Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26561 - 26580 of total 26686 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:42am PT
Credit: monolith
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:51am PT
Awesome post, Mono.

Never saw it coming.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jul 8, 2014 - 07:52am PT
Oh yeah.

What's your point?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 8, 2014 - 08:55am PT
I wonder if anyone will honestly address ^these^ points.


Why don't you address them? Because you can't?


me too.

You Sketch like damn near all of us ( including sumner ) cannot adress what you call points because for all we know they are claims of opinion that may or may not be factual, or statistically interpreted competently.


There is an entire global wide field of scientific enquiry that is best suited to address those claims.

So why are you asking " us" to adress the points and not them?

Do you or do you not trust the institutional science to do the task they are mandated to do?


Why in Gods name do you allow Wattsupwiththat.com to steer your decision making at all?

Do you trust them? Why? Remember, they can claim anything they want about the science and you are no more capable of judging them anymore than institutional science. It is beyond your comprehension and technical skill. The fact is, Chiloe, Mono or Ed could "adress" all those points and you wouldn't know how to verify. Sumner could do the same and you would be equally as flummoxed. Hell, I could do the same and all you could do is say " that dosn't seem right" not "that isn't right".

Which means you navigate the science by feel, not reason. Feel ( intuition ) is as always immediately and unavoidably available to you. Reason ( deliberation of fact) is not - not because the facts don't exist but because you don't know what to do with them, even if there were no walls of bias blocking them.

So bottom line is even in terms of your razor sharp intuition you wind up trusting one and not the other. The great thing is we all have the basic skill and knowledge available to judge that worthiness of trust, based on widely available understanding of human behavior as well as proven track record. We can chose, in a perfectly rational and informed manner whether we accept the consensus opinion of the institutional climate research profession, or that of the other institution: Wattsupwiththat.

So even if you cant address scientific points, you can addresss your decisions of trust. So buck up mr silent treatment and show even a glimmer of courage in explaining how you pick your sides.


Hint: Sumner never did, neither did chuckles and look how stupid and unethical they look.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jul 8, 2014 - 09:09am PT
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html

"Mr. Kahan’s study suggests that more people know what scientists think about high-profile scientific controversies than polls suggest; they just aren’t willing to endorse the consensus when it contradicts their political or religious views. This finding helps us understand why my colleagues and I have found that factual and scientific evidence is often ineffective at reducing misperceptions and can even backfire on issues like weapons of mass destruction, health care reform and vaccines. With science as with politics, identity often trumps the facts."


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057

Climate Science Communication and the Measurement Problem


Dan M. Kahan
Yale University - Law School; Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

June 25, 2014

Advances Pol. Psych., Forthcoming

Abstract:
This paper examines the science-of-science-communication measurement problem. In its simplest form, the problem reflects the use of externally invalid measures of the dynamics that generate cultural conflict over risk and other policy-relevant facts. But at a more fundamental level, the science-of-science-communication measurement problem inheres in the phenomena being measured themselves. The “beliefs” individuals form about a societal risk such as climate change are not of a piece; rather they reflect the distinct clusters of inferences that individuals draw as they engage information for two distinct ends: to gain access to the collective knowledge furnished by science, and to enjoy the sense of identity enabled by membership in a community defined by particular cultural commitments. The paper shows how appropriately designed “science comprehension” tests — one general, and one specific to climate change — can be used to measure individuals’ reasoning proficiency as collective-knowledge acquirers independently of their reasoning proficiency as cultural-identity protectors. Doing so reveals that there is in fact little disagreement among culturally diverse citizens on what science knows about climate change. The source of the climate-change controversy and like disputes is the contamination of education and politics with forms of cultural status competition that make it impossible for diverse citizens to express their reason as both collective-knowledge acquirers and cultural-identity protectors at the same time.



The source of the public conflict over climate change is not too little rationality but in a sense too much. Ordinary members of the public are too good at extracting from information the significance it has in their everyday lives. What an ordinary person does—as consumer, voter, or participant in public discussions—is too inconsequential to affect either the climate or climate-change policymaking. Accordingly, if her actions in one of those capacities reflects a misunderstanding of the basic facts on global warming, neither she nor anyone she cares about will face any greater risk. But because positions on climate change have become such a readily identifiable indicator of ones’ cultural commitments, adopting a stance toward climate change that deviates from the one that prevails among her closest associates could have devastating consequences, psychic and material. Thus, it is perfectly rational—perfectly in line with using information appropriately to achieve an important personal end—for that individual to attend to information on in a manner that more reliably connects her beliefs about climate change to the ones that predominate among her peers than to the best available scientific evidence (Kahan, 2012)



These studies imply misinformation is not a decisive source of public controversy over climate change. People in these studies are misinforming themselves by opportunistically adjusting the weight they give to evidence based on what they are already committed to believing. This form of identity-protective motivated reasoning (Sherman 2003; Sherman & Cohen 2006) occurs, this work suggests, not just in the climate change debate but in numerous others in which these same cultural groups trade places being out of line with the National Academy of Sciences’ assessments of what “expert consensus” is (Kahan, Jenkins-Smith & Braman 2011).
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 8, 2014 - 09:28am PT
But because positions on climate change have become such a readily identifiable indicator of ones’ cultural commitments, adopting a stance toward climate change that deviates from the one that prevails among her closest associates could have devastating consequences, psychic and material.

What will the neighbors think????????

DMT
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 8, 2014 - 09:31am PT
Can you imagine how quickly Ron would be strung up in the nearest tree of Mound hump nevada if he were suddenly say to his friends and neighbors " I was wrong about Spotted Owl and polar bears it turns out"
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 8, 2014 - 09:33am PT
I wonder if anyone will honestly address ^these^ points.

Include yourself in that set, sketch.

DMT
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:06am PT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan

Jul 8, 2014 - 09:33am PT

Include yourself in that set, sketch.

DMT

I have, previously.

Are any parts of this morning's post misleading? How so?

I've asked our resident experts about the difference between IPCC projections and the temperature record. My knowledge of this subject is simply as a layman. I have no formal training in scientific research.

I can still recognize the huge difference between forecasts and results. Whenever I bring this up, it's red herring central.

As I see it, the IPCC keeps missing the mark (by a lot). They move the goalposts... and miss again. And no one, except those evil deniers, says anything... other than "keep up the good work".

So, how about it Ed... Chiloe.... how do you reconcile the difference between forecasts and actual temps?

As a working hypothesis, what is the confidence interval of the IPCC projections?

How about we examine this issue in an honest considerate manner?
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:09am PT
I'd like to see what Chiloe thinks. I believe he is the only climate change expert contributing to this thread though I could be mistaken.

DMT
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:27am PT
I can still recognize the huge difference between forecasts and results. Whenever I bring this up, it's red herring central.

As I see it, the IPCC keeps missing the mark (by a lot). They move the goalposts... and miss again.

Perhaps you actually can't recognize the difference, but if you are inclined to label it "huge" without comprehending scale then the fact you are so willing to judge based on your own interpretation of meaning indicates bias, not recognition of fact.

"as you see it" or as you interpret it indicates the same. You are ascribing meaning where you cannot. You are incompetent. Take that as an insult if you like, but it is merely a realistic observation. Your ability to ascertain meaning is at best weak, and entirely intuitive.

The question remains unanswered by either you, Rick or really anyone and if there is anything central to the politics it is this:

What credible reason do you have to distrust the instiitutional opinion?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:39am PT
How about we examine this issue in an honest considerate manner?

considering that responses to the question you posed above have been discussed at great depth during the course of this thread, and that the specifics of the current climate behavior have also been discussed, extensively, in terms of the most recent scientific findings, it is a bit surprising that you would make the condition "honest considerate manner".

I took down my posts because it became obvious that the argument wasn't over the science, it was about our perceived political views. I don't know any scientific argument that will displace closely held beliefs.

In discussing evolution (which is also discussed in the paper) I obtained the ire of both sides by stating, essentially, that the scientific theory of evolution is consistent with the observations and experiments. The creationists have constructed a theory that is also "consistent" with the observations. The predictive power of these two explanations is vastly different, and no one would deny health care which was a result of the application of the scientific theory of evolution as opposed to having just faith (obviously this is not an accurate statement since there are small groups of people that do not seek medical treatment and instead practice their faith alone).

There is a difference in constructing an explanation to "fit the facts" as opposed to creating a theory that is capable of predicting.

I had taken the time to extract predictions from Hansen's 1983 paper on the temperature anomaly, and then compare that with the subsequent behavior of the temperature anomaly. It agreed quite well, given that Hansen had to project the likely CO2 emissions, and account for significant natural variability.

It was a prediction of the climate models, and I stated that given the nascent state of the models and the computational power available in 1983, the prediction's agreement with what actually happened are quite good (and we could quantify that).

Using fits to the time series is not the same thing as building a model based on the underlying physical principles, developing procedures for initiating a predictive time series and then letting the computer project into the future. The time series lacks any explicit underlying theory. The essential hypothesis being that the time series can be represented by a linear relationship which has two free parameters: a value of the anomaly at one point in time and a constant rate of change.

We know that the actual physical situation is not described by that underlying hypothesis, but it is the hypothesis you are asking for clarification on.

When an analysis uses the insights gained by the modeling to fit the same time series, as Chiloe showed he reproduced from a paper, the natural variability is represented by the observed time series of various indices and fit to the anomaly time series, there are 8 free parameters representing the magnitude of the contribution of the indices, and a time offset of the index series. These fits are quite good. The paper left out the CO2 emission index, and the residual to the fit of the temperature anomaly was a linear trend following the emission index.

This model has no predictive power, but is a simple way to test the results of the much more elaborate computer models which identify the most significant contributions to the anomaly.

One could conclude that the computer models, having gotten that right, can be used to make predictions which have higher fidelity in terms of treating the actual physical system. One could seek to understand the fit's parameter values to similar values calculated by the models, and relate those parameters to physical phenomena.

A linear increase of the anomaly is not a very faithful representation of the physical system, and no scientist believes that it is...

So the whole premise of your question seems to be irrelevant to the science discussion.

What is relevant, and what has been discussed at length, is the idea that our models could have predictive power on a decadal time scale, with spatial resolutions that are much smaller than hemispheric. There is a considerable amount of scientific discussion on this point, and it is relevant to the larger discussion considering the recent behavior of the temperature anomaly.

It will be a major scientific accomplishment to obtain accurate climate forecasts on the decadal time scale for sub-continental space scales. These forecasts have a great influence on response to climate change that affect us all. Learning what the limits are in the accuracy of those forecasts is an important program. The current behavior of the anomaly is part of that learning process.

There is little scientific doubt that on the global scale and for century time periods, that the models make accurate predictions given CO2 emission scenarios. While the annual contribution of the emissions are small, the cumulative effects of a century of emissions overwhelms the natural variability.

I'm sure this is a much too long response to your question. I hope you find it made "in an honest considerate manner".
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jul 8, 2014 - 10:58am PT
Thanks Ed.

Kudos for keeping it earnest.

I have some questions. But I'm gonna let your reply sink in... percolate a bit... before responding.
raymond phule

climber
Jul 8, 2014 - 12:12pm PT

I wonder if anyone will honestly address ^these^ points.

Which points? That both the time series and the time interval have been cheery picked? The other temperature records show a much higher trend over that time interval. The trend also change quite a lot if you change the starting time.

I stopped to believe in the accuracy of the rss temperature record when I read that Spencer also thinks that it is suspect and that it only should be used when you wanted to show a negative trend.

I really don't understand why linear trends are used as often as they seem to be on climate data when the variability is so high so that the trends change quite a lot if the start time and end times are changed.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 8, 2014 - 06:06pm PT
But I'm gonna let your reply sink in... percolate a bit... before responding.

That sounds so ..... reasonable, and considerate. But to what? that was a nice genuflection but genuflection is style, not substance. To what end are you going to consider and weigh his words? We want to know to what extent any amount of percolation on your part will result in a real technical evaluation of Eds opinion, or are you just perpetuating an image of sage contemplation? I'm a layman too and no matter how hard I tried no way in hell could I rate the veracity of whatever the hell he said - other than on a basis of trust.

And you? Even if it percolates all day and you actually have a vague notion of what a time scale is, what are you holding out for - judgement that his opinion is right or wrong?

The Dunning Krugger effect is a broad scale real behavioral reality. It is not just some vague idea with amusing but inconsequential results. Whatever you glean from whatever Ed said, if you are not deeply imbeded and practiced in the trade and culture, the odds are the bulk of the import goes in one ear and out the other which means that whatever is retained is at best a very incomplete understanding. even without political, personal or social biasing such a scenario is low odds for a rational, logical, factual judgement.

As an example, did you with your computer skills have a clear understanding of the actual risk posed by the Y2K bug? I mean seriously, its all just a mush of zeros and ones for 99.99 percent of us but if we just percolated a bit do you think we'd be in any better position to decide? Do you really think a run of the mill day trader or whatever you are can grasp the meaning from such a techncal process? I mean why not - our environment is equal parts climate and computers after all.

Not a fukin chance. Completely and utterly beyond our abilities. The expert opinion is a whole other story but for analogous purposes to how the general population understands climate or any other computer modelling, the Y2K bug is just as telling. We don't know sh#t and rather than expecting to be able to weigh the answers to your questions we're better off spinning a bottle.

Or better yet consider the credibility of expert opinion, then rate trust. Rather than percolate and judge Chiloe, mono or Ed, why not just trust them? Let them explain their understanding, and accept it.



notice the "we don't know what we don't know' part. Which is why you ask those that do.

I know you don't like my condescending style Sketch, but don't let that be a reason to avoid my substance. Unless of course you don't care a bit about substance, only image.
moosedrool

climber
lost, far away from Poland
Jul 8, 2014 - 11:19pm PT
"Within about 15 years every new car sold in the United States will be electric. In fact, by midcentury more than half of the American economy will run on electricity. Up to 60 percent of power might come from nuclear sources. And coal’s footprint will shrink drastically, perhaps even disappear from the power supply.

This course, created by a team of energy experts, was unveiled on Tuesday in a report for the United Nations that explores the technological paths available for the world’s 15 main economies to both maintain reasonable rates of growth and cut their carbon emissions enough by 2050 to prevent climatic havoc."


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/business/blueprints-for-taming-the-climate-crisis.html?_r=0

Moosedream
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jul 9, 2014 - 05:17am PT
The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-insidious-truth-about-bcs-carbon-tax-it-works/article19512237/
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 9, 2014 - 08:04am PT
Sometimes those "denier" blogs provide some interesting stuff.

Yes, denier blogs can provide some "interesting" entertainment. Much like evening news programs, they are meant to entertain. But educate? Not so much.

    considering that responses to the question you posed above have been discussed at great depth during the course of this thread, and that the specifics of the current climate behavior have also been discussed, extensively, in terms of the most recent scientific findings, it is a bit surprising that you would make the condition "honest considerate manner".

    Which points? That both the time series and the time interval have been cheery picked?

    It will be a major scientific accomplishment to obtain accurate climate forecasts on the decadal time scale for sub-continental space scales.

    There is little scientific doubt that on the global scale and for century time periods, that the models make accurate predictions given CO2 emission scenarios. While the annual contribution of the emissions are small, the cumulative effects of a century of emissions overwhelms the natural variability.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 9, 2014 - 09:18am PT
While sketch, Rick and co continue with obscure and confuse under the premise of every man can "feel" the truth, Others have moved beyond the establishment of fact to the implications of moral action. For anyone with a sense for moral legacy - psychopaths, machavellians and religious fruit loops aside - this is the end game. Even when your dead and gone, what will your kids think of your record of internet posts?

A need for 'moral energy'

The report also found that serious de-carbonization is possible even in the most climate-obstinate countries, like the Russian Federation. The world's fourth-largest emitter has not identified any long-term targets for carbon emissions nor has it developed a de-carbonization strategy.

But Oleg Lugovoy of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration said his research team found reason for optimism.

"Technically, it is possible, and there are several options to de-carbonize, not only one way," Lugovoy said. "Russia is concerned about economic growth because it is slowing down dramatically. But actually, this is an opportunity for Russia to support its economic growth."

Total greenhouse gas emissions in Russia fell by 31 percent between 1990 and 2011—mostly due to the breakdown of energy-intensive industries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The report noted that even under business-as-usual levels, emissions won't rise—but cutting carbon will mean pursuing aggressive efficiency measures, using gas where possible to electrify regions and ramping up renewable energy.

Even then, though, Lugovoy called CCS Russia's best option to de-carbonize the electricity power sector.

Sachs said the report will be updated to include economic analyses and presented Sept. 23 to the United Nations, where Secretary-General Ban will host a summit of world leaders on climate change. He said he hopes the summit will bring "moral energy" to the debate.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clean-energy-to-stave-off-catastrophic-climate-change-possible-by-2050-barely/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Maybe Sketch has no kids.... maybe even no friends with kids. Or if he does, maybe thats why he has a strict reveal nothing policy. First rule of Machavellianism: If the sh#t goes sideways, leave no trail of crumbs back to you
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jul 9, 2014 - 09:54am PT

maybe sketch hates kids.


maybe sketch hates everybody.
Messages 26561 - 26580 of total 26686 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