You see webby’s comeback, Matt. Salby discredits Judith.
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by kim
Heh, his sneer smears himself. Yeah, sure, we have the carbon cycle all figured out.
=========================
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Matthew R Marler
Eddy Turbulence: So, if I go in my back yard, theorize that gravity tends to attract objects toward the center of mass of the earth, throw a ball upward 100 times, analyze the results, then conclude that the theory is correct, that’s not the scientific method if I don’t poll the population to see if they agree?
You are not claiming, I hope, that Newton’s laws were not accepted as a consensus, or that he did not vigorously support them in public presentations. His apple experience happened after he had written hundreds of pages of notes and derivations, some of which made it into print. A few of his presentations (derivation of the speed of sound) were publicly shown to be clearly inadequate.
Most of his work (the alchemical investigations and Biblical exegeses) were never published, possibly because he wanted to avoid public embarrassment over their indefensibility.
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Joshua
Hi Tom –
I lied – one more comment because I somehow deleted a question I meant to ask you:
==> “and about, oh, one-fourth of the people on the planet today.””
How did you measure that, Tom? How do you know that some 1/4 of the people on the planet today assert that there is a more dishonest society due to a loss of commitment to JCE?
And what time frame are they assigning to that loss? Since the enlightenment? Since the Dark Ages? Since Medieval times? Since the Civil Rights era? Since the American revolution? Since the Civil War? Since Obama’s election?
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by TJA
<i><b>" even though such an agreement or consensus might hinder scientific progress because of critical, heterodox theories not being taken seriously"</i></b>
Can't wait for FOMD's latest post Enlightenment take on how science can move forward, even if people disagree.
↧
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Joseph
All observed evidence
dikranmarsupial appeals to a genuine consensus
Ferdinand argues for overwhelming evidence that the bulk of C02 increase is human driven.
dikranmarsupial appears to state a fact that ‘the rise’ (unqualified) is human caused.
What if one person makes the argument that the overwhelming evidence supports one view and the another makes the argument that the evidence supports the opposite. How does one decide who is right, especially policy makers with little expertise? For example, the argument that approximately 100% of the warming in the last 60 years is due to CO2. One side suggests that the evidence supports while Curry says it is approximately 50%. How does one make a judgement in favor of one argument over the other?
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Matthew R Marler
Don Monfort: You see webby’s comeback, Matt. Salby discredits Judith.
Your word was “smear”, and dikranmarsupial did not “smear” Prof Curry. So you write one thing and then defend something that you did not write. The way to do that is to say: “I apologize, what I really meant to say was … .” Today for some reason you are allowing your dislike of a commenter to distract your attention from the points actually written.
And yet you agree with the point that dikranmarsupial made: there is no real plurality on the question of whether CO2 increase is due to humans. A few posts down there is a dissenting opinion.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Matthew R Marler
Eddy Turbulence: <i>Reproduceable results to testable hypotheses have nothing to do with consensus. </i>
That is a truly bizarre claim.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by AK
<blockquote>The correlation with temperature is better than the correlation with emissions.</blockquote>It's a great deal more complex than that. Salby's claiming a correlation with the <b>integral</b> of the global average temperature <b>on one time-scale</b>. He's also using some Fourier analysis that he doesn't communicate clearly (to me, anyway).
There are lots of potential issues with all his claims, and nothing clearly written down (AFAIK), no refs, etc.
↧
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by TJA
If we looked at it that way, it would rob the alarmists of the rhetorical trick of pretending that the “consensus” = whatever they want it to say. Better to leave out the fine print.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by kim
Joseph! You exceed my expectations. Easy answer, listen to moshe. On your particular question here even he is perplexed.
Not me, though. If the attribution is near or greater than 100% then we are fighting a losing battle against cooling. If not, then we’ve bounced naturally off the lows of the Holocene.
===================
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by kim
Matt, it was meant to demean, and you and Don can fight over the correct descriptive term. As sneering goes, it was pretty awkward. I’d go running off, too.
===============
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Wagathon
<blockquote>...you don’t need to be a trained climatologist to smell danger when someone says, <em>Anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are warming the planet, so we need to ramp up taxes, institute a command-and-control economy, stop industrial development in the developing world, and, y’know, just maybe, suspend democracy and jail people who object…</em> ~Prussian (What is Mann that thou art mindful of him?)</blockquote>
↧
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Don Monfort
Matt, The post says:
“In our society, there are these moments in which establishing a scientific consensus seems imperative to solve urgent problems, for instance, as concerns climate change; achieving consensus on the causes and extent of global warming would facilitate policymaking and, moreover, send a convincing signal that doing nothing will have dire consequences.”
The SkS kid promptly moves the discussion to a non-controversial aspect of CAGW. I ask myself why. I asked him why. He quickly comes up with a very recent Judith tweet. Webby thinking like a good SkS kid says Judith is discredited. That’s what they are here for, Matt. I thought you knew that.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Steven Mosher
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by kim
Prediction is hard, especially of the future.
==============
↧
Comment on Greening the world’s deserts by Nick Stokes (@nstokesvic)
“Nick’s point was that salted soil would be the result and that there was no way to remediate salted soil. Taking a lesson from you ( this one time in band camp ) I point to an instance in which it appears salted soil was remediated.”
Even remediation cannot generally be done. But this is an ongoing mass flow. A million firehoses pumping salt.
350 tons/ha. That’s 35 Megatons/km2. What’s 35 Mton?
Australia produces 250 Mtons coal/yr. To handle that, we have a network of very expensive railways runnung continuously. 8 sq km irrigation would produce 250 Mtons salt/yr. That’s after it has been gathered and extracted.
↧
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Faustino
Laszlo, always appreciated when a cited author contributes to the blog.
I take your distinction between a scientific consensus and an interface one. As a former economic policy adviser, I have several concerns. Certain areas of consensus are rarely disputed (but are not undisputed) – e.g., increased C02 emissions are predominantly of anthropogenic origin. Some are seriously, and in my view rightly, disputed, e.g. GCM models of projected warming, which have differed from actual data since 1998, claims that any further AGW will be catastrophic, or have dire consequences, claims of increased extreme weather from warming that are not supported by the evidence, etc. As Judith has frequently pointed out, there are many uncertainties which are ignored or glossed over by the “consensus” position on these and other issues. There is even more division on what, if any, measures we should take should warming resume.
If when it comes to communicating the consensus to non climate scientists, particularly those advising on and making policy and the voters who must respond to proposed policies, these areas of disagreement, uncertainty and concern are glossed over, and an unblemished, immutable consensus is presented – which is what has happened – then we have a serious problem.
You yourself say that “achieving consensus on the causes and extent of global warming would facilitate policymaking and, moreover, send a convincing signal that doing nothing will have dire consequences.” That is, as (I assume) a non-climate scientist, you have accepted the warmist position as gospel. I don’t know on what basis you have done so, or whether you are aware of cogent critiques of it. I do know that, as a policy adviser, I would not accept such advice as gospel, indeed when advising the Queensland government on what position to adopt on the Kyoto protocol in 1997, I read many related scientific articles and summaries of hundreds. Had I not done so, I would have been derelict in my duty.
It is not the role of climate scientists to determine the policy response. If they present an interface consensus which results in policymakers failing to ask pertinent questions, they are derelict in their duty.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Stephen Segrest
Laszlo — Could you view this TED presentation and then comment on my belief that what we have on the issue of AGW is a total break-down in trust in society and within the science community.
I think the TED presentation tells us we need a special type of both Advocate and Skeptic — where there can exist some “basic core” of trust that one can build on, and then constructively discuss problems/concerns.
The toxic current environment of this debate is so combative, adversarial, and defensive.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Faustino
“as they should be able to settle on the argumentative properties of a comment and basically address the question whether a dissenting comment is a good comment in the sense of being a rational and epistemically challenging comment in response to a statement supported by the consensus position” This is precisely the problem. The inner clique has circled the wagons and decided that those who dissent are not legitimate but are “deniers.” Groupthink prevails, and it is hard for those with genuine differences to be heard, impossible for their research to be mentioned by the IPCC in addressing policymakers. That is, as I said above, the consensus presented at the science policy interface does not present all of the information needed for rational decision-making.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
