“arrogance is institutionalized”….says Judith humbly, pointing to those who dare to not agree with her.
Irony black-hole.
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by Michael
↧
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by kim
Been all of those, but fortunately never all at once, so your high standards keep you safe from me.
===============
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Tomcat
Our credulous half-wit Robert is clearly (wilfully?) blind to the widespread corrosive vested interest in government-funded climate science.
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by manacker
Michael
Judith should junk that drivel in the main post and replace it with this [Fan's drivel].
Huh?
Max
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by manacker
tony b
You start off with the statement:
“Hansen was a good scientist…”
This may well have been true until he became an advocate for a cause.
The two just don’t mix very well.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by climatereason
Max
That is why I used the word ‘was’. I mean no disrespect to Dr Hansen by suggesting that his best work is probably behind him, possibly because of his advocacy.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by greg goodman
Thought the spreadsheet claims to use CDIAC emissions data, the data is not to be found and does not appear to be referenced anywhere, though it would seem that is was used in some way to estimate the pre-industrial level of 287ppmv this working is not included in the spreadsheet.
However, I already did a similar exercise two years ago and found three periods of exponential growth provided a good model for emissions of CO2 since 1750 as described above. The initial pre-1900 period is nearly flat when plotted on the scale of recent emissions. The three exponential model, and the data are shown scaled to fit Mauna Loa along with “Pratt’s Law”
Simply scaling emissions to concentration levels makes the underlying assumption that rise in atmospheric CO2 is primarily due to human emissions. Going along with that assumption how does Pratt’s Law of CO2 shape up?
http://i48.tinypic.com/snouvl.png
The post 1960 exponential is almost totally obscured by the MLO Keeling data and provides a very close model of this period.
The notable deviation of the single exponential Pratt’s Law model from the M.L data on which it claims to be based on, is evident. It only crosses the Keeling curve at the start and the end. It does not ‘fit’ the Keeling curve. In fact it shows a distinctly different curvature from the data on which is it supposed to be based.
Since the “forcing” effect of CO2 is often represented as a log of CO2 concentration and that is the basis of what is presented in the poster, a log plot is more relevant to this discussion.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2eq450n.png
Now we start to see how defective Pratt’s Law really is.
The difference of base levels is well within margin of error and does not represent an important difference in the models. However, it bears no resemblance to “business as usual” as it claimed to do.
Current “business as usual” is the exponential growth since 1960. That was shown in the first graph to be very close to exponential and well matched to the Keeling curve. Log of exponential is a straight line. Anything claiming to be “business as usual” must be essentially straight in the log plot.
Thus the rapidly rising log plot of Pratt’s Law can in no way be taken to represent “business as usual”.
It is hard to imagine someone who has spent their life in research and teaching of the hard physical sciences could fail to see how unsuitable such a model was.
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by manacker
willis
Based on his dizzy comments here, tallbloke probably is moving at 186,000 miles per hour (in ever decreasing spiral motion – like the “wellima bird”)
But 186,000 miles per second would be a stretch even for tallbloke.
Max
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by David Springer
I’m waiting for you to write an article “Right For Once” which would be a lot more challenging than “Wrong Again” and not just for lack of experience.
↧
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by manacker
tallbloke
Your last statement is spot on:
Judith is clear, concise, humble in the face of the massive uncertainty her field faces, and forthright in her assessment of the way it has been falsely represented to the public.
An excellent example of this was her testimony a couple of years ago to the “Baird congressional committee”.
Chairman Brian Baird was trying to get a group of experts on various climate-related subjects, including Judith, to give him the statement that the “consensus” science is OK and sufficiently robust to tell the “policymakers” that they should act now, but she just stuck to the facts.
The three excerpts from her testimony that tell it all IMO were:
Anthropogenic climate change is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain.
She stated that there is ignorance about what is known about natural climate variability, what is not known about natural climate variability and the feedback processes.
A few sentences later she added:
The threat from global climate change does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century even in its most alarming incarnation.
This is definitely not in line with the “mainstream consensus” or IPCC, and is NOT what Baird wanted to hear. She then added:
It seems more important that robust policy responses be formulated rather than to respond urgently with policies that may fail to address the problem and whose unintended consequences have not been adequately explored.
So, yes, much to the apparent dismay of the politicians on the committee, Judith was “clear, concise, humble in the face of the massive uncertainty her field faces, and forthright in her assessment of the way it has been falsely represented to the public”
Max
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by Peter Davies
Now THAT”S humility for you, being able to see oneself without blinkers on but still deserving of a high level of respect for what she has accomplished on the blogosphere.
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by Peter Davies
Nesting gone again. I was referring to Kim’s post of Dec 26 at 6.26 am.
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by Edim
Agree, Judith simply rocks!
↧
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by David Wojick
Indeed Brian, I call this the fallacy of confused dismissal. It often accompanies radical ideas good and bad.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Wojick
Phat, science is not a person so it does not demonstrate things. But several leading scientists have claimed that this link exists and their followers now accept it as established fact. See for example http://news.google.com/news/section?pz=1&cf=all&q=Climate+change&ict=ln where the link is assumed in many cases. Science is a human activity so it is just as subject to short term fads and fallacies as any other.
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by manacker
Jim D
You wrote:
the warming is the CO2 signal
This is simply a statement of faith, not an indication of empirical evidence of causation (which is what Jim Cripwell has requested).
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Tom
Science has in fact demonstrated a clear link that shows that SUVz, kill people. I read it in the papers too.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
David
The fact that “several scientists” have accepted the premise that a causative “link between extreme weather and (human-induced) climate change” exists means absolutely nothing. Zilch.
What is missing is empirical scientific evidence for such a causative link.
Until that is presented, there is no “scientific causative link between extreme weather and human-induced climate change”.
It’s just that simple, David.
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Tom
Why, men has been shown to be the causative link.
↧
Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by leftturnandre
Apart from Popper and Feynman,
…
I would also recommend Dantes inferno from Neuroskeptic
http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/9-circles-of-scientific-hell.html
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
