Steven Mosher: <i>The happy ending of course is that Feynman was RIGHT when he refused to reject a theory that was at odds with the data. Because the data was incomplete. </i>
I wonder if you are preparing for an announcement later, perhaps Q2 in 2016, that the GCMs have been correct all along, and that the BEST temperature estimates are way too low over the last few decades.
Comment on Open thread by matthewrmarler
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by Ron Graf
While I mostly agree with your argument as it applies to the progress of science, I would point out that somehow it has to be decided what to write in the current textbooks. I like Dr. Christy’s and Michael Crichton’s call for “red team” funding on any climate related investigations. As it is now results are discarded or trusted (without scrutiny) based on affiliations of the investigators. This is not good for science advancement.
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by geoff@large
I hesitate to call any of Senator Markey’s remarks “reasoning” so I don’t know if this inconsistency is “politically motivated reasoning” but he seems to absolutely accept the accuracy of the satellite-based sea level measurement and seems to believe they can accurately measure global sea level to tenths of a mm, while rejecting satellite-based temperature measurements that show warming a fraction of surface measurements.
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by theshredder2015
It is likely that 97% of the people attending the republican convention will vote to nominate a republican for president. It is likely that 97% of the democrats will vote to nominate a democrat. Where you sample your data determines your results.
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by Ron Graf
When you have four independent databases for one metric and only two of them agree, in most sciences that calls for close scrutiny of the outlier. In climate science the outlier is the only one used by the consensus, the station record. I would wonder why NASA could not find more resources to get a new third satellite that was they could fully rely on for accurate global temp to be used as well as radiosonde and Argo data. Station data was designed for weather and local climates, not global coverage.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by PA
Environmental awareness, eh?
Reminds me of PETA. The “kind to the animals” people? The “don’t wear fur” people?
They euthanize virtual all animals they “rescue” since they view petdom as slavery and believe that having pets is wrong.
The outlook of environmentalists reminds me of PETA. Only sane rational people should be allowed to rescue animals or the environment.
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by geoff@large
Dear Judith and Willis,
Judith – how to debunk the 97% consensus meme.
May I offer a reconciliation between your question and Willis’ comment?
Willis is 100% right that science is not a democracy. On the other hand, in terms of persuasion, it is reasonable to have both short and long answers to the 97% meme.
The short version – it isn’t true and anyone who says it is is either ignorant or a lying propagandist (or insert your similar phrase here). There is no third alternative.
Then depending on the time available, the perceived attention span of your audience and whether you’re commenting in writing or orally, you can quickly bring up the salient points:
1) the 97% meme is clearly refuted in the “peer-reviewed literature”
2) to the extent the claims are agreed they are weak (i.e., believed by almost everyone including most attendees at last year’s Heartland climate conference) (e.g., it’s gotten warmer over the past two centuries)
3) credible survey’s report significantly lower numbers
4) no social belief surveys affect actual physics and measurements
It should be an embarrassment for anyone to use that propaganda line, so if they are using it in ignorance you can enlighten them, and if they are using it as lying propaganda, they should be shamed.
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by angech2014
“Regarding our recent discussion of how to debunk the 97% consensus meme.”
This will come in time if the consensus is wrong.
Arctic sea ice will recover.
The planet will cool for a period, even 5 years would be enough, to show a rapidly extending pause.
Antarctic Sea ice will have to maintain it’s growth.
Zeke and Nick will have to admit you cannot make up the data for 20,000 of their 30,000 worldwide surface measuring stations.
The 10,000 real stations will eventually have to admit the real data showing a fall to the 20,000 made up and out of action stations when the data can no longer be tortured and squeezed.
As their algorithms cannot make it 5 degrees cooler compared to real data 100 years ago [maxed out at 2.3 degrees] real lower readings will show a catastrophic fall in real time temperature while warming the past.
La Nina about to hit. I can just hear all the excuses starting now.
Cool heads and rational argument cannot win the day unless accompanied by unequivocal signs that the planet merely has hot and cold phases in the lifetime of human beings.
20 years old when I was told the world will freeze,
50 when I was told it will warm, now 65 so I guess less than 15 years will see it come to fruition. In most of our lifetimes I expect.
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by beththeserf
We need to adopt a critical response to the sacrosanct
myths we humans keep creating to explain our world
and place within it otherwise we’re stuck in a niche
like old-time tribes obedient to shamen who controlled
the weather; or philosopher kings’ necessary ‘noble’
lies regarding the metals in men, or political systems
upholding the divine right of kings to recent master race
mythologies, another call to dominance, to, well, 21st
century shamen on CO2 theory climate prediction
requiring action now!.
While science involves tests, not consensus, acts of
political-mythical number-crunching should be shown
for what they are.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by beththeserf
Thought fer Today:
‘ Here feel we but the penalty of Adam,
The season’s difference, as the icy fang
And churlish chiding of the winter’s wind,
Which when it bites and blows upon my body,
Even till I shrink with cold, I smile and say
‘This is no flattery: these are counsellers
That feelingly tell me what I am.’
The Bard. ‘As You Like It.’ Act 2 Scene 1.
from the Bard.
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by beththeserf
Edit 3 extra words …Lines fall apart, the centre don’t
always hold ( fer serfs.)
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by Michael Cox
Sure Ron Graf, you can argue about which version is best, which direction is the best for moving forward. The surface readings, to my mind, are fraught with error. Thermometers to a hundredth of a degree? Riiiight… Satellites are a better bet. It’s still all within error of the measurements, and absent a large trend, will continue to be so. Should we make decisions on bad cloud models, and assumptions about aerosols? No. We just don’t know. Looks like 20yrs of inconclusiveness. Possibly 20kyrs of inconclusiveness! We don’t understand all the factors that caused the younger/elder Dryas periods. We just don’t. Little Ice Age? Dunno. To the OP point, if we are honest, not beholden to bias, we just don’t know. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep looking, but it does mean that the honest answer is that we won’t know for decades, or centuries hence. Bummer, right?
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 | Climate Etc. | sanandamelchizedek
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by Climate Apocalypse Cult Hijacks Clean Earth Movement | al fin next level
[…] Not only that. The climate circus — the Climate Apocalypse Cult™ Crusade — is doing more harm to the human future than all terrorists, Chinese hackers, and dysgenic immigration put together. Beyond the devastating economic harm, the future science itself is being undermined. […]
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by ristvan
Condensate is not oil. It is stuff like butane and propane.
I do not care about consensus forecasts for crude oil any more than for climate change. Both ‘official’ estimates proven wrong. I again suggest you maybe read some of my footnoted essays rather than blathering on in factual ignorance– so, is Monterey shale folded? Is Bazhenove a pure source rock, and to the extent it remains one, what are the geometries of its frackable strata? Would be glad to reconsider any of my conclusions if you or anyone else can provide counter factuals. But I will not argue mere opinions or beliefs. That is useless futility, as you are here demonstrating.
Larry Kummar, you advocate better informed public policy. I agree. But you persist in ignoring underlying facts and fictions even when pointed to them. Study more, opine less. Your factual knowledge is less than you think it is. Par for the course. Read my ebook The Arts of Truth. It explains in graphic detail what I infer Fabius Maximus aspires to. Using only over a hundred graphic explicit numeric examples, and almost no philosophy.
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Don Monfort
Tony, we are laughing because we are doubtful that the drastic mitigation schemes the alarmists desperately desire are necessary. So we are happy, or at least ambivalent, over the obvious failure of the Soiree d’ Paree. But it’s only funny if we are right and they are wrong.
What the phony declaration of victory clearly tells us is that the climate alarmism movement is run by self-serving politicians, not altruistic scientists. Dr. Hansen is telling the truth about COP21. Any scientist who pretends this is meaningful mitigation is a sell out.
If CO2 is really a danger, the world would have been better off if they had admitted failure. They have given the folks a reason for complacency. It’s going to be really hard for them to gen up any sense of urgency for real mitigation, for at least a decade.
Maybe they will start juggling the data to produce warming in the past and cooling in the present to cover their little dishonest buttocks. See, it’s working!
↧
Comment on Open thread by Jim D
OK, maybe the geniuses who propose hydroelectric as a replacement alternative for 60 years ago can figure out how to get a city like London onto hydroelectric, or how to run cars off it, or maybe they didn’t understand the context of my comment. Within a few decades fossil fuel combustion will seem quaint, but also primitive and dirty, but back then it was the only way to go.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by rogerknights
“Each week there are numerous positive stories on AGW actions that address a pro-active holistic approach:”
Here’s one you may have missed: MagneGas (MNGA). Supposedly they have a technology for extracting, from biomass, a gas that burns at such a high temperature that it can completely combust the exhaust from a coal plant, plus cut its CO2 emissions 30%. (Don’t ask me how; that’s what I heard from an enthusiast.) Its stock nearly doubled in the last three weeks.
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by Paris: impacts? | Enjeux énergies et environnement
↧
Comment on Open thread by Don Monfort
They don’t understand you like I do, yimmy. I know what you are saying. Not that you are making any sense. You have to expect reactions like these when you don’t have your thoughts organized, yimmy. Maybe you should take a break. Come back in 2016, as somebody else. Try to think up a whole name. Look in the phone book.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
