3 ms·

You claim to have a "masters in statistics" but that doesn't really help me in understanding the main points of your argument. In a nutshell what you are saying

by rusk 10y ago

You claim to have a "masters in statistics" but that doesn't really help me in understanding the main points of your argument. In a nutshell what you are saying is that a lot of the statistical models developed have changed over the last 20 years or so to accommodate the data that has actually emerged. That each of these models if they were applied today would diverge significantly in their predictions from the actual situation we're seeing today? I find this a stunning indictment of mainstream scientific consensus, especially considering many of the actors in that field probably have Masters in statistics and other fields, PhDs and professorships. But, we do see this kind of skew in other fields, in particular economics comes to mind, where an overarching consensus on what is and is not good seems to promote the viewpoints selected for discussion, while neglecting counter-theses.

candiodari 10y ago
> I find this a stunning indictment of mainstream scientific consensus How exactly ? Climate science is thoroughly in the humanities at this point, very much not in exact science, and this is hardly the only wrong-but-we-can't-do-better consensus that exists. People believe this and it provides them with things to do, with the "ability to predict". Except, it's not correct use of math, with the predictable result that the outcome doesn't match reality. We "believe" a lot of things for political reasons. For instance, starting in 1995 or so papers suddenly started showing that all races are equal in everything, from iq to running speed. It's becoming controversial to state that Africans need supplemental UV at high latitudes, despite the medical consequences of not doing so. Looking at differences in their performance is systematically removed from all textbooks. Now look at reality. You have watched the olympic games recently ? I assure you the impression you get from those races is more or less correct. As for this specific one, you can simply look this up. That's supposed to be the beauty of science, except, of course where there's "scientific consensus", whatever that means. And you know, worst case is you learn something. For the lazy, google it (this looks reasonable): http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208 http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208 (but obviously download the IPCC AR0 and check the data in a table as well) Obviously there is scientific consensus in the statistics community too that you can't do what climate models do without destroying your credibility, but coming out and saying that ... isn't happening. And sadly, I know why. Even if you disregard results, you know how the IPCC arrives at their 95% certainty interval ? They take 20 highly non-linear climate models, assume normal distribution of the results per-year (think about that for 5 seconds), and come up with confidence intervals. To claim this won't provide accurate results ... does that really require data ? At what point can you just call bullshit without further study ? One statistics paper humorously provided a proof that with this process, you can create any outcome you want. And for the conspiracy nuts : the most recent IPCC AR leaves out actual numbers entirely. Because apparently (yes really) they're too easy to criticize.
- rusk 10y ago
  > They take 20 highly non-linear climate models, assume normal distribution of the results per-year (think about that for 5 seconds), and come up with confidence intervals. Like I say, "stunning". Thank you for following up - I'll be sure to follow up your links etc. at the next possible opportunity. I'm still wedded to the notion that climate change, global warming etc. "is" real, and caused by human activity, but I'm very much open to scepticism about how science is deployed day to day. EDIT I don't think it's fair to describe climate science as being "in the humanities" just because it can't have the same precision as physics. It is still concerned with the empirical gathering and analysis of information. Perhaps it is going beyond its capabilities, similarly to economics (hence my comparison there) but like economics it does still does possess a great degree of predictive power and pedagogical value.

by rusk 10y ago

candiodari 10y ago

> I find this a stunning indictment of mainstream scientific consensus How exactly ? Climate science is thoroughly in the humanities at this point, very much not in exact science, and this is hardly the only wrong-but-we-can't-do-better consensus that exists. People believe this and it provides them with things to do, with the "ability to predict". Except, it's not correct use of math, with the predictable result that the outcome doesn't match reality. We "believe" a lot of things for political reasons. For instance, starting in 1995 or so papers suddenly started showing that all races are equal in everything, from iq to running speed. It's becoming controversial to state that Africans need supplemental UV at high latitudes, despite the medical consequences of not doing so. Looking at differences in their performance is systematically removed from all textbooks. Now look at reality. You have watched the olympic games recently ? I assure you the impression you get from those races is more or less correct. As for this specific one, you can simply look this up. That's supposed to be the beauty of science, except, of course where there's "scientific consensus", whatever that means. And you know, worst case is you learn something. For the lazy, google it (this looks reasonable): http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208 http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208 (but obviously download the IPCC AR0 and check the data in a table as well) Obviously there is scientific consensus in the statistics community too that you can't do what climate models do without destroying your credibility, but coming out and saying that ... isn't happening. And sadly, I know why. Even if you disregard results, you know how the IPCC arrives at their 95% certainty interval ? They take 20 highly non-linear climate models, assume normal distribution of the results per-year (think about that for 5 seconds), and come up with confidence intervals. To claim this won't provide accurate results ... does that really require data ? At what point can you just call bullshit without further study ? One statistics paper humorously provided a proof that with this process, you can create any outcome you want. And for the conspiracy nuts : the most recent IPCC AR leaves out actual numbers entirely. Because apparently (yes really) they're too easy to criticize.

rusk 10y ago
> They take 20 highly non-linear climate models, assume normal distribution of the results per-year (think about that for 5 seconds), and come up with confidence intervals. Like I say, "stunning". Thank you for following up - I'll be sure to follow up your links etc. at the next possible opportunity. I'm still wedded to the notion that climate change, global warming etc. "is" real, and caused by human activity, but I'm very much open to scepticism about how science is deployed day to day. EDIT I don't think it's fair to describe climate science as being "in the humanities" just because it can't have the same precision as physics. It is still concerned with the empirical gathering and analysis of information. Perhaps it is going beyond its capabilities, similarly to economics (hence my comparison there) but like economics it does still does possess a great degree of predictive power and pedagogical value.