3 ms·

>Rick Santorum has accused universities of "indoctrination" and "killing religion". The universities are heavily in the business of indoctrination. That's why

by tsotha 11y ago

>Rick Santorum has accused universities of "indoctrination" and "killing religion". The universities are heavily in the business of indoctrination. That's why millennials are so much more pro gay marriage and anti free speech than their elders. The "killing religion" part is overblown. >James Inhofe has written a book about how climate science is supposedly a hoax. Much of it is. There is evidence to suggest the earth is warming, but anyone who tells you he can predict the global surface temperature in 20 years is selling you something. I don't know where people got the idea wild statements based entirely on demonstrably wrong models are Teh Science. >Chris Christie said that a national teachers union deserves a “punch in the face”. It does. Note there's a huge difference between teachers and the AFT. In most places you don't don't get to decide whether or not part of your paycheck goes to the union, so it's a bit disingenuous to characterize that as an attack on teachers. I don't know how we reached the point where to work as a teacher I would have to pay money to a third party that's going to support political candidates and educational policy I oppose. I'd also point out regardless of what they say or don't say governors of both parties across the country are looking ofr ways to curtail the power of public employee unions.

asgard1024 11y ago
I downvoted you, mostly because of this sentence: > but anyone who tells you he can predict the global surface temperature in 20 years is selling you something They are predicting the averages, not exact numbers. It's like when someone is predicting average dice roll, it can be done even though the exact next dice roll cannot be predicted. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of climate science.
- tsotha 11y ago
  Except if you go back twenty years you'll see their predictions haven't even come close to panning out on "the averages". The data set is crap, and there's no way to validate the models. Normally in science when your model turns out to be wrong you realize you don't really understand what's going on. Not these people, though. There's too much hubris, money, and professional standing at stake for anyone to admit he doesn't know any more than a five year old extrapolating historical data with a crayon.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    These are different objections. I get the feeling the problem is you, you don't want to understand the science. And I can't help you if you don't state more precisely what your objection is. For example, you say "data and model are wrong" - which data and what model? Predicting rate of change is a tricky problem, because it's nonlinear transition phenomenon. We can easily predict the resulting steady state, though. So for instance, in some areas, scientists grossly underestimated the rate of change - for example Arctic sea ice. But that doesn't mean they don't understand what's going on - the resulting steady state (what amount of warming are we going to get, called climate sensitivity) is actually quite well understood both from history and models.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      >These are different objections. I get the feeling the problem is you, you don't want to understand the science. I'm well equipped by training to understand the science. No, the problem is you don't like it when people tell you your emperor has no clothes. Look, when your model doesn't agree with reality that doesn't mean it's mostly right. It means you don't understand the system. You say you can predict the steady state, but you have no way to validate that assertion. It's all based on speculative modeling.
      - asgard1024 11y ago
        All models eventually make predictions to the future that are difficult to validate; that's the whole point of having the model of something. We have plenty of evidence what the steady state (based on historical data and our understanding of physics) will be; I suspect you are not familiar with it (you still didn't tell me what exactly is the thing that you find in a disagreement).
        tsotha 11y ago
        >We have plenty of evidence what the steady state (based on historical data and our understanding of physics) will be; I suspect you are not familiar with it (you still didn't tell me what exactly is the thing that you find in a disagreement). I suspect you and I have far different thresholds regarding what consists of "evidence", and I'd like to point out there's a difference between the words "difficult" and "impossible". In any event the "difficulty" of validating predictions hasn't stopped people who ought to know better from spouting off like it all came from a burning bush. So far this is what we've seen: * "We have a model showing the earth is warming catastropically, and CO2 is the culprit. Look, in ten years average global surface temperatures will be $today_guess warmer. * (ten years later) "Well, sure, what we've measured isn't anything like what we predicted. Of course, we have a new model that agrees 100% with the historical record." * (ten years later) "Huh. Well, look, it's really hard to figure out what the temperature is gonna be in ten years, so let me tell you what the temperature is going to be in a hundred years, long after it matters to anyone alive today. There must be tens of thousands of people who've gone broke trading on stock market models that match previous data.

by tsotha 11y ago

asgard1024 11y ago

I downvoted you, mostly because of this sentence: > but anyone who tells you he can predict the global surface temperature in 20 years is selling you something They are predicting the averages, not exact numbers. It's like when someone is predicting average dice roll, it can be done even though the exact next dice roll cannot be predicted. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of climate science.

tsotha 11y ago
Except if you go back twenty years you'll see their predictions haven't even come close to panning out on "the averages". The data set is crap, and there's no way to validate the models. Normally in science when your model turns out to be wrong you realize you don't really understand what's going on. Not these people, though. There's too much hubris, money, and professional standing at stake for anyone to admit he doesn't know any more than a five year old extrapolating historical data with a crayon.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  These are different objections. I get the feeling the problem is you, you don't want to understand the science. And I can't help you if you don't state more precisely what your objection is. For example, you say "data and model are wrong" - which data and what model? Predicting rate of change is a tricky problem, because it's nonlinear transition phenomenon. We can easily predict the resulting steady state, though. So for instance, in some areas, scientists grossly underestimated the rate of change - for example Arctic sea ice. But that doesn't mean they don't understand what's going on - the resulting steady state (what amount of warming are we going to get, called climate sensitivity) is actually quite well understood both from history and models.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >These are different objections. I get the feeling the problem is you, you don't want to understand the science. I'm well equipped by training to understand the science. No, the problem is you don't like it when people tell you your emperor has no clothes. Look, when your model doesn't agree with reality that doesn't mean it's mostly right. It means you don't understand the system. You say you can predict the steady state, but you have no way to validate that assertion. It's all based on speculative modeling.
    - asgard1024 11y ago
      All models eventually make predictions to the future that are difficult to validate; that's the whole point of having the model of something. We have plenty of evidence what the steady state (based on historical data and our understanding of physics) will be; I suspect you are not familiar with it (you still didn't tell me what exactly is the thing that you find in a disagreement).
      - tsotha 11y ago
        >We have plenty of evidence what the steady state (based on historical data and our understanding of physics) will be; I suspect you are not familiar with it (you still didn't tell me what exactly is the thing that you find in a disagreement). I suspect you and I have far different thresholds regarding what consists of "evidence", and I'd like to point out there's a difference between the words "difficult" and "impossible". In any event the "difficulty" of validating predictions hasn't stopped people who ought to know better from spouting off like it all came from a burning bush. So far this is what we've seen: * "We have a model showing the earth is warming catastropically, and CO2 is the culprit. Look, in ten years average global surface temperatures will be $today_guess warmer. * (ten years later) "Well, sure, what we've measured isn't anything like what we predicted. Of course, we have a new model that agrees 100% with the historical record." * (ten years later) "Huh. Well, look, it's really hard to figure out what the temperature is gonna be in ten years, so let me tell you what the temperature is going to be in a hundred years, long after it matters to anyone alive today. There must be tens of thousands of people who've gone broke trading on stock market models that match previous data.