<i>Sadly, these examples of institutional pressure to conform will be dismissed as anecdotal by well known climate scientists, and then ignored.</i>
The very last thing you want known about pressuring conformance, is that you are doing it. You want the tortured conformance to have the appearance of free thinking and integrity.
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by Punksta
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by Punksta
What skeptics deny, is that the truebeliever consensus knows what it is talking about, ie the deliberately faked certainty. Maybe they should be RICO’d eh?
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by JCH
“Science is an ongoing race between our inventing ways to fool ourselves, and our inventing ways to avoid fooling ourselves.” – Saul Perlmutter
Well, he fooled himself if he joined Berkley Earth to produce a graph that was any different:
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Ward of the wood
Cerescokid
Expectations yes, results well lets see
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by JCH
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:2015" rel="nofollow">The AMO is heading negative, and the Stadium Wave is on... no fooling... I'm not kidding</a>
↧
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by opluso
This post leaves out one of the key ways scientists fool themselves. If the results are susceptible to alternative interpretations, you simply declare that your results are “not inconsistent with” your preferred hypothesis and move on.
Oh, wait. That’s how they fool the public, not themselves…
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Kelly Madden
“The problem is that post-hoc stories can be concocted to justify anything and everything — and so end up truly explaining nothing. ”
Example: “Our brains evolved long ago on the African savannah, where jumping to plausible conclusions about the location of ripe fruit or the presence of a predator was a matter of survival. But a smart strategy for evading lions does not necessarily translate well to a modern laboratory, where tenure may be riding on the analysis of terabytes of multidimensional data.”
Why, exactly, our brains evolved to their present state of ready self-deception is… a matter for ongoing study, surely?
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by JCH
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-15/antarctic-ice-shelf-sea-level-rise-warning/6853780" rel="nofollow">the Climate Etc. refrain: 3mm per year is 12 inches by 2100</a>
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by rovingbroker
And make sure you put all your retirement savings into last year’s best performing mutual fund — the management team is obviously brilliant.
↧
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by quondam
Might I suggest a concrete example of hypothesis myopia endemic to those professing to climate science? A certain function, say OLR, is presumed to be an analytic function of some temperature, say, To. We then proceed to analyze this relationship. But why only To? One might instead have presumed a function of T(x,y,z). Until one has shown that, if To is given, the entire thermal profile is also determined, the two hypotheses will lead to different results.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
May I add a second to that comment?
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Steve Fitzpatrick
Nature could have just reprinted Feynmans Cargo Cult Science address and covered the same ground… and more. But it is good Nature is willing to address the problem.
In the specific case of climate science, there are all the “usual” problems of potential bias, as in any scientific field, but there is more: climate science has a strong history of public advocacy (eg, the 1989 Schneiderian suggestion to make “the world a better place” through scary stories and green politics) which only magnifies the psychological reward for advocate/scientists finding ‘desirable’ results, those consistent with alarming climate predictions, and for discounting or ignoring ‘undesirable results’ (Gee, it’s not as bad as we thought).
The sad part is that while the problem of bias is clear to many outside the field, few participants in the field appear willing to even acknowledge the possibility of bias. Myopic is the most generous description I can think of. “There are none so blind as those who will not see” may be more accurate.
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Jeff Glassman
Re: fooled scientists 10/14/2015
(1) This problem doesn’t exist in industry where erroneous scientific models are stillborn.
(2) Q. If one wanted to fool an academic scientist, how might he proceed?
A. Tell one of these falsehoods about his work: (a) it was peer-reviewed when it wasn’t or (b) it was published in a certified journal when it wasn’t. The third way would be to lie about having the support of a certified consensus, but there’s no real way to do that, is there?
(3) What is fooling whole schools of academics is the acceptance of Post Modern Science as science. They missed that one-day seminar on epistemology. In Modern Science, models must have predictive power. And never mind peer-review, publication, or consensus claiming. No fooling.
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by logiclogiclogic
Reblogged this on <a href="https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science-part-ii/" rel="nofollow">UnderstandItAll</a>.
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Hank Zentgraf
“explicitly considering competing hypotheses, and if possible working to develop experiments that can distinguish between them. This approach, called strong inference, attacks hypothesis myopia head on.”
What heresy! We got our marching orders in 1988 from the UN: our climate is dominated by recent anthropogenic emissions. Now damn you, go out and prove it!
Until the funding and review bias in our government agencies is eliminated, this post is just an academic exercise.
Just last week I asked the moderator of a small group climate discussion centered around A Gore’s Ted talk on climate science here in Ft Collins if I could show a chart showing the “pause” in relation to the IPCC model results. I was told emphatically, NO. The bias has infected average citizens.
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by despiser
Our so called Scientists have all fallen for the leftist inspired “White swan hypothesis” trap. If your hypothesis is that only white swans exist then you go out and find a black swan then your hypothesis has failed scientifically. If you go out and purposefully ignore that black swan then you don’t have science in any way shape or form. Modern Progressive Liberals all ignore the black swan on purpose so they can implement Socialism (and its force of power) upon us all.
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Larry J
The team of rivals approach reminds me of how the Wright brothers collaborated in their development of the airplane. Each man was intelligent and had strong opinions. They would argue for hours over the issues and challenges they encountered. Sometimes, by the end of an argument, each had reversed his previous opinion. In one biography of the Wright brothers, I read an interesting statement: “No one man could’ve invented the airplane. But two men did.” Wilbur Wright died of typhus in 1912. Orville lived until shortly after WWII. In all that time, he really didn’t contribute much of anything to aviation. Without his brother to collaborate with, Orville lost his spark.
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by scribblerg
@JustinWonder – My comment was actually directed just at people like you. To think that journalism was overrun with Marxists – who now call themselves Progressives or Social Justice devotees – due to Watergate is exactly the kind of superficial analysis that has let them run the table across most institutions in our society.
I wonder, did you even bother to Google “Gramscian counter-hegemony”? My guess is that you didn’t. My guess is that you, like most people who aren’t left wing maniacs think don’t have a clue as to how our politics have become what they are. None of this was incidental or accidental.
I won’t explain it all here but suffice it to say that when WWI and other events in the early/mid 20th century didn’t bring about the revolution, Marxists realized that their worldview was incomplete. Starting at places like the “New School for Social Research” and other denizens of hard core Marxism, an idea was fomented that a cultural revolution was needed that overtook society via infecting its institutions with Marxist ideology. And so it began.
Consider that Saul Alinsky – who both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were fawning devotees of – instrumentalized a form of politics which gave the radicals a plan for how to accomplish this WITHIN THE SYSTEM. His book, Rules for Radicals is a bible for the generation of leftists no in power across our society.
That most people on the right or center consider what I’ve said here paranoid or a conspiracy theory or fantastic is a testament to how ignorant they are. The left has won – and the climate change nonsense is merely one of many, many levers they use in our politics to drive their agenda forward.
If you take me seriously, you may realize that the reason we lose the argument in the public/political space is that facts and reason and truth don’t matter to them. They’ve seen past all those petty conventions due to post-modern, post-structuralist ideas that expressly encourage them to do so, and give them moral justification for doing so.
It’s too late to wake up, fyi. We’ve already lost. The only chance of making real change will come from revolution, but I don’t think it could succeed.
All nations come to an end. All societies wax and then wane. Why shouldn’t our society go down the tubes? Enjoy the decline, there is nothing you can do to stop it.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout
Vaughn Pratt
The Science of Doom author (Steve Carson) includes a review of AR5 WG1 Chapter 10 in his section called Attribution and Fingerprints in the series he calls Natural Variability and Chaos.. Here is the link to Attribution and Fingerprints:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2014/11/01/natural-variability-and-chaos-three-attribution-fingerprints/
↧
Comment on Adjudicating the future: silencing climate dissent via the courts by sailor1031
I believe that Professor Sands has shown us the way forward to a glorious future where there will be no scientific controversy at all. Sweet consensus will reign supreme and pointless research into and discussion of such topics as the big bang, inflationary universe, colliding branes, did the universe have a beginning or was it always here, particle physics (seems a good thing the ICJ hasn’t yet ruled on whether neutrinos have mass or not), the ultimate fate of the universe, is c really constant, what is the exact value of Pi (and Epsilon), is mathematics (any of it) right, is zero an integer….the field is inexhaustible. I look forward to the court commencing its work in the comfort of a climate that is two degrees warmer than today’s.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
