Sorry, the wife interrupted me and I ended my post before I was ready. I didn’t mean to monologue you. :) I wanted to ask,
1) Am I still making a mistake in my premises in your view, and
2) Generally, what do you make of my distinction about evidence vrs proof?
Thanks
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Mark Bofill
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Chris Colose
Saying things like “models are wrong at __” is not a very interesting or useful position…but the degree to which you can project that model bias onto your “skepticism” of the whole simulation (or the specific question you’re asking of the model) takes experience and training. You might indeed need to revise a theory, but what precisely needs revision isn’t self-evident by seeing that the model is “wrong.” It is also at this point in the process of engaging the scientific problem(e.g., model wrongness) that we see scientists and mud-slingers separate themselves into people solving the problem and people saying “see, see, I told you there was a problem to be solved!”
Many outsiders to complex sciences (whether it is atmospheric or astrophysical or ecology) are uncomfortable with the notion of a useful but wrong model, but such devices are the tool most of science is built upon, and the only way we can understand the world. In this context, it becomes even more nuanced when you start asking questions about when a bias matters and when it doesn’t.
You can certainly be “skeptical” or perhaps the better term is “curious” about all of the issues you raised, but there’s also a lot of literature you need to read on each in order to understand the context in which people are thinking about them. Indeed, it is precisely that the mainstream hasn’t ignored many of these things that so much literature exists. I know this might offend your democratic sensibility, or what you’ve been told about the scientific method in high school, but complex problems and caveats exist, you need to learn about them instead of trusting your gut, and the whole house of cards falling over in response to such problems isn’t usually the direction the science leads.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Willard
> The IPCC is a creation of the UN – a political organization.
[Step 1] The Royal Academy is the creation of King Charles II, a political entity.
[…]
[Step n] Scientific institutions are the creation of political organizations.
What should we infer from this, Eddie?
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Willard
> are there any “memes” within the IPCC which give you “pause”?
You go first, Danny.
Tell me about some contrarian memes that give you pause.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Sciguy54
Mark
The streets of hell are paved with good intentions. There once was a theory that if your skin was black, then you really needed to be subjugated by others for your own good. This seemed so obvious that men of intellect and good intentions could write a constitution which proclaimed the right of all men to be free but also allowed for the ownership of black men and women in slavery.
And today we see a confederacy of politicians and persons with scientific credentials rushing to yoke the masses even as measured (?) climate creeps into the most statistically improbable corners of their theory. But it is for your own good, don’t you know!
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by climatereason
Hi Chris
Nice to see you around here again.
Last time you paid us a visit I think you were still a phd student. Have you got your doctorate yet?
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Blog moderation etc. by Hans Erren
Hi is the denizens chapter closed? I wanted to add an entry.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Chris Colose
such things take time…
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Chris Colose
that was supposed to be a climatereason response below…oh well
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by ordvic
Hmmm … that’s an interesting proposition I hadn’t thought of before … there is no global temperature. I suppose one could take that view as it is not a direct measurement but rather a compilation of data related to temperatures.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by jim2
Danny Thomas – businesses meet now with government officials in secret. At least if their interaction were public, we would know who is sticking the knife in our backs. And you can talk to your reps and moreover, vote. You can also join with like-minded others to support various candidates.
From the article:
Google staffers, including Eric Schmidt, met with White House officials 230 times across two terms, or roughly once a week in four years. Those meetings also took place in the final weeks before the commission settled with Google, backing away from what would have been the biggest antitrust lawsuit since the Justice Department took on Microsoft in the 1990s.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/25/8287961/google-ftc-white-house-lobbying
↧
Comment on Blog moderation etc. by beththeserf
London calling …Come in pokerguy … )
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Wagathon
THE BIG QUESTION: Were the relatively warmer European winters over the several decades associated with global warming alarmism the result of relatively higher–and indeed ‘exceptionally’ higher–solar activity?
THE ANSWER: If you are a climate realist, your answer will of course be: Yes!
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by matthewrmarler
Chris Colose: Many outsiders to complex sciences (whether it is atmospheric or astrophysical or ecology) are uncomfortable with the notion of a useful but wrong model, but such devices are the tool most of science is built upon, and the only way we can understand the world. In this context, it becomes even more nuanced when you start asking questions about when a bias matters and when it doesn’t.
At the present time, the high bias in the GCMs clearly shows that they are not useful for public policy — at minimum, the high bias shows that, although “wrong”, they have not been shown to be “useful”.
You might indeed need to revise a theory, but what precisely needs revision isn’t self-evident by seeing that the model is “wrong.”
The most glaring short-coming of the models to date (that is, other than their consistently high bias) is that they account poorly for the changes in non-radiative transfer of energy from the surface of the Earth to the upper troposphere. Even a 2% increase per K in the global rainfall rate puts a limit on how much the surface temperature can be raised by an increase of 4 W/m^2 of DWLWIR, and estimates of up to 7% per K have been published.
“Impactful”? Skeptics have been persuasive up till now in showing that the projections by the people who have been warning of extreme warming are unreliable. I think that modelers and others in the “warning” community will require at least a decade of really accurate forecasts before they can regain the confidence of voters. In policy, it is valuable to point out that the knowledge base behind a recommendation for expensive new projects is full of holes, even if the people who point it out are not the scientists charged with the investigations. When it has been shown that “you” do not know what the answer is, it hardly satisfices to point out that “your” critics do not know either.
I posted a short computation at RealClimate, under the workshop on “climate sensitivity” that might interest you. I also posted it here the other day. It is the summation of numerous smaller related posts.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Danny Thomas
Williard,
I have, but will again.
Reliance on modeling w/r/t policy.
Temps not doing as modeled.
Sensitivities to CO2.
SLR.
IPCC reps stating that we need to change the global economy (even if the GW/CC theory is wrong?).
Attributions.
There are many unknowns, and I don’t know them all to the extent which some do, but as you project a long history of following this topic and such a deep knowledge base I’d presume (maybe wrongly) that there are areas of concern in your mind.
This all goes to my point stated before that had IPCC focused on the science and stayed out of policy credibility “might” have been less of an issue. This is not a “climate ball” question to set up you for something but instead is to attempt to gain a grasp of how critically you evaluate this topic.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Eric
So no examples involving Al Gore. Another talking point shown false.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Eric
So far it has only been conservatives using government to silence debate about climate change. Why are conservatives supportive of government suppressing freedom?
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Curious George
I am afraid that electrons don’t interact with photons or neutrinos. Otherwise you are correct. How a photon of a wavelength of – I am guessing here – about 2 cm manages to get absorbed by a single hydrogen atom is beyond me.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Eric
Why are you against open markets and individuals making money?
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Danny Thomas
Jim2,
You and agree on the need for methods which do not allow for even the impression of impropriety. But no taxes? On this, I completely disagree. Corporate entities utilize infrastructure, transportation, waterways, and so on and certainly IMO need to pay their fair share for the consumption of those governmentally provided and or overseen products. Passing those costs through to individual taxpayers? Okay, as long as there is a governmental MANDATE that wages/salaries are insured to be an offset (but that’s gonna lead to more governmental inclusion including finances). Still don’t see how that’s gonna work.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
