Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 11:38am PT
|
I know that it seems strange to you but some people can actually read something and both be able to understand it and know if it is correct or not. It is just not about opinion and who talk highest. An analysis can actually be either correct or incorrect.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 11:49am PT
|
^^^^^good answer. For my own sake, I stop paying attention to someone for the most part when they start using phrases like Libratards and Repugnicans (or whatever the name dejour is for the "other side" is). That is a sure sign of not being unbiased.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 12:10pm PT
|
No, of course not. That was not what I said but I already know that you would not understand.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 12:21pm PT
|
The great 20th Century physicist, Richard Feynman, wrote in his autobiography: ‘Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.’ This the Royal Society has failed to do.
The reason for this lack of nuance seems to be that policymakers say they want ‘scientific certainty’. As an engineer, I find that amazing: we remain legally liable for what we say professionally, so will always qualify our statements. But the misleading lack of qualification in the statements made by the Royal Society and others is creating policy nonsense.
The project to ‘solve the climate change problem’ is a modern version of the biblical Tower of Babel. We do not know how much the project will cost, when it will have been completed, nor what success will look like.
During my time as a government departmental Chief Scientific Adviser, I was always aware that politicians made the final decision on any issue on the balance of all the evidence. For this reason, civil servants are trained to draw their attention to all the upsides and downsides of taking a particular course of action.
Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity.
PROFESSOR MICHAEL KELLY IS THE PRINCE PHILIP PROFESSOR OF TECHNOLOGY AT CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 01:00pm PT
|
I went to WUWT and actually read the first article
"Chaos & Climate – Part 1: Linearity"
That was a bad article that would make everyone with some knowledge about the subject cringe but it is also a good example about what is often posted on that site.
It has some technical terminology that exist and sounds good. It draws many incorrect or very strange conclusions. It doesn't really says anything new or unknown. It completely miss the details that are important. It is up to the reader to connect the dots and came to the conclusion that the climate scientist don't know anything and draw the wrong conclusions because the article doesn't really say much or anything at all about climate and the climate models.
The article works of course very well on that site.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 01:03pm PT
|
So the Chief, what analysis led you to think the WUWT scientists are the ones who have the real story? Did you give both sides "equal" time to the best of your ability (I don't know anyone who is completely unbiased)? Did you take into account many or all of the assumptions put into each opposing analysis? Who has an axe to grind on either side of the argument? Unfortunately, science and politics/business are not seperate. You can take this as a troll, but it isn't .
disclosure statement; I don't follow any climate related blogs, but do look into published data/info on both sides of the argument.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 01:27pm PT
|
The Chief, it's just the way you post. From what little I have followed this thread, you just seem so opinionated about this topic. My mistake. I haven't really followed this thread a whole lot, so I am not too sure where we all "stand so to speak". But how do you know that Phule's analysis of the various WUWT articles he has read are not valid? I don't know, but maybe he has a point. I mean, if you read what you consider faulty analysis over and over again from the same source, would you not be a little skeptical of that source in the future?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 01:38pm PT
|
Most of the science that is posted on WUWT comes from PhD'd climate scientists that have been at this game for a long time.
LOL, anthony watts, tisdale, monchton et al. are PhD'd climate scientists? Do you believe that rick sumner and sketch are also PhD'd climate scientists?
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 01:43pm PT
|
Well, hopefully an analysis of a scientific paper would be based on scientific principles. The devil is in the details, of course. Anything involving the analysis of the Earths' climate would involve many assumptions to simplify the problem.
Let me just give you an example. When evaluating production yields out of a well, for groundwater shall we say, the analysis of a pump test on that well involves some simplifying assumptions. Two of these are that the well has a diameter of 0 and that the aquifer has the same character in all three dimentions (isotropic homogeneous). These assumptions may not be effectively true and need a certain level of analysis to make sure that they will work. If you monitor the aquifer far enough away from the pumping well, the radius of the well is effectively zero and the analysis yields valid working numbers all else being good. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. If the analysis is based on politics from either side, well it's not scientific analysis.
If I could put it any other way I would. I thought this example would be best. Could be wrong though.
edit; sorry about the spelling errors
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 01:46pm PT
|
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 01:49pm PT
|
The butterfly effect. I've personally never bought into that one in most cases. Its been my experience that people throw in stochastic processes when they do not understand the actual processes involved. Basically, it's the best you can do at the time which is fine if you know how to use these methods. I've seen stochastic modeling help get down to the root of some pretty interesting problems.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 01:55pm PT
|
So you HAVE done an analysis of sorts. What makes you like these guys analysis better?
edit. What did they produce that spoke to you. I'm not here to beat on anyone or troll.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 02:04pm PT
|
Odd.. I did state the "science" did I not Phule. Not the opinions...
Ok, so the people that write the most posts about the science at that site is not included in the "science" that you talk about?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 15, 2015 - 02:21pm PT
|
So when you say blogs, what you really mean are skeptic blogs. And you seem to think they're nothing more than outlets for lies and anti-warming propaganda.
It that about right?
No, that's not right. In fact, it's very far from what I said.
Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
But anytime you want to come to AndyMan's defense and tell us how the graph he posted is valid, please step up.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 02:52pm PT
|
So when you say blogs, what you really mean are skeptic blogs. And you seem to think they're nothing more than outlets for lies and anti-warming propaganda. No, that's not right. In fact, it's very far from what I said.
Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Right. What you said:
 Real science doesn't occur on blogs
Many of the "facts" posted on "climate-change denial" blogs have been thoroughly debunked.
Blogs are an inexpensive way to sew distrust of climate science into the fabric of the discussion.
They don't take a lot of money to run (much less than a true peer-reviewed scientific publication). You can pay one guy a measly sum to post up a bunch of scientific nonsense, and it takes a concerted effort from the science community to squelch the junk. This type of attack distracts the discussion from where it needs to go.
WUWT was the first to break, and later fuel, the email controversy that hit the climate science community. Later, the episode proved to be one grand distraction. That makes me wonder who funds the publication of that blog.
-----------------------------------------
Yep. I was way off the mark. Please accept my apologies.
But anytime you want to come to AndyMan's defense and tell us how the graph he posted is valid, please step up.
Nah. We'll just leave it at you making a BS claim about what Andy can't do.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 15, 2015 - 06:06pm PT
|
We'll just leave it at you making a BS claim about what Andy can't do.
If you're going to say I'm talking BS, you should be prepared to back up your statement. Otherwise it looks like you're just pushing hot air.
And thanks for quoting my entire post, twice. You must admire my words.
In my opinion, blogs like WUWT and Climate Etc. are excellent sources of valid information that challenges warmist dogma.
Eddie, nice for you to show your hand. Instead of looking at peer-reviewed science, you go for the opinions that lean in the direction of the news that you want to hear. Bravo.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 10:44pm PT
|
None of your criticisms address specifics of the article. They're all generic, boilerplate condemnations.
All in all, it's a lovely little attack. Unfortunately, it lacks any substance.
You can read the article yourself. I really don't see any reason to try to explain the errors in an article for people like you that don't have any mathematical knowledge at all.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2015 - 11:55pm PT
|
"...the climate system is 1) nonlinear and therefore, 2) chaotic."
the fact that a "system" (any "system") is nonlinear does not make it a chaotic system, if by those words you refer to their scientific definitions.
So the first sentence is incorrect.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 12:02am PT
|
I agree and he seems to base his whole article and understanding on that incorrect "fact".
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 05:33am PT
|
Sketch, everyone knows that it is useless to try to have a discussion with you. It is especially useless when it is on a subject that you have shown absolutely no knowledge in. Should I start with using a lot of time teaching you basic math or how else should I try to convince you that the mathematics are incorrect when you don't know anything about the mathematics involved?
Ed has also pointed out the main problem with the essay if you are interested.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!