather => outlook != forecast.
A government that is "for the people" is by definition "socialisim".
However in practice even governments with the best of intentions can only manage to govern "for some of the people". Human nature ensures "equality" will ever happen but it remains a noble "goal".
The comparitive worth of government regulation and intervention on everything from spotted owls to the reserve bank should be judged by quantitative statistics not vauge qualitative "ism's". Of course then the problem is how do you put a dollar value on the benifits derived from spotted owls as a wild species, a pacemaker that gives granny a few more active retirement years, a picture from the Hubble, a public library?
"He did point out that AccuWeather is the only one who provides forecasts > 10 days in advance"
He must have missed Australian seasonal outlooks.
"My problem isn't really how it works down there. It is how it will work up here."
:)
You have 50 states, we have 7, you have 300M people we have 20M. I see the US political positions on health as similar to what we saw here in the 70's, the Australian system was not politically accepted by "everyone" until well into the 90's the most persistent objectors were the AMA and insurance lobbyists. There will always be a tug of war between private/public and doctors will always be wealthy and are thus selected from the cream of academic achivers (not an ideal measure of intelligence, but there you have it).
Waiting lists were a political football for the first couple of decades, and still go up and down. I am not a big fan of unions either but I would have to say the nurses union has at times kept the politicians honest. Anyway the basic power sharing principle is that the fed's collect the tax and dish it to the states in line with their needs and importantly prior performance on things such as waiting lists.
I think the US will eventually gets it's system sorted out in the next decade or so and could even be the envy of the medical world again like it was in the 60's but before anything can happen you need all the states and the feds to agree that any system should be measured in a rigourous statistical manner with health outcomes for patients tied to financial support for providers. The more "the people" look past their own borders the angrier they will become about their health system and that can only speed a benificial change to the "average" citien, the rich will scream like stuck pigs for a decade or so before most start to see the improvements and feel good about the "indirect philanthropy" of the system. There are plenty of things wrong with Australia, but (on a bi-partisan basis) the health system and "retirement system" look very attractive and sustainable when compared to what's available overseas.
Anyhow, I am glad we could talk to each other this time rather than talking past one another. I hope you do come and see the place sometime (and don't need a doctor). Let me know when you are serious about coming, my younger brother (a zoologist by training) has a "safari" bus in Darwin, he has only just started out on his own but he has been doing the same thing for 15yrs now. He will give you the camping trip of your life across the "top end", show you some breathtaking wilderness that is overflowing with life, meet the native tribes, the kind of stuff that inspired the steve irwin / crocodile dundee charactitures (although Steve wasn't doing much acting). Finally (depending on the group) the trip may end with a couple of "coldies" at the Humpty Doo pub (keep an eye out for the water buffallo). In the (short) video, "Harry" is my brother's ex-boss who helped set him up on his own last year, the guys with fake beards are two "pommy" filmakers, being a "yank" you would also be expected make an effort to "blend in".