Articles on this Page
- 12/06/18--23:23: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--00:35: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--00:54: _ Comment on Rem...
- 12/07/18--00:57: _ Comment on Rem...
- 12/06/18--23:56: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--00:59: _ Comment on Rem...
- 12/07/18--03:17: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--03:20: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--04:49: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/07/18--05:43: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/07/18--07:37: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--07:50: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--07:55: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/07/18--09:41: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--09:47: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/07/18--09:59: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--10:14: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--10:51: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--11:29: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/07/18--11:48: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--23:23: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/07/18--00:35: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Peter Lang
- 12/06/18--23:56: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Steven Mosher
- 12/07/18--03:17: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by cerescokid
- 12/07/18--03:20: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by JCH
- 12/07/18--05:43: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by John Ridgway
- 12/07/18--07:37: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ron Graf
- 12/07/18--07:50: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Willard
- 12/07/18--07:55: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/07/18--09:41: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Brad Keyes
- 12/07/18--09:47: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by John Ridgway
- 12/07/18--09:59: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Willard
- 12/07/18--10:14: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/07/18--10:51: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Brad Keyes
- 12/07/18--11:29: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Brad Keyes
- 12/07/18--11:48: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by tasfaymartinov
It is not clear that #jiminy understands the difference between correlation and the coefficient of determination. But wth.
And if there another and better correlation?
And #jiminy's single bit of blog science on a loop is pretty dismal.
It is really about 0.6 degrees C post war - that may or may not be all anthropogenic and will take a dive in the next La Nina.
Wrong questions. 40 years of arguing about AGW proves it is pointless.
The argument needs to change from the science to testing the validity of the underlying premise - i.e. that global warming would be dangerous or catastrophic.
I am not a climate scientist so this may be a stupid question. NASA has published a series of papers which indicate solar system-wide climate change is occurring. If this is true, it is certainly NOT a result of anthropogenic climate change. One obvious possibility is a variation in solar radiation (amount or frequency). For example, a shift in the sun's light spectrum toward greater UV-C radiation could cause greater ocean warming. I believe there is evidence of greater UV-C. Another possible contribution of energy to the all the planets could involve the solar system entering an area of the local galactic environment (crossing the galactic plane?) which is more energy dense. Also with the sun at a solar minimum, the heliopause is weakened, the diameter of the sun's corona is smaller and thus all the planets are exposed to a higher flux of cosmic rays. Cosmic rays penetrating deep into the Earth can deposit their kinetic energy and heat the Earth from within. Why is no one talking about these effects? Do astronomers talk to Earth scientists? Just asking.
My links did not make it in the post above. Here they are:
I find this odd
Do you think it’s a coincidence that clisci is the first field in modern science to:
1. resort to Oreskeist methods
2. stop working, yet keep on burning hecatomb after hecatomb of capital as if nothing were amiss?
I dont see any climate science I work with resorting to "Oreskeist" methods. Whatever that is. The science i work with is just standard normal science. I have a very minor publication record, but in all of those we just applied standard methods. And every paper we referenced you standard methods. I review Chapters in the IPCC reports. Everything I see and read is just standard methods on a very tough problem.
Of course in the MSM and in social media and in political arenas you will see all manner of folks make arguments about why folks should accept the science. But as a science it is rather normal. When folks try to bring it to bear on policy problems, when values get involved then all manner of arguments ABOUT the science get used. I'm telling you that you should believe 2+2= 4, because Trump said so. That I make this argument says nothing about the underlying claim. But I forgot, It was Popper who claimed the way you disprove a theory is to consider all the bad arguments someone somewhere made in its favor. Forget examining the claim that C02 is a GHG, its enough to note that someone somewhere said you should believe it because experts said so. And forget examining the claim that it is getting warmer, its enough to note that someone said, "believe the experts when they say its getting warmer"
As for progress. Popper was instructive here as well. " If a science hasnt learned anything "new" in 10 years, well then its falsified" he said that. Honest.
In some sense we knew all we needed to know back in 1896 and did nothing. We knew what we needed to know in 1988 and did nothing.
One of the sillier complaints Skeptics make is that there is so much we dont know. Then on the other hand, they whine about the slow progress when folks do make the effort to learn more. In observational sciences the progress can be painfully slow. Why is simple. There is no simple way to do controlled experiments. We are engaged in one grand uncontrolled experiment where we add c02 to the atmosphere and wait to see what happens. But we have known enough of the answer for over 100 years: If we look back over the span of millions of year we can explain 90% of the temperature ups and downs with a few simple parameters: the sun, volcanic aerosols and GHG forcing. That last 10% is hard. Sorry.
As for new things learned. Compared to 2008 there are over 35000 things that are new in my field and more coming. All depends on what you count as a new thing. Whats the units on that?
The correlation coefficient between CO2 and earnings of Major League Baseball players is off the chart too. But who cares.
The next La Niña will be among the warmest La Niña events in the instrument record. Because the sky is full of an instrument record amount of anthropogenic CO2.
The earth has no taken a good old-fashioned cooling dive since the turn of the 19th century: 1905.
[…] Curryn mainiosta viikkokatsauksesta sattui silmiini tällä kertaa otsikko (Linkki), jossa väitettiin merenpohjan bakteerien tuottavan […]
What am I Andy? An Andy West denialist? Someone who’s views are just contrarian, and yet I can’t even see how much in the minority I am? Am I part of the 3% that obstinately denies the clear and unequivocal evidence you place before the world? Am I understandably confused by the complexities of the subject? Am I, as you suggest, at liberty to continue holding to my naïve, flat earth outlook, whilst the world happily gets on with tackling reality?
Honestly, Andy, there have been times during this debate when I have felt that I might as well be arguing with a CAGW advocate. You have written extensively in the past regarding the memetic principles that underpin belief systems, and how these may be discerned in the manner in which individuals engage in debate when their world model is challenged. And yet, when thus engaged, you prove to be the living embodiment of such principles. You’ve thrown everything in the book at me, so much so that I have regrettably come to the conclusion that there is no point in my persevering any further. In much the same way that I stopped trying to argue with those holding religious beliefs, I now see the futility of arguing with you.
When you get to the point of arrogantly dismissing accusations of arrogant dismissal, you should be asking yourself whether you are in memetic thrall. And before you deign to deny this, just remember that my response could be, “Well you would, wouldn’t you”. But fear ye not. I have every intention of granting you the prerogative of having the final word.
Jim, it is very natural to see a picture of what you expect to see and assigning your meanings. The scientific method was developed to change that mode of gaining truth (to an amazing result). I think most people here see a poor correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global surface temperature over the ~150-yr record.
To explain all the excursions from correlation one must know show all climate dynamic are completely understood. In order to claim this one has to have scientifically established the past climates and past states of all the variables affecting those climates. The existing expert consensus is that the observational evidence indicates there were warming and cooling periods on a centennial-millennial scale. There currently is little consensus as to the cause of such oscillations. They are not part of the IPCC global climate model project. This is why Mann's "Nature trick" was so important, showing the past millennium's climate record as a straight line, it eliminated the need for explanation of the MWP and LIA.
It's not science when you falsify analysis in order to eliminate observations not explained by your hypothesis. And, just because others on your team are willing to pat you on the back and repeat your falsifications for the sake of a common cause does not vindicate you or your science. It's just the opposite, and what science was invented to attempt to prevent. And, although one may have correct conclusions with flawed methods, there is no authority to state so, even if you are a director of the NAS.
Jim, do you believe that tree ring data or lake sediments ridges (varves) can give us observational plots of the past 2000 years of global surface temperature?
> All scientists agree: in science, opinion is NOT a form of evidence.
Citation still needed, preferably one that would include evidence for that agreement. But wait - how could any evidence of scientific agreement be possible if scientists aren't part of nature?
To me, this quandary provides <em>some kind</em> of evidence that there's a problem with your notion of evidence, Brad.
“An Andy West denialist?”
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Personalities are irrelevant. It is issues that matter.
Far from requiring you to withhold your own views and stay in isolation, whatever these views are and whether future history should show them to be anywhere from off the mark to totally brilliant insights, I was inviting you to further substantiate the claims that you made regarding my post (and I’m at a loss to see why you’ve interpreted this as the opposite). Upon which post all critique is indeed welcome, but regarding which for substantial claims it is a reasonable expectation that these are then substantiated. These claims include an excluding of various pre-existing interesting concepts within the climate domain, with certain such named, and that the precautionary principle in particular ‘should have been’ included and ‘fully explored’, without which inclusion one must therefore assume, the purpose of the post and the points that it does make must be flawed / damaged / lacking in some significant sense.
You claim arrogance upon my part, yet I have used no rude words, no rude phrases, and no mood words such as you have projected my way, for instance rancour and indeed arrogance, plus have remained focused upon the issues and questions thereof. Nor do I now or ever desire for debate to be closed down, as your latest implies; I have never said any such above. I get your issue regarding semantics, yet notwithstanding domain defaults, you have not shown how this leads to a validation of your claims above, for instance by demonstrating with quotes / post sections and how your inclusion of that which you believe is missing would fix the flaws / damage. Just in case I have misunderstood the particular claim regarding a deficit of subject material, I added the conditional immediately above ‘unless I have misunderstood this claim’, which gives you the ideal opportunity to correct me if I have misunderstood.
“You’ve thrown everything in the book at me…”
What on Earth are you talking about? What book? What throwing?
Your last paragraphs seem to owe more to passion than to your normal balance, but I’ve no idea what in this exchange has led to such. There should preferably never be a last word, because as you note here an exchange of views is always better than travelling in isolation. And words spoken in passion typically cloud plus impede. There is as you note a large range of discussion on the precautionary principle within the climate domain, with its own proponents, concept spectrum, allies, oppositions, policy, projections, biases (or lack thereof), legalities etc, etc. To invoke such, automatically invokes some kind of reason framing (which for most people would at the very least be some loose rules based on the insurancing model), and such a framing (across the spectra of meaning) is not incorporated within the false meme of a certainty of imminent global catastrophe (per your we’re all gonna fry descriptor). It also tends to lead to other topics, for instance the real insurance industry and Pielke territory for understanding the insights this gives on damage function now and in the future, plus the topic of mitigation versus adaptation, because much insurance policy is and can be more of the latter. Yet notwithstanding that at the extreme small fringe end of the spectra of meaning covered by the discussion / offerings regarding this principle, there is Lewandowsky attempting to leverage it to literally turn the subject of climate uncertainty on its head, the topic is nevertheless not one significant to the points made in this post. There could no doubt be a highly interesting post on same, maybe including the sibling topics too, though I am for sure not the person to produce it. Maybe you could. But at any rate that post is not *this* post. And only if you can demonstrate, in direct relation to this post and its points and building upon your semantics view, why the lack of addressing the precautionary aspect is a significant problem here (along with your other claims), and using specific post references, would I or indeed any readers learn why it is that you so strongly believe this lack is damaging to what is communicated here. It is not arrogance to request this; it is an invitation.
"Citation still needed, preferably one that would include evidence for that agreement."
I've never met a scientist who didn't agree, and neither have you, and neither has anyone, unless I'm wrong, in which case please supply a counterexample.
This is how universal claims, like the one I made, are adjudicated.
"But wait – how could any evidence of scientific agreement be possible if scientists aren’t part of nature?""
Scientists are part of nature, but <i>how science works</i> and <i>how nature works</i> are different questions.
Also, we've played out this genre of silly-beggars already, Willard. Every time I point out that a survey of scientists' opinions of climate change fails to tell us anything about nature, your comeback is "but scientists' brains are PART of nature!"
Sigh. As I said, this is silly-beggars. Wilful misunderstanding. Language is a social art and people engaged in good-faith dialogue don't go out of their way to misconstrue each other—quite the opposite. They're actually expected to make some ("reasonable", whatever that means) effort to cooperate with their interlocutor by mentally filling-in the blanks which it would be "unreasonably" tedious and onerous to spell out every f____ng time their interlocutor says something.
So I'll request, not for the first time, that whenever I write "about nature", you read "about extracranial nature."
I’m sorely tempted to fully respond to your protests but I did promise you the last word. Even so, I think it is only right that I should summarise the situation as I see it.
The catastrophe narrative did not start when people decided that the probabilities are high; it started when people started to ignore probability. I’ve tried in vain to convince you that this is not a peripheral issue but is, instead, of central importance to your thesis. You have rejected that view repeatedly, often justifying the rejection by arguments that I have suggested to you beg the question. But when I accuse you of rejecting the view, you simply reject the accusation then carry on regardless.
I have not accused you of indulging in rancour or of being rude (as a careful re-reading of my comments will confirm). But when you say, “If you have firmer grounds for your claim of exclusion, by all means present them” and then respond to my umbrage at the dismissiveness this implies of my previous attempts, by saying of said statement, “Then you’ve completely misunderstood it”, you have to appreciate the impact that will have upon the target of your criticism. This is not about personalities, Andy, it is just about coming to a point of recognition that there is nothing to be gained by prolonging the debate. You may have an appetite for more but, quite frankly, I’m fed up.
> I’ve never met a scientist who didn’t agree
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
We can stop right there, Brad.
Thank you for your misguided concerns.
So let's play wee willies silly little game.
"Rule 1 We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and
sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule 2 Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same
Rule 3 The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
Rule 4 In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general
induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions." Isaac Newton
thanks for your answers.
"I dont see any climate science I work with resorting to “Oreskeist” methods. Whatever that is. The science i work with is just standard normal science."
You're right, for the simple reason that if you're doing science, then by definition you're avoiding Oreskeist methods (pejoratively known as Science by Consensus).
That's why I'm sometimes unsure whether it's really fair of me to tar <i>actual, honest scientists</i> with the same brush as the Cooks, Oreskeses, Gores, etc.—the anti-science, pre-scientific, Pre-Normal consensualists.
On the other hand you <i>actual, normal, proper, honest scientists</i> haven't lifted a finger to stop the anti-scientists, perhaps because you're too busy owing your jobs to them. 95% of climate scientists would be out of work—or rather, forced to do more productive work—if not for the anti-scientists (Oreskes, Gore, SkS, etc.) who've been their most effective promoters.
So it's not just that you proper scientists are being good Germans and not asking questions about the crematorium next door. It's worse than that: you're <i>benefitting</i> from what goes on on the other side of the wire fence. And yes, I'm Godwinizing, but I'm doing so advisedly, because a crime against science is a crime against humanity.
"And every paper we referenced you standard methods. I review Chapters in the IPCC reports. Everything I see and read is just standard methods on a very tough problem."
But if you're involved in the IPCC you've dirtied your hands with The Tropicopolitical Method, haven't you? However innocent your intentions, it's a matter of public record that the ARs are adjusted to match the SPMs. And the latter are subject to approval / veto, line by line, by political attachés.
"I’m telling you that you should believe [the sky] [is] [blue], because Trump said so. That I make this argument says nothing about the underlying claim."
[Edited to make the claim empirical/"scientific" rather than analytical.]
No, it doesn't PROVE that the sky isn't really blue. But common sense suggests that if the sky WERE blue, you wouldn't have to stoop to the Argument from Non-authority. And let's suppose that the <i>most ubiquitous, quotidian</i> argument from proponents of the blueness hypothesis was "...because the first orange American to be elected President of our great republic said so."
That would certainly be a good (informal) justification for doubting that the sky was really the color you said it was.
"But I forgot, It was Popper who claimed the way you disprove a theory is to consider all the bad arguments someone somewhere made in its favor."
Yes yes, very droll.
In case it matters, I myself <i>haven't</i> made the leap into disbelieving in AGW. Check out my online oeuvre if you think I'm an AGW denier.
But if two more AGW-consensus papers are published in science journals, I'll know AGW is BS, and I'll start saying so.
"Forget examining the claim that C02 is a GHG, its enough to note that someone somewhere said you should believe it because experts said so. And forget examining the claim that it is getting warmer, its enough to note that someone said, “believe the experts when they say its getting warmer”"
Actually, I'd be well within my rights to use exactly the cognitive shortcut you're sarcastically recommending! After all I'm not paid to do climate research, and it's the most boring conceivable domain of study, and there's plenty of other topics to master that actually affect my life, so no: I don't owe you, myself, my grandchildren's grandchildren or anyone else one iota more diligence than I've already done on AGW.
"As for progress. Popper was instructive here as well. ” If a science hasnt learned anything “new” in 10 years, well then its falsified” he said that. Honest,"
This Made-up Popper sounds like a confused guy. If a science hasn't learned anything “new” in 10 years, you defund it, because it's no longer functioning qua science. But you don't throw out all the stuff it <i><b>did</i></b> learn last century,
"In some sense we knew all we needed to know back in 1896 and did nothing. We knew what we needed to know in 1988 and did nothing."
Exactly. And I agree with us. That was the sensible course of action.
"One of the sillier complaints Skeptics make is that there is so much we dont know. Then on the other hand, they whine about the slow progress when folks do make the effort to learn more."
You'll hear the same complaints from astrology skeptics. Or you would, if horoscopists were in receipt of billions upon billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to pretend they were learning more about the link between birth sign and individual destiny.
"In observational sciences the progress can be painfully slow."
Yes, but when the pain exceeds the gain you redirect the money and effort into more useful, fertile, feasible, high-yield lines of research like how to cure baldness.
"But we have known enough of the answer for over 100 years"
So give back all the money you've wasted since then, please.
"All depends on what you count as a new thing. Whats the units on that?"
Yes, it's admittedly a subjective and value-laden question, but it's still one that common sense can help us answer. You're very welcome to set the record straight at <a href="https://climatenuremberg.com/2014/02/13/the-climate-scientific-past-is-a-foreign-country/" rel="nofollow">the official site of the Justify Your Field's Existence challenge.</a>
"> I’ve never met a scientist who didn’t agree
Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence."
Yes it is.
In fact it's the ONLY thing that can constitute evidence of absence. If I say there are no more thylacine running around, what possible justification could I have for this claim that wasn't of the form "I / you / people haven't seen any thylacine running around lately"?
If absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, then there's no evidence any species has ever gone extinct!
I don't know where people get this silly saying ("Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.") but perhaps it's a popular mangling of something less silly, like "absence of proof isn't proof of absence."
" > We can stop right there, Brad."
Of course! If you want quit while my hypothesis is ahead I won't complain!
Suits me rather well, but why would it benefit you?
Look at the scoreboard. Wouldn't you rather try to give at least ONE counterexample before we declare game over?
No sign of a Christmas El Niño
No Bjerknes coupling. Just equatorial Pacific warm climatology.
A little OT but it seemed some folks were setting store by an end of year El Niño.
One gets the impression that the Pacific alternates between periods of higher and lower excitability. What some authors call the Pacific “ground state”.