‘The only not altogether agreeable thing about him was his habit of every now and then slowly and carefully raising his hand to catch the flies on his face, and sometimes managing to squash them.’
H/t it’s Father Alexei, T, F&S.(1861)
===========================
In light of CAGW advocacy, you-all might find this interesting. It deals with “methods”.
FoxNews. “Yet Another Video Shows ObamaCare Architect Disparaging Voter Intelligence.” News. FoxNews.com, November 13, 2014.
Ross, Chuck. “In Third Video, Obamacare Architect Talks About ‘Basic Exploitation’ Of American Voters [VIDEO].” News. The Daily Caller, November 12, 2014.
This guys gets all the dates, even without any looks (he’s invisible)!
“Power, I said! Power to walk into the gold vaults of the nations, into the secrets of kings, into the Holy of Holies; power to make multitudes run squealing in terror at the touch of my little invisible finger. Even the moon’s frightened of me, frightened to death! The whole world’s frightened to death! “
Craig wrote- “The problem arises when the experts present a distorted picture of what they know to achieve some goal of their own.”
My question- How is the situation different if/when an “expert” sincerely presents a scientific case that ultimately turns out to be incorrect? Doesn’t the public’s trust in “scientists” overall also get reduced?
Climatereason, Isn’t a pity you did not ask this IPCC person why they knew that there was extra heat at the bottom of the oceans! I suspect his answer could be paraphrased thus:
We know from our models that more heat is being trapped in the atmosphere by the extra CO2, and we can’t find it anywhere else, so it must be at the bottom of the oceans where it can’t be measured properly!
A far more plausible explanation is that the feedback parameters in the climate models are wrong, so there isn’t any extra heat, so it doesn’t have to reside anywhere.
F=ma, works every time!!
When I am posting here or writing a scientific paper, I have confidence in my ability to do research and argue logically. I also have confidence in the fact that other people will not take my word for anything, since I lack one of those Nobel thingees, and that they may not be familiar with facts I take for granted. Therefore, keeping my audience in mind, I work hard to support all my arguments. This is how to avoid Dunning-Kruger effects: remember that it is a conversation.
Somehow he knew how long to set the timer, how long the conversation would last. That’s impressive!
“The immediate response to confident scientific studies is to say” –??
Imo, the reaction to the study is directly related to the potential impact the suggested actions will have on my life or the lives of others. In most cases there is no impact so I don’t really care and await the truth to come out over time.
In cases where the conclusions will lead to an impact, I am generally skeptical unless or until I have reviewed what I consider to be sufficiently reliable evidence to support the stated conclusion(s). The relative impact of implementing a case certainly relates to the amount of evidence needed to reduce the skepticism.
This reflects the fact that people love their own research and are not likely to see it as wrong. I have had discussions with 2 top scientists in Ecology who had very different views that could not both be right, and neither would budge an inch. For this reason scientific truth is external to any single scientist. If the scientist is basing his work on a very small sample size or a survey or some other squishy method, he is ethically bound to qualify his assertions, but training to this effect is not adequate.
Dr. Curry – I am merely a Chemical Engineer, but in 2006 I stumbled across the website of Dr. J. Marvin Herndon: http://www.nuclearplanet.com. He first published in 1992 and has been completely dismissed by mainstream science, but everything he has described makes so much sense, including the cyclical cause of terrestrial warming and cooling. The GeoReactor — a fast Neutron Closed Cycle Breeder Reactor formed at the core of every planet in the solar system as well as the ignition trigger for stellar fusion.
DS, the issue of underdetermined theory is a deep and fascinating one. But in the end any theory must be judged at any point in time (as new information becomes available) along a spectrum from untrue through uncertain to likely true (as Einstein pointed out, seldom absolute truth). That is where critical thinking comes into play. And where beliefs and agendas can not only morph uncertain into ‘true’ as the IPCC has done, they can even morph ‘untrue’ into seemingly ‘true’. Intelligent Design’s assertion about the irreducible complexity of the eye, and the NEA stance on classroom size and educational acheivement are two examples from my book on critical thinking, The Arts of Truth.
And my opening chapter on the philosophy of ‘truth’ (science) quotes liberally from Stanford’s Plato project at the website you linked above.
John -
I am amazed at how the mere mention of a hiatus has been demonized.
I am seeing a lot of supposedly “science based” or “science supporting” individuals deriding Ted Cruz in various Facebook postings for this quote “The last 15 years there has been no recorded warming.” I’m not that well informed on Ted Cruz and there may be a lot not to like about him and many things he’s said. But it seems they are mutually attacking him and anyone who would ever bring up the hiatus. Unfortunately it seems that among large segments of the general “science supporting” population you can get yourself labeled as ignorant, a denier, anti-science, evil, or worse by just noting anything from recent IPCC documents that could be perceived to threaten any of the current “warmest” talking points.
What is the avenue for combating collective willful misrepresentations?
Related to oceans and warming, here’s some interesting new research:
glad to see you are reading Quine
Model projections,of AR5. Might ye call these an example of
the over confidence of ‘experts?’
The Dunning / Lewandowsky relationship is circular reasoning one removed.
Dunning’s studies claim the unskilled suffer from illusory superiority.
Lewandowsky uses Dunning to justify his perceived “real” superiority when he uses badly constructed studies to denigrate people whose viewpoint is different than his.
No it does not. F=ma ASSUMES constant radius (distance between the two bodies). The formula works relatively well near the surface of the earth, but even there, subtle changes can be measured. Geophysics anyone? Try to figure out F=ma from first principles without assuming constant r. I would love to read that paper! I have actually attempted the math, it is not an easy thing to derive. That is how you get the expression “rocket scientist”.
beth–Imo, claiming that we can rely upon ANY model prior to it having demonstrated a history of performance in meeting observed conditions within reasonable margins of error in total folly. It doesn’t really matter if the error was a sincere scientific error or an intentional effort to mislead. It is still a silly scientific practice.
