3 ms·

"Scientific consensus" is like a used car dealer saying "we're so trustworthy you don't even need to look under the hood!" There's a gaping hole where the engin

"Scientific consensus" is like a used car dealer saying "we're so trustworthy you don't even need to look under the hood!" There's a gaping hole where the engine should be, and no one wants to be asked as to why.

dantheman 17y ago
I completely agree, in fact, I think it's hard to claim something is science without falsifiable experiments. And yes, I know all about the difficulty of the demarcation of science, but this is just my gut feeling.
- DaniFong 17y ago
  Climate science has falsifiable experiments, predictions it's made and is checking. It also has a historical record. The trouble is that the truly alarming claims are equally disastrous to check. It's frankly astonishing that we, as a species, haven't figured out a better way to deal with dire risks in an unpredictable environment, but science has stepped up to the plate. We can model, in pencil and paper, in bits and bytes, and in neural firings, what might happen in reality, under certain circumstances. We can check these short term predictions against short term reactions (atmospheric scientists do this all the time, for example looking at temperature gradients as a way to show that the increase in temperature is a greenhouse effect, not from the sun brightening), we can check parts of the historical record against one another, and we can drill down into all of our results and strive for a model that encompasses all of it. And when we've run said model and somewhere in the future as a consequence of our actions it predicts a significant likelihood of disaster, it should give you pause. Not unlike how you can model, in your own head, the possible consequences of rush blindfolded across a busy highway, even if you've never actually experienced it. You get one shot. The scientific method is not for matters involving life and death. It is for the models we have of the world, our understanding, our plans. It is for trying, by way of modeling and analogy, what we might see given what we might do. But as for the decision, that requires judgment. Why can't people understand this?
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    > It's frankly astonishing that we, as a species, haven't figured out a better way to deal with dire risks in an unpredictable environment . . . As a species, and as part of all animal life, we have. It's called flight distance, we as humans are skittish as anything. A completely wild chipmunk can easily be attracted to sit in a persons hand with time and patience. Wolves, Bears and even Lions will allow humans to walk amongst them if the person knows how to handle themselves without the predators fleeing. I've managed to approach birds to a distance of feet, and I've managed to get wild hares not to run at only a yard. Humans, however. We're currently achieving fight/flight-like responses to stimuli we can't even recognize. The reaction to 9/11 was, biologically speaking, quite absurd. Humanity has invented a way to stimulate our base instincts that allow us to practice sheer terror to things that have no appreciable effect on our lives. Similar is occurring with the climate, people are physically worried about it, when realistically for 90% of the western population will likely not experience a drastic change to their environment for the next 100 years. As a species humanity needs to act calmly and collectively, not as panicked masses. This is where science needs to take its place.
    - DaniFong 17y ago
      > when realistically for 90% of the western population will likely not experience a drastic change to their environment for the next 100 years. Where are you getting this? Americans have already seen a massive change to their environment. The further you can get from a McDonald's in the contiguous united states is 107 miles! [1] Three quarters of the Earth's ice-free land has been reshaped by human actions, and much of the remaining land is barren: only 10% of natural production now occurs in lands that are wild. [2] We are part of a world economy. The mispricing of derivatives of a small portion of loans in America's housing market is effecting nearly all sectors of the world's economy. Today, we are probably hitting peak oil, due to the recession. The dust bowl of the 1930's helped touch off the great depression. What might happen if the billions of south and east Asia, spurred on by cheap coal based power, switch, as they seem to be, from a largely plant based to a largely meat based diet, consuming many times the amount of water and land per kg of food (e.g. 1 kg of beef takes about 15,000 L of water, 1 kg of wheat only 1,000 L). What might happen then if the strip southwest of a Himalayas and the river deltas of China; bread baskets of south and south east asia, were hit by major drought? Can you imagine the disruption? The wars, the anger, the refugees, the starvation, the global economic meltdown? How many more and how much worse droughts would you expect were the planet's temperature to increase by 2C? 4C? 6C? How many more floods would you expect to see? There must be a stopping point, yes? [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6380193/McFarthest-point-in-the-US-from-a-McDonalds.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6380... [2] http://www.eoearth.org/article/Anthropogenic_biomes http://www.eoearth.org/article/Anthropogenic_biomes
- mseebach 17y ago
  For a falsifiable experiment, see Lindzen & Choi. http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.ht... In essence, all the input to the IPCC climate models assume a negative relationship between outgoing radiation and temperature increases, while observational data indicates that the relationship is in fact opposite. This basically the opposite of what the greenhouse effect is believed to do.
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    If I understood Lubos correctly, the observational data says that increased temperature is correlated with increased outgoing radiation. This is not at all inconsistent with the greenhouse effect: for example if you had an actual greenhouse and you ran a space heater you'd find more radiation leaking out than if you hadn't heated it. This is because the greenhouse is not entirely opaque to infrared: it still diffuses out, like light through frosted glass, or like light from the center of the sun to its surface. The Earth's greenhouse is not complete. Of course, to make this demonstration I had to use a device: the space heater, whereas in real life the Sun's radiation is measured as relatively constant, as compared to the degree of the heating. The wildcard is in the heat capacity of the varying components of the earth, and convective heat transfer between them. While the greenhouse effect is likely to work in the steady state (e.g. as confirmed by much of planetary science) over the short term temperature increases may be driven more by openings in cloud cover than the residual planetary greenhouse effect. Cloud cover, being a function of water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, will increase reflection and cut heating to the surface, while simultaneously reducing infrared outgoing radiation. However, since CO2 doesn't form clouds, it will have the primary effect of cutting outgoing radiation.

dantheman 17y ago

I completely agree, in fact, I think it's hard to claim something is science without falsifiable experiments. And yes, I know all about the difficulty of the demarcation of science, but this is just my gut feeling.

DaniFong 17y ago
Climate science has falsifiable experiments, predictions it's made and is checking. It also has a historical record. The trouble is that the truly alarming claims are equally disastrous to check. It's frankly astonishing that we, as a species, haven't figured out a better way to deal with dire risks in an unpredictable environment, but science has stepped up to the plate. We can model, in pencil and paper, in bits and bytes, and in neural firings, what might happen in reality, under certain circumstances. We can check these short term predictions against short term reactions (atmospheric scientists do this all the time, for example looking at temperature gradients as a way to show that the increase in temperature is a greenhouse effect, not from the sun brightening), we can check parts of the historical record against one another, and we can drill down into all of our results and strive for a model that encompasses all of it. And when we've run said model and somewhere in the future as a consequence of our actions it predicts a significant likelihood of disaster, it should give you pause. Not unlike how you can model, in your own head, the possible consequences of rush blindfolded across a busy highway, even if you've never actually experienced it. You get one shot. The scientific method is not for matters involving life and death. It is for the models we have of the world, our understanding, our plans. It is for trying, by way of modeling and analogy, what we might see given what we might do. But as for the decision, that requires judgment. Why can't people understand this?
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  > It's frankly astonishing that we, as a species, haven't figured out a better way to deal with dire risks in an unpredictable environment . . . As a species, and as part of all animal life, we have. It's called flight distance, we as humans are skittish as anything. A completely wild chipmunk can easily be attracted to sit in a persons hand with time and patience. Wolves, Bears and even Lions will allow humans to walk amongst them if the person knows how to handle themselves without the predators fleeing. I've managed to approach birds to a distance of feet, and I've managed to get wild hares not to run at only a yard. Humans, however. We're currently achieving fight/flight-like responses to stimuli we can't even recognize. The reaction to 9/11 was, biologically speaking, quite absurd. Humanity has invented a way to stimulate our base instincts that allow us to practice sheer terror to things that have no appreciable effect on our lives. Similar is occurring with the climate, people are physically worried about it, when realistically for 90% of the western population will likely not experience a drastic change to their environment for the next 100 years. As a species humanity needs to act calmly and collectively, not as panicked masses. This is where science needs to take its place.
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    > when realistically for 90% of the western population will likely not experience a drastic change to their environment for the next 100 years. Where are you getting this? Americans have already seen a massive change to their environment. The further you can get from a McDonald's in the contiguous united states is 107 miles! [1] Three quarters of the Earth's ice-free land has been reshaped by human actions, and much of the remaining land is barren: only 10% of natural production now occurs in lands that are wild. [2] We are part of a world economy. The mispricing of derivatives of a small portion of loans in America's housing market is effecting nearly all sectors of the world's economy. Today, we are probably hitting peak oil, due to the recession. The dust bowl of the 1930's helped touch off the great depression. What might happen if the billions of south and east Asia, spurred on by cheap coal based power, switch, as they seem to be, from a largely plant based to a largely meat based diet, consuming many times the amount of water and land per kg of food (e.g. 1 kg of beef takes about 15,000 L of water, 1 kg of wheat only 1,000 L). What might happen then if the strip southwest of a Himalayas and the river deltas of China; bread baskets of south and south east asia, were hit by major drought? Can you imagine the disruption? The wars, the anger, the refugees, the starvation, the global economic meltdown? How many more and how much worse droughts would you expect were the planet's temperature to increase by 2C? 4C? 6C? How many more floods would you expect to see? There must be a stopping point, yes? [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6380193/McFarthest-point-in-the-US-from-a-McDonalds.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6380... [2] http://www.eoearth.org/article/Anthropogenic_biomes http://www.eoearth.org/article/Anthropogenic_biomes
mseebach 17y ago
For a falsifiable experiment, see Lindzen & Choi. http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.html http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/spencer-on-lindzen-choi.ht... In essence, all the input to the IPCC climate models assume a negative relationship between outgoing radiation and temperature increases, while observational data indicates that the relationship is in fact opposite. This basically the opposite of what the greenhouse effect is believed to do.
- DaniFong 17y ago
  If I understood Lubos correctly, the observational data says that increased temperature is correlated with increased outgoing radiation. This is not at all inconsistent with the greenhouse effect: for example if you had an actual greenhouse and you ran a space heater you'd find more radiation leaking out than if you hadn't heated it. This is because the greenhouse is not entirely opaque to infrared: it still diffuses out, like light through frosted glass, or like light from the center of the sun to its surface. The Earth's greenhouse is not complete. Of course, to make this demonstration I had to use a device: the space heater, whereas in real life the Sun's radiation is measured as relatively constant, as compared to the degree of the heating. The wildcard is in the heat capacity of the varying components of the earth, and convective heat transfer between them. While the greenhouse effect is likely to work in the steady state (e.g. as confirmed by much of planetary science) over the short term temperature increases may be driven more by openings in cloud cover than the residual planetary greenhouse effect. Cloud cover, being a function of water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, will increase reflection and cut heating to the surface, while simultaneously reducing infrared outgoing radiation. However, since CO2 doesn't form clouds, it will have the primary effect of cutting outgoing radiation.