4 ms·

> "Raw data is freely available (noaa and others)" But still - this is a matter of whether one chooses to trust NOAA and others. His point isn't really even a

by uptown 9y ago

> "Raw data is freely available (noaa and others)" But still - this is a matter of whether one chooses to trust NOAA and others. His point isn't really even about climate change. It's about debating the merits of any position, and what sources of information you trust to reinforce your position.

godelski 9y ago
> this is a matter of whether one chooses to trust NOAA and others I should mention that this is fairly easy to verify, at least with part of the data. For land temperatures one of the big sources they use is meteorological data gathered at airports (METAR). You know, the same data that pilots use to calculate take off and landing distances, altimeter settings, etc. So a concerned citizen could compare this these data sets and verify part of the NOAA data. Faking this data, at the airports, would cause disasters, unless you had this major conspiracy where you fixed the pilots instruments or every pilot was aware of this faking and used the real numbers. But both seem really silly since GA pilots need this information too, and frequently do hand calculations. I certainty think the verify part is essential in phrase "trust, but verify". I just want it to be clear that one can trivially verify one of the large components of the data set. [1] SFO airport data: http://www.wx-now.com/weather/wxcurrent?icao=KSFO http://www.wx-now.com/weather/wxcurrent?icao=KSFO
- mistermann 9y ago
  Ok, but what are we verifying, the pre-adjusted numbers, or the post-adjusted numbers? And is there a document a reasonably intelligent layman can refer to to get the complete story behind how various measurements have been adjusted? For fun, sometimes I try to find someone who can explain to me where the "97% of scientists support the man-made global warming theory" statistic came from, and I'm pretty sure I found the original source, but the problem is, it doesn't say 97% of scientists support it, or that 97% of papers support it. Now, if The Informed would just be up front and admit that "ok, that particular claim is a bit imprecise to be quite honest, here's the actual story....." this would be perfectly fine with me. But when instead both official authors and any advocate I've encountered online instead doubles down on the misstatement, or refuses to answer perfectly straightforward questions but instead attacks me and starts calling me names.....well, my spider senses go off a bit. And then I read things like: "The US right, for decades now but accelerating in recent years, rejects mainstream institutions: not just science but academia, journalism, and government. It has devolved into thoroughly tribal epistemology: what is good for us is true." ....and the logical side of my brain says "well yes, that is certainly true for a lot of conservatives, but certainly not all" and then I start to notice a pattern where very few pro-AGW-thoery people seem to be able to resist saying things that are not true, when lying is absolutely not necessary in any way, and I think to myself, this whole situation seems a bit suspicious. So, partially because I'm genuinely skeptical, partially because I have quite a number of issues with the current political climate and state of discourse, and partially to return just a small portion of the cntiness I've experienced from online know-it-alls, I'm going to set my launch chair just on the other side of the "denier" line, because "fck me? Well fck you too!" Besides, the economic prospects in the future for my kids doesn't look so bright and no one seems to give two shts about that, so maybe I'm not overly motivated to care about your interests either.
  - godelski 9y ago
    > Ok, but what are we verifying, the pre-adjusted numbers, or the post-adjusted numbers? You would compare the raw data (pre). You should also look at the models people use to adjust and ask yourself "does this make sense?" I should mention that the raw data suggests significantly more warming than is actually happening (which is why I've never understood the raw data argumet). This is because most ways we measure are actually artificially warm. There's a good layman's discussion here [1]. I'll mention that article gives lots of links to follow and is one of the first things I give technical people that are interested in learning more about the basics. It will give you a world to google and terms to search. > pretty sure I found the original source, but the problem is, it doesn't say 97% of scientists support it, or that 97% of papers support it. This is true, but I think you also misunderstand what it means. IIRC it also included papers from arxiv and other preprint services, which aren't peer reviewed. There are other studies that have done surveys on opinion breakdowns between different types of scientists. You still see an overwhelming trend (I believe >97%) among climate scientists that support it. > And then I read things like: "The US right, for decades... Leave politics out of science. Well at least as much as you can. Stop reading these things, they aren't relevant or useful. Different parts of academia have different problems, and they don't apply to all parts. > So, partially because I'm genuinely skeptical... GOOD. PLEASE BE SKEPTICAL. As a scientist I will NEVER discourage someone from being skeptical. But you also need to do more than just say "I'm skeptical", that is being a conspiracy theorist (in the bad way). A real skeptic looks into the claims made. That's what being skeptical is. So I encourage you to look at the data. I encourage you to actually talk to scientists that directly work on this research (as opposed to me). Most scientists are extremely happy to talk about their work, unless you're being mean to them. If you are really skeptical please at minimum read [1]. Better, go through the other links as well. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroug... Bonus: Link to different datasets https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12-__RqTqQxuxHNOln3H5ciVztsDMJcZ2SVs1BrfqYCc/htmlview?sle=true# https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12-__RqTqQxuxHNOln3H5... Nice graph on common claims (with link to data): https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...
Bartweiss 9y ago
> whether one chooses to trust NOAA and others One of the biggest objections from (science-literate) people who reject climate change is precisely this - that 'methodology corrections' applied to NOAA data create a warming trend in underlying data that lacks it. The trust question applies at every level down to "the guy who goes out and looks at the thermometer". Appeals to "you can run the data yourself" honestly feel like they're missing the point. Pretty much everything we know has some element of faith to it - some of it we can't verify directly, and almost all of it we won't verify, because that task is impossibly large. Hell, I can't prove that China exists without relying on trust in others. Which is not exactly an academic question when you meet people who say things like "North Korea isn't repressive, that's just a lie our capitalist government tells us". It's not a hopeless case, you can try to push claims to the point where falseness would require a completely implausible conspiracy, but it's worth remembering that "just look at the data!" usually amounts to a call of "just trust these voices!"

by uptown 9y ago

godelski 9y ago

> this is a matter of whether one chooses to trust NOAA and others I should mention that this is fairly easy to verify, at least with part of the data. For land temperatures one of the big sources they use is meteorological data gathered at airports (METAR). You know, the same data that pilots use to calculate take off and landing distances, altimeter settings, etc. So a concerned citizen could compare this these data sets and verify part of the NOAA data. Faking this data, at the airports, would cause disasters, unless you had this major conspiracy where you fixed the pilots instruments or every pilot was aware of this faking and used the real numbers. But both seem really silly since GA pilots need this information too, and frequently do hand calculations. I certainty think the verify part is essential in phrase "trust, but verify". I just want it to be clear that one can trivially verify one of the large components of the data set. [1] SFO airport data: http://www.wx-now.com/weather/wxcurrent?icao=KSFO http://www.wx-now.com/weather/wxcurrent?icao=KSFO

mistermann 9y ago
Ok, but what are we verifying, the pre-adjusted numbers, or the post-adjusted numbers? And is there a document a reasonably intelligent layman can refer to to get the complete story behind how various measurements have been adjusted? For fun, sometimes I try to find someone who can explain to me where the "97% of scientists support the man-made global warming theory" statistic came from, and I'm pretty sure I found the original source, but the problem is, it doesn't say 97% of scientists support it, or that 97% of papers support it. Now, if The Informed would just be up front and admit that "ok, that particular claim is a bit imprecise to be quite honest, here's the actual story....." this would be perfectly fine with me. But when instead both official authors and any advocate I've encountered online instead doubles down on the misstatement, or refuses to answer perfectly straightforward questions but instead attacks me and starts calling me names.....well, my spider senses go off a bit. And then I read things like: "The US right, for decades now but accelerating in recent years, rejects mainstream institutions: not just science but academia, journalism, and government. It has devolved into thoroughly tribal epistemology: what is good for us is true." ....and the logical side of my brain says "well yes, that is certainly true for a lot of conservatives, but certainly not all" and then I start to notice a pattern where very few pro-AGW-thoery people seem to be able to resist saying things that are not true, when lying is absolutely not necessary in any way, and I think to myself, this whole situation seems a bit suspicious. So, partially because I'm genuinely skeptical, partially because I have quite a number of issues with the current political climate and state of discourse, and partially to return just a small portion of the cntiness I've experienced from online know-it-alls, I'm going to set my launch chair just on the other side of the "denier" line, because "fck me? Well fck you too!" Besides, the economic prospects in the future for my kids doesn't look so bright and no one seems to give two shts about that, so maybe I'm not overly motivated to care about your interests either.
- godelski 9y ago
  > Ok, but what are we verifying, the pre-adjusted numbers, or the post-adjusted numbers? You would compare the raw data (pre). You should also look at the models people use to adjust and ask yourself "does this make sense?" I should mention that the raw data suggests significantly more warming than is actually happening (which is why I've never understood the raw data argumet). This is because most ways we measure are actually artificially warm. There's a good layman's discussion here [1]. I'll mention that article gives lots of links to follow and is one of the first things I give technical people that are interested in learning more about the basics. It will give you a world to google and terms to search. > pretty sure I found the original source, but the problem is, it doesn't say 97% of scientists support it, or that 97% of papers support it. This is true, but I think you also misunderstand what it means. IIRC it also included papers from arxiv and other preprint services, which aren't peer reviewed. There are other studies that have done surveys on opinion breakdowns between different types of scientists. You still see an overwhelming trend (I believe >97%) among climate scientists that support it. > And then I read things like: "The US right, for decades... Leave politics out of science. Well at least as much as you can. Stop reading these things, they aren't relevant or useful. Different parts of academia have different problems, and they don't apply to all parts. > So, partially because I'm genuinely skeptical... GOOD. PLEASE BE SKEPTICAL. As a scientist I will NEVER discourage someone from being skeptical. But you also need to do more than just say "I'm skeptical", that is being a conspiracy theorist (in the bad way). A real skeptic looks into the claims made. That's what being skeptical is. So I encourage you to look at the data. I encourage you to actually talk to scientists that directly work on this research (as opposed to me). Most scientists are extremely happy to talk about their work, unless you're being mean to them. If you are really skeptical please at minimum read [1]. Better, go through the other links as well. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroug... Bonus: Link to different datasets https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12-__RqTqQxuxHNOln3H5ciVztsDMJcZ2SVs1BrfqYCc/htmlview?sle=true# https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12-__RqTqQxuxHNOln3H5... Nice graph on common claims (with link to data): https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...

Bartweiss 9y ago

> whether one chooses to trust NOAA and others One of the biggest objections from (science-literate) people who reject climate change is precisely this - that 'methodology corrections' applied to NOAA data create a warming trend in underlying data that lacks it. The trust question applies at every level down to "the guy who goes out and looks at the thermometer". Appeals to "you can run the data yourself" honestly feel like they're missing the point. Pretty much everything we know has some element of faith to it - some of it we can't verify directly, and almost all of it we won't verify, because that task is impossibly large. Hell, I can't prove that China exists without relying on trust in others. Which is not exactly an academic question when you meet people who say things like "North Korea isn't repressive, that's just a lie our capitalist government tells us". It's not a hopeless case, you can try to push claims to the point where falseness would require a completely implausible conspiracy, but it's worth remembering that "just look at the data!" usually amounts to a call of "just trust these voices!"