Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:56 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next
Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science" 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5822
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Harry - you need to post more often. you have some good thoughts to share.
I'll have to look at your response a bit more closely. Not ignoring it.

When time permits, I'll deal a little more with yours and Interbane's Consensus Orthodoxy.

BBS.
Thx



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Interbane
Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:29 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5822
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Quote:
Do you really want to argue that you did not imply that imperfect science is bad science, or that evidence has been suppressed by consensus science?


Yes I do because I simply do not believe "imperfect science is bad science"
That's your strawman, actually. But if you'd like to argue it, by all means, please do. You'd mostly be arguing with your self, but I'd be willing to add a comment here and there.

Quote:
These are rhetorical strategies, often invisible to the one trying to make a point without actually stating it. I see no reason this should be a discussion about what you implied or did not imply, but I am quite happy to pull back the cover over your implications.


This is actually a touch of paranoia on your part. I have no reason to use rhetorical strategies as you say, because I'm not against reasonable action to curtail emissions, locally, and globally.

Locally (meaning the States) I believe we've begun. It's going to be at enormous costs, especially to the poor, but that doesn't seem to matter to anyone that is sounding an alarm. Quite frankly there are millions of people who can't afford conventional power now. That also seems to be of no consequence to the green firms that stand to make (and are beginning to already) MILLIONS. Why can't it be more affordable?
Also, building alternative power sources is going to eject millions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere as well.
It's not as affordable and clean as alarmists think it is, or for that matter, haven't even given it a second thought.

India's argument (whether you like it or respect it, is irrelevant) is why should they stultify their fledgling growing economy when they aren't the nation that has been FILTHIFYING the environment for the past 100 years?
China has a similar argument.

This is a complex situation with many variables to be thought out. High horse moral alarmists, who don't even have a clear understanding of the science except to say "there's a consensus, there's a consensus" (see Interbane's initial posts about all this), aren't necessarily interested in issues like costs because it likely will not toss them into abject poverty.

Quote:
One of the most prominent of these dissenting voices, upon further study, publically agreed that the evidence points entirely to anthropogenic climate change, as noted here


You do not need to point out climate "experts" to me. I have been doing lots of research on this since Interbane and Robert accused me of being "immoral" for being a climate "denier" (you know, like those other evil deniers that deny the holocaust ever happened).

Speaking of climate experts, guess what? There aren't any experts on climate. Any meteorologist/climatologist that's honest will tell you climate science is enormously complex and unpredictable. There's much that isn't known and much more to learn. I just recently posted a study that states there is much ocean acidification models have been coming up short for years now. As a side note, part of the alarmist rhetoric is to use claim the oceans are acidifying, or are acid. That is factually incorrect and verbally misleading.
I can post other studies that are NOT from special interest groups that indicate models were unable to adequately factor other variables in the environment. There seems to be an incredibly naive misconception that any study published that does not fit in with alarmism is from some evil, coal lover twitching his mustache in some attic.
But that's your problem if your that naive.


Quote:
Consensus science is not enforced mainly by sociological processes, but by the evidence. As Kuhn pointed out, the purpose of a research paradigm is to generate further answerable questions, and a claim which is outside that framework is essentially useless. Until it can be backed up with proper evidence, no one is going to take it seriously.


Correction - you meant research "PROGRAM" And your actually highlighting one of my favorite philosophers of science - Thomas Kuhn, who I am well familiar with.
Having said that - you've clearly misread Kuhn Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

What you've done with Kuhn is interpreted how a research program ossifies into science DOGMA. Generating questions that a paradigm is comfortable answering is epistemic suicide. Kuhn was very clear that although dogma has been part of scientific progress throughout history, it also risked progress greatly. It was the outliers who worked outside the framework that have been responsible for the leaps in knowledge and understanding (ie Einstein, Newton, Hubble, etc).
You are poorly and incorrectly attempting to use Kuhnian philosophy to back your argument up.

Actually, if you recall from Structure of Science, Kuhn indicated that the recurrence of anomalies is an indication that a paradigm [u]is failing at explanatory power.[/u]

From that, what are your thoughts about:

Climate models failing to predict an 18 year hiatus
Climate models failing to predicate a hurricane drought.
Climate models failing to predict solar variance impact on climate
Climate models failing to predict the degree of heat absorption by the oceans
Climate models failing to predict cloud and precipitation's impact on the climate over long time scales.
Climate models failing to predict the mother of all el ninos that allegedly is just around the corner.
(Do you want me to list a few more? I'll stop here)

Is all this just "noise" in the system that can be ignored and forgotten about?
How much does "noise" impact the system on longer time scales. Can it eventually cause long cooling trends?
What they actually are are anomalies that the current paradigm can not sufficiently explain with any degree of certainty, let alone PREDICT.


How important is Prediction to you in the current climate science program?
Isn't that a crucial part of Verification?

I'll have to stop here for now because I'm out of time, and because you need some time to rethink how mistaken you've been with all that I've said. Broaching Kuhn was not a very good move either.



Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:27 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7130
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1100
Thanked: 2122 times in 1695 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:
I have been doing lots of research


Swallowing the words of merchants of doubt? I think your goal is noble ant, but you're lacking perspective.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:46 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5822
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Look at how foolishly and arrogantly presumptuous you are being (again).

I already said Im participating in a great edx climate change course and am signed up for Coursera's course on Climate Change.

And Im reading Climate Change: The Facts. And although I dont entirely disagree with what Ive read and listened to so far, at least Im not being the Simple Sam consensus bandwagoner that you are.
You really are inferior to me here.



Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:58 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7130
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1100
Thanked: 2122 times in 1695 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:
And Im reading Climate Change: The Facts.


The same book most climate scientists consider "Climate: Change the facts". I'm not inferior to you here. You've filled your head with the words of the merchants of doubt. I hope you gain some perspective in the courses you're taking.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:37 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5822
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Interbane,

It's about 95 degrees in Los Angeles right now. I just drove my car without turning on my AC.

How about you? Do you drive with no AC when it's this hawt?
If you dont then youre immoral.



Sat Aug 15, 2015 4:31 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1577
Thanks: 1757
Thanked: 788 times in 634 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Ant,

Thanks for the appreciative comment. I am also enjoying your lively input.

You say you don't imply that imperfect science is bad science, but you also want to "hold accountable" the climate scientists who have not gotten every specific matter correct. No apparent idea what that would imply. If the weather report says 5 percent chance of rain and it rains, were they wrong? If modellers say they do not yet have an accurate picture of ocean circulation, and their model turns out to have an inaccuracy because of it, were they misleading anyone? You seem to imply that the modelling needs to be 100% accurate to be worth doing - but as we know this is impossible. Advancement implies trying a new version and seeing how it does. If there were no honor in an improvement, this would mean no climate scientist should publish until everything is understood. But good science creates progress by sharing incremental learning, which means getting some things right even if not everything.

You should ask yourself a simple question: if the consensus is wrong, where are the models that are right? Who is doing any better? The obvious answer is what we all know it is.

You,say you do not imply,that consensus science has suppressed evidence, but you repeatedly criticise the general case of consensus science as generating closed minds and ignoring unorthodox lines of inquiry. Thus you are implying that climate science has acted in the same way. But there are no cases which demonstrate such a thing. There are people who would like their doubts to get more attention, but they do not have a basis in evidence that the IPCC or other supposed policemen of orthodoxy have suppressed. Quite the contrary, the journals and official organisations are interested in anomalies and dis confirmations, and have made serious efforts to incorporate all such concerns, if evidenced, in the modelling.

Not only does Ridley have zero credibility on the issue, but even if true his examples are not showing what he, and you, imply they are showing.

More on Kuhn, et al, when I can get time. We have wonderful guests in town.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
ant
Sat Aug 15, 2015 6:41 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5822
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Interbane wrote:
ant wrote:
And Im reading Climate Change: The Facts.


The same book most climate scientists consider "Climate: Change the facts". I'm not inferior to you here. You've filled your head with the words of the merchants of doubt. I hope you gain some perspective in the courses you're taking.



You dont know what youre talking about. But you can prove to me that you do, right now.
Explain it to me in non-groupie rhetoric. Id like the scientific essplanation from you.

Recently the climate chage skeptics meme "no tropospheric hotspot that was predicted" has allegedly recently been found:

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-climate- ... c-hot.html

Here's how it was found:

Quote:
we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.


Why were "artefacts" not accounted for from 1958 to 2012? Why werent they analyzed during that time frame and why were they Not considered artefacts then?

This seems to be a classic example of reinterpretation of data to "fit the theory"

Esplain please without becoming a spin doctor and climate change politician.



Sat Aug 15, 2015 8:40 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5822
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Meanwhile, our environmental guardians, the EPA..,

Accidently released 3 million gallons of contaminated water:

https://epafacts.com/epa-accidentally-r ... ted-water/

falsify timesheets and watch porn at work:

https://epafacts.com/government-report- ... g-at-work/

And have sexual misconduct and racism issues that need airing out:

https://epafacts.com/epa-fails-to-take- ... seriously/



Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:00 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5822
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Thousands of bats are "mysteriously" dying beneath wind turbines:

https://www.fort.usgs.gov/science-feature/96

Some estimates go up to 600, 000 bats.
What impact will that have eventually on the environment?

So what, huh, Interbane? Just has long as we save the climate like it's been evidenced the policies in place CAN.
Right?



Last edited by ant on Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:33 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7130
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1100
Thanked: 2122 times in 1695 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
You're absolutely right. Because bats are dying due to wind turbines, climate change cannot be anthropogenic. Because the EPA is run by morons, climate change cannot be anthropogenic. You win!


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:47 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5822
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
Interbane wrote:
You're absolutely right. Because bats are dying due to wind turbines, climate change cannot be anthropogenic. Because the EPA is run by morons, climate change cannot be anthropogenic. You win!



fallacy of idiotic misrepresentation of what actually is being argued.



Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:49 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1577
Thanks: 1757
Thanked: 788 times in 634 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
I can shed some light on why artefacts in the data were not uncovered sooner. I used a large dataset for my (economics) thesis, and found that some of my results were anomalous when the size had been limited severely by missing data. I looked closer and found that the data contained a few "outlier" data points that were throwing off the result. Some of the points could be thrown out easily, because they showed results that were essentially impossible or so inconsistent with previous observations on the same household that they had to be due to a change in coding procedure. No doubt significant effort had been paid for, to try to eliminate such nonsensical observations, but some had sneaked through.

If I had not used a very limited subset the outliers would not have shown up. When I went back and looked for similar anomalies in the larger dataset there were some, but not frequently enough to give bizarre results that would send me looking for outliers.

What seems to have happened in the Climate research ant cited, from Physical Review Letters, was a similar anomalous few observations enough to obscure the expected result, but not frequent enough to draw attention to themselves by themselves. When other efforts to explain the apparent lack of tropospheric hotspot had failed, someone decided to take a closer look at the data, to see whether there might be some phenomenon present that could help explain it. In the process they used the statistical methods mentioned, to comb for problems in the data, and sure enough there were some oddities which, once cleaned up to properly reflect the actual events, also allowed the hot spot to be observable.

The main danger researchers worry about with such corrections is that researchers will search until they find and clean up the ones that are inconvenient for their viewpoint, but then stop looking. so a good review process should ask, not why it wasn't found sooner, but what other results changed, and how much search was done systematically to find data outliers for all reasons before concluding the data had been properly cleaned.

As for Kuhn, his idea about an accumulation of anomalies reflects scientists investigating the issues which are not well captured by the previous paradigm. Like poking at a sore, these keep turning up more and more results that don't fit. The error in the precession of Mercury's orbit was like that, with investigators trying this idea and that idea, no doubt including several re- scrubs of the data, until relativity came barreling in out of left field and gave an explanation that no one would have thought of by investigated the phenomenon directly.

No paradigm inadequacy is shown by continually recurring inaccuracies that show no particular pattern and do not appear more commonly and consistently as the relevant issue is examined more closely. Those are just background noise, or complexity that we do not yet know what to do with. Nobody reasonably expects that we are going to learn so much about such complexities that we will suddenly realize that greenhouse gases don't matter. No plausible story has been proposed, much less verified, which would allow such a mechanism to exist.

As I said, the best we can hope for is that the damage will be slower and smaller than the mean average of predicted unfolding. In the meantime completely unexpected problem phenomena keep turning up like bark beetles destroying forest resilience, so that the nasty surprises are as frequent as the reassuring ones. Methane release from the Artic permafrost is such a time-bomb of runaway acceleration that some people studying it think we may already have passed the point of no return on ice cap melting.

You brought up the issue of developing countries and the poor, ant. I think this is a central issue in finding a solution. In principle the problem is solvable. Cuts are to be made by the countries whose per capita emissions are far above the sustainable levels, and yes, the high emissions countries have to cut extra so that countries whose emissions are below the sustainable levels are not prevented from industrialising. How dare anyone say those people of India must take the bus rather than a motorcycle so I can drive my SUV?

In principle one can compensate the poor for higher energy bills using income added which, by virtue of being unrelated to energy use, does not interfere with the incentive to reduce energy use implied by higher energy prices. I don't think anyone is doing that, but in some states the government is investing in, e.g. energy efficiency in low income housing, which functions in somewhat the same way. A very sensible approach, especially when money can be borrowed as cheaply as today.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
ant
Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:06 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5822
Thanks: 1363
Thanked: 954 times in 820 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
What an excellent post, Harry. Thank you.

I'll have to comb through both of your recent posts here a bit closer.

Thanks!



Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:16 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7130
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1100
Thanked: 2122 times in 1695 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"
ant wrote:
fallacy of idiotic misrepresentation of what actually is being argued.


You're not actually arguing anything. Unless you think I support the killing of bats or the idiots in the EPA. But that's not what you think, is it? You were only asking me because...


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:22 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 195 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your NON-FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank