Page 7 of 20

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

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:29 pm
by ant
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

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

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:27 pm
by ant
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.
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.
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.

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 is failing at explanatory power.

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.

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

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:46 pm
by Interbane
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.

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

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:58 pm
by ant
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.

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

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:37 pm
by Interbane
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.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 4:31 pm
by ant
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.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 6:41 pm
by Harry Marks
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.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 8:40 pm
by ant
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:
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.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:00 pm
by ant
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/

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

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:33 pm
by ant
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?