Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 21021 - 21040 of total 26164 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 1, 2014 - 08:39am PT
I already provided the data, Sketch. It was you who could not interpret the graph you actually posted.



Did you figure out your colossal goof yet, Sketch.

Hint: 1990 is actually marked on the chart.

BTW, where's your data supporting Scenario BaU?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 1, 2014 - 08:48am PT
Credit: monolith

Do you still need help, Sketch?
raymond phule

climber
Aug 1, 2014 - 10:23am PT

I'm asking about the language/data fro the FAR.

The problem for you are that it is given in a graph and you have shown that you don't know how to read graphs.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Aug 1, 2014 - 11:16am PT
Fuk the science. Look at the evidence Ed
Mutually exclusive. Self contradictory. Gibberish
and rick's attempt to correct it belies his real thoughts.
fuk the pseudo climate science
Now we're getting somewhere. Please re-read Ed's earlier post on the scientific method.
Then explain how the science proving global warming from hydrocarbon emissions and resulting climate change is pseudo.
How even 10% of it is made up.

Perhaps Copernicus and Galileo were wrong about the heliocentric solar system because there were "holes" in their theories? Newton made up the Law of Gravitation out of whole cloth because Einstein (and several others) established much later that it doesn't account for velocities approaching the speed of light?
Darwin was wrong on Evolution because he had no explanation of the genetic mechanism?
Or perhaps Evolution and Genetics are pseudo science?
Did God really create the universe as we know it 6,000 years ago?
If so, then no logic or reason will convince you that global warming is induced by hydrocarbon consumption and climate warming is the inevitable result.

Willful Disbelief, supported by propaganda from self-interested Koch bros and others, is alive and well. The willing followers of these thugs are the real sheep.

So perhaps your disbelief is self-delusion because you can't understand the science and the math. I'll bet you also don't know the mathematics, physics and properties of materials in the design of bridges, tall buildings, automobiles and aircraft.
There's no reason you need to. You trust the science every time you use them.
Do you understand the science of ballistics and explosives? Likely not. Do you still trust your guns?
Perhaps you'd better stay away from guns, bridges, tall buildings, automobiles and aircraft.
I'll keep using them.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Aug 1, 2014 - 11:26am PT
Credit: wilbeer


Not believing this ,is not believing Science,plain and simple.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 1, 2014 - 11:28am PT
I had a hard run
Running from your window


Didja know that that's a song about a fan (the wind type)?
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Aug 1, 2014 - 11:34am PT
Look there is a lot of pseudoscience in the world.
Take a look at an article in today's Slate (as left wing as they come among mainstream-type news and opinion sources) about replication problems in science.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/07/replication_controversy_in_psychology_bullying_file_drawer_effect_blog_posts.html

It's sort of a long article (for an online blog-type source, not for a real article), and the author clearly is trying to avoid saying what should be apparent to any fair-minded reader: much if not most of "social science" is just complete BS.
It's not excaclty a scam in the the same way a Ponzi scheme is; I imagine most of un-replicatable "studies" aren't the product of fraud. But the entire enterprise of "social sciences" seems to be misguided.

But unlike the studies these bozos do, the money they get, which is almost entirely from public sources, directly or indirectly, is very real.
That's the problem.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 1, 2014 - 11:53am PT
yes it does, it spells out a complete misunderstanding of how science is done. The independent confirmation of a result is usually produced by an entirely different analysis on data independently acquired. The methodology of the first paper being spelled out completely, it should be possible for a second person to reproduce the result using the same methodology.

I would never request data from another scientists to redo the calculation appearing in one of those scientist's paper. Instead, I would conduct an entirely different experiment with the aim to obtain, independently, the result described in their paper.

The very nature of experimental science requires independenat acquisition of data in order to verify the results. In climate science, however, we deal with a great deal of non-experimental data, posing at least two additional problems:

1. Do we have an accurate set of measurements of historical data; and

2. Have we used the proper statistical methods for analyzing those measurements?

If a critic of Cook's work alleges that his data misrepresents reality, I would disregard the criticism unless the critic presents his or her independent data and methodology to contrast with Cook's. Those who know more can tell me if any such criticism exists.(i.e. backed up by independently acquired data and methodology). The only criticism of data I've seen presents cluimate information from limited geographic areas over very limited times. Without more, that does nothing to invalidate Cook's data or conclusions drawn from it.

If, however, the critic questions the statistical methods, I don't see how anyone could verify or criticize Cook's statistical methods without access to his data. In this scenario, the absence of the data set creates an impression of a problem to an outside observer. In the vehemence of the discussions on climate change, we tend to overlook the fact that any political action requires the support of outside observers, who don't judge things the way a professional working in the disciple would.

All of this is really a long-winded way of making a shameless plug for a book written by one of my wife's cousins, Leah Ceccarelli, titled Shaping Science with Rhetoric: The Cases of Dobzhansky, Schrodinger, and Wilson. Leah is a prof at the University of Washington, specializing in the rhetoric of science. Shaping Science With Rhetoric analyzes three case studies of scientists creating new fields of inquiry by combining disciplines, thus requiring scholars in different fields to communicate with each other. Two of those case studies deal with successful communication, and one with failure.

As I've followed both this thread and the discussion of climate change generally, I've encountered successful and unsuccessful communication of viewpoints. My background in econometrics deals with the problems of statistical inference from non-experimental data. The protocol in econometrics requires public disclosure of data, so my instinctive evaluations of Cook, Mann, et al, was that there must be a big hole in their theses, because failure to disclose data in economtrics coincides with scholars hiding something. Chiloe pointed me to the statistical literature that addressed my concerns and changed my mind.

That approach only worked, though, because I have a post-graduate background in statistical analysis, so all I needed was directions to the right source. How should climate scientists communicate with someone lacking that background? At the very least, they need to consider how an intelligent but ignorant person processes new information. People tend to judge the importance and veracity of new information, at least initially, by evaluating the source of that information. If the source comes across as undefensive and straightforward, we tend to listen more readily than if they come across as patronizing, defensive or evasive.

Successful trial lawyers understand how to get people to believe their clients. I'm not calling for tricks, but I am suggesting that some in the mainstream of climate science could stand a lesson or two in communication with those outside their field.

John
MGuzzy

Trad climber
Orangevale
Aug 1, 2014 - 12:17pm PT
HighTraverse sez:
Now we're getting somewhere. Please re-read Ed's earlier post on the scientific method.

HT noble attempt to inject a sense of broader understanding ... I pop into this thread every now and then .. mostly to see how far skewed things have gotten.. Alas its hard have a debate about relevant science when there is no understanding of the Scientific Method. There will always be a disconnect between those that understand the language of science, its methods and its ways of interpreting data. Even within a given scientific discipline there is debate about how to interpret the data.. that's how the field advances.

So I read these posts and I can pick out those that have a solid background in science, those that don't but can follow a logical train of thought, those that are regurgitating science from other sources and those that are just spouting opinion.

AS to the subject of this thread? its long been proven to be happening. I can recall a more interdisciplinary science before. And this thread is mostly degenerated into a war of words just for the sake of argument...

Every now and then a light pops up with someone ideas of what we should do.. Personally, politically, economically, globally... I don't expect there to be a simple solution. Its a global, multinational issue. Its not like there is one cause, we can't just say no more CFC's and everything will be fixed. And so the debate war rages on...
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 1, 2014 - 12:48pm PT
I believe David Legates has a study out on the so called consensus and came up with quite different percentages than Cook et al, JEl. Perhaps you should check out his data.

HT, I don't have to trust the "science of climatology" to examine the historical record to determine that natural climate change more rapid and variable than todays has ocurred repeatedly over the last few thousand years, to follow the voluminous rise in antarctic ice and now recovering arctic ice, to understand that U.S. temps have been on the decline for 80 years, to observe the many harsh northern hemisphere winters of the last decade, to note that global low temp records are outpacing warm temp records 2 to 1, to understand from numerous studies that despite what the climate cabal says their is notable correlation between solar activity and climate change, to note that despite a steepening rise in global atmospheric CO2 content that temps have not followed as previously predicted in a monotonous linear rise, and finally to observe the corporate/government collusion to profit from taxation , regulation, and crony capitalism to the detriment of the populace.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Aug 1, 2014 - 12:49pm PT
but I am suggesting that some in the mainstream of climate science could stand a lesson or two in communication with those outside their field.
Well said John but I disagree with your conclusion.
Al Gore did his best 10 years ago. Bill Nye The Science Guy has more personality but he falls on deaf ears. Certainly we know a lot more than 10 years ago, therefore feeding the Global Warming Deniers' feeding frenzy about "science is not perfect therefore we can't trust it".
Ed's outline of Scientific Method has served us well for over 100 years. Unfortunately it doesn't account for the psychology and mis-understanding of people who don't understand it.

There's a toxic mix of ignorance, willful delusion and expensive contra-propaganda which appeals to conspiracy theorists and government is always suspicious if not wrong nihilists.
Add a sauce of Obama and the Europeans are Socialists; China has to do something before we do; I need my 20 MPG automobile and 65 degree air conditioning; public transit is bad. Greed is good. I have the God given right to take all the resources I can for myself. It's a long way off so why should I care?
Stir with a lot of Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Business money.

Rational thought, analysis, scientific proof will always get lost under that onslaught.

Do you really care that you don't know the physics of how the communications layer of the internet works? How the satellites work? How the fiber optics work? I hope not.

Part of the truly unfortunate problem is the US is now 15th among developing nations in mathematics education.
Why is this a problem related to global warming? Because without a good background in math, graphs, charts, data trends, statistics can be incomprehensible. Yet key to understanding our modern world.
What is often obscured by the often confusing data is the climate scientists have developed a thermodynamic model of global warming. The same thermodynamics that describes the operations of all thermal engines. From Watt's steam engine, to nuclear power plants, infernal combustion engines, rocket engines and the water boiling in your teakettle.
Just because the Atmosphere and Oceans are chaotic places doesn't mean that in the whole, the aggregate effect of CO2 and other hydrocarbon emissions over many years is not clearly understood.

Of course since we don't completely understand the atmosphere in the tiniest detail we should all stop flying in jet airplanes.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Aug 1, 2014 - 01:03pm PT
rick
Do you know how Einstein's Laws of relativity affect velocity and time?
Do you know that even technocrats didn't fully believe that clocks would run more slowly on satellites? The difference is so small that it had been unmeasurable.

Until we put up the first GPS satellites. There was enough technocrat (not scientific) skepticism that the first few were put up with 2 clocks, one corrected for relativistic time and one not corrected. Notice how they were able to hedge their bets?
When they checked the computed positions, the relativistic ones were correct.
Finally there was empirical proof, obvious to anyone who looked at the results, that Einstein had been correct 80 years before.

If that's the level of proof you require you may not live to see it. Meanwhile the ocean heat content ON AVERAGE (which is what really counts) will have risen another fraction of a degree C. The Arctic ice pack will have receded a few more miles, and quite possibly the Mendel Couloirs will have completely disappeared.
If you really want to hedge your bets you're on the wrong side.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 1, 2014 - 01:20pm PT
Just because the Atmosphere and Oceans are chaotic places doesn't mean that in the whole, the aggregate effect of CO2 and other hydrocarbon emissions over many years is not clearly understood.

The problem, HT, is by whom? Unless the general public understands enough to trust those you think it should trust, you'll have no action. The general public has a bias against taking action for a rather logical reason -- it affects the way we live. Ascribing that attitude to brainwashing or stupidity not only overlooks the problem of persuasion, but almost guarantees a failure to communicate.

Al Gore has enough wealth that any of the proposed actions mitigating carbon emissions won't materially affect his lifestyle, but those same actions will change the lifestyles of the average American significantly. Something as modest as California's cap and trade will probably result in an enormous outcry as soon as the public sees higher prices for what, to them, seems like the same things.

If we expect such programs to last, we need to communicate why the average person should support them. You don't do that by telling them "You're too stupid to understand." Human instinct interprets that to mean "I don't know what I'm talking about, so I can't explain it," or worse, "If you knew, you'd disagree with me." Instead, you need to present evidence that shows why it is in the best interest of the average American to take action. Otherwise, we're all just sharing the fate of Cassandra.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 1, 2014 - 01:36pm PT
Rick,

I've read some of Legates's articles of the op-ed variety, and I know he has criticized the "hockey stick" of Mann, et al., for example, but I am unaware of any independent data he cites. I've also read plenty of shallow criticisms of his work, e.g. "He's paid for by the oil companies." Sorry, but that doesn't cut it, any more than criticizing those finding anthropogenic activity the major cause of climate change because "If they conclude that, they'll get more grants."

Unfortunately, too much of what I read on climate change really gives a whole new meaning to the term "political science." I would, however, appreciate being directed to any scholarly work supporting or opposing his views.

Thanks.

John
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 1, 2014 - 01:46pm PT
Einsteins theories are testable, starting with an observation during an eclipse during the teens of the 20th century, and have so far adequarely explained all.observations. Until such time as anomalies are discovered that can't be explained by his theory it is adequate just like Newton"s theory prior to him. Climate shamery on the other hand has repeatedly failed in the test of observation versus predictives. They repeatedly try to move the goal posts through tortured reinterpretation but the climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 is significantly less than all estimates which invalidates the theory. Time for a new explanation HT.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 1, 2014 - 01:50pm PT
I believe David Legates has a study out on the so called consensus and came up with quite different percentages than Cook et al, JEl. Perhaps you should check out his data.

Rick, perhaps you should "check out his data" yourself? I know you haven't because if you did you'd find that Legates does not have any data, and this paper is not really a study. What they do show is that if you redefine what Cook et al. were doing in their study, then by Legates' new definition what Cook did is wrong, they should instead have divided a much smaller number by a much larger one which makes that upsetting percentage look smaller. That is the result Legates et al. wanted, but it won't make much sense to people who have read both papers.

Here is abstract for Legates et al. 2013 note, actually a "rejoinder" to an earlier paper in which other authors pointed out mistakes in a previous Legates paper, all of which appear in the journal Science and Education (impact factor 0.7). Keen readers will notice the definitional switch halfway through this abstract.

This case goes to the point John and Ed have mentioned that real replication involves collecting new data. Tough for ancient tree rings but very easy for Cook's study of scientific abstracts, since they describe the method clearly and published their data. Anyone is free to replicate this with whatever changes they see fit. So far as I know no one has; critiques instead focus on ways to fiddle with the percentages Cook published, in efforts to make them look smaller. The lack of real replication is telling, and most scientists know why: There really *is* a strong scientific consensus, and any reasonable study will confirm this. Even Richard Tol has said so, amidst his emotional outbursts against the Cook study.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Aug 1, 2014 - 02:28pm PT
rick
I'm done trying to reason with you.
But you asked for new data
here it is:
California average temperature since about 1895
California average temperature since about 1895
Credit: HighTraverse
Sayonara
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 1, 2014 - 03:41pm PT
If the source comes across as undefensive and straightforward, we tend to listen more readily than if they come across as patronizing, defensive or evasive.


This might be true. However, we have the IPCC, which from my view, comes across as undefensive and straightforward. The question can be, "Why do so many people not take it seriously?" The answer to this could be, "Because there are wealthy forces at play that want to undermine the findings of the international group of scientists."

It's not so much that the scientists need to learn how to convince laymen, it's more that they are not effective at dealing with large and powerful corporations that are hell-bent on discrediting their findings.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Aug 1, 2014 - 08:31pm PT
This is one reason intelligent people take climate activists with a big grain of salt. Intuitively they / we know that the "solutions" being pushed are not in our best interests while they holler about attractive solutions like gas and nuclear.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 1, 2014 - 09:13pm PT
Dave, I think that cost is a much bigger factor than many realize. K-man and I obviously differ on why climate change is such a tough sell. Many instinctively decided that the risk from anthropogenic climate change isn't worth the cost of mitigation.

That's an open question, although economists are finally starting to make some progress in methodology there. The marginal cost/marginal benefit issue, however, should not cloud our evaluation of whether and how human activity affects climate. We cannot have a sober assessment of the economic stakes until we have a reasonable understanding of the science. I think we have a pretty good handle on the science, but I can't convince the public of that as long as our public statement is "anyone with whom we disagree is a crook, dupe of the oil companies, or an imbecile."

I realize that conventional wisdom says that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Unfortunately, we may burn up because those who need to convince the undecided are, in fact, underestimating the intelligence of the undecided.

John
Messages 21021 - 21040 of total 26164 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews