4 ms·

Relevant quote from the last line of the article: "The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend scienc

by jostmey 12y ago

Relevant quote from the last line of the article: "The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack."

hga 12y ago
Pity that's entirely negated by the authors' defense of "climate change", for changing the last word from cooling (when I was growing up) to warming, to finally "change", following of course short term temperature patterns, unambiguously signaled that the field of climate "science" had become untestable. (Evolution, on the other hand, is sort of testable, in for example molecular genetics. Weasel words because the biggest argument is metaphysical, or as I poise it, "Who are we to say how God created the earth?" I'm agnostic, but as someone put it in a discussion I just read, not very good at it. :-)
- darkmighty 12y ago
  "Cooling", "Warming" and "Change" are one about as vague as the other. You're oversimplifying it, if you want a rigorous overview by what is meant by climate change go read IPCC's reports introduction: the major impacts of rapid man-made disturbances on the global climate. Some word had to be used instead of "Let's discuss Major Impacts of Rapid Man-made Disturbances on The Global Climate". (Ill stop derailing the discussion here)
  - hga 12y ago
    "We have always been at war with Eastasia." Review my comment, particularly the "when I was growing up" bit. If my account oversimplifies, that's only because I'm repeating what the received wisdom was during each period as the "scientific consensus" changed to match the short term temperature record, and that filtered into the culture. I was born in 1960, when Eisenhower was still President. It was the Official Truth, e.g. in the science fiction of the period (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_the_Great_Freeze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_the_Great_Freeze), that man was bringing on a new ice age. I remember when the Party Line changed to "global warming". And I of course remember when that became untenable and changed to "climate change". And I read some of the scientific literature for each stage, I knew by the end of 1st grade that my calling was to be a scientist. You may prefer to get your received wisdom from entities that make full use of modern style versions of Nineteen Eighty Four memory holes, I'll stick with what I personally witnessed and now remember.
    - phaemon 12y ago
      > And I of course remember when that became untenable and changed to "climate change". Really? When did that happen? What year?
      - hga 12y ago
        Why should I be called upon to remember exactly which year ... for that matter, this is not the sort of thing that can generally be pinned down to one year, although it's possible it was that fast. Fashions can change rather rapidly. But let's focus on the meat of my argument here: do you deny that the big thing use to be "global warming?", in the '80s and '90s? If not, this article is evidence that it's now "climate change". But to partly answer your question, even the massaged global temperature data stopped showing warming ~15 years ago. For a while, of course, nobody thought much of it, a year or three's pause means nothing. Hmmm, maybe it was around 10 years into that? It did take a while for the short term trend to become evident, then after taking enough flack on that....
        phaemon 12y ago
        > Why should I be called upon to remember exactly which year Your own words were: "I of course remember when that became untenable". I didn't think it would be any effort. > Hmmm, maybe it was around 10 years into that? So about 5 years ago then? 2009 or so. Let's say after 2000 just to be safe. Because the IPCC - you know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - was formed in 1988. That's "Climate Change". In 1988. I think perhaps your memory is faulty. Also, "global temperature data stopped showing warming ~15 years ago" is just wrong. I thought you said you were a scientist?
        waterlesscloud 12y ago
        It's not a clear cut thing, but there was definitely a period when "Global Warming" was the popular phrase, as a result of being promoted by scientists talking about public policy. http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-war... "But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming." So it looks like his memory was just fine on that topic.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  The theory of anthropogenic climate change aka global warming can be tested and falsified. The general hypothesis was put forth in the late 19th century: that an increase in the burning of fossil fuels would lead to a warming of the atmosphere. This is indeed what we have observed since then. More granularly, you could test and falsify components of the theory: that CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR light; that burning fossil fuels release CO2; that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a certain duration; that the ocean absorbs CO2 at a certain rate; that CO2-driven warming is not fully offset by another system such as clouds or snowfall; etc. All of these (and more) have already been repeatedly tested. It was the cumulative results of all these tests that drove scientists to begin sounding the alarm in the 1980s--almost a century after the first hypothesis.

by jostmey 12y ago

Relevant quote from the last line of the article: "The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack."

hga 12y ago

Pity that's entirely negated by the authors' defense of "climate change", for changing the last word from cooling (when I was growing up) to warming, to finally "change", following of course short term temperature patterns, unambiguously signaled that the field of climate "science" had become untestable. (Evolution, on the other hand, is sort of testable, in for example molecular genetics. Weasel words because the biggest argument is metaphysical, or as I poise it, "Who are we to say how God created the earth?" I'm agnostic, but as someone put it in a discussion I just read, not very good at it. :-)

darkmighty 12y ago
"Cooling", "Warming" and "Change" are one about as vague as the other. You're oversimplifying it, if you want a rigorous overview by what is meant by climate change go read IPCC's reports introduction: the major impacts of rapid man-made disturbances on the global climate. Some word had to be used instead of "Let's discuss Major Impacts of Rapid Man-made Disturbances on The Global Climate". (Ill stop derailing the discussion here)
- hga 12y ago
  "We have always been at war with Eastasia." Review my comment, particularly the "when I was growing up" bit. If my account oversimplifies, that's only because I'm repeating what the received wisdom was during each period as the "scientific consensus" changed to match the short term temperature record, and that filtered into the culture. I was born in 1960, when Eisenhower was still President. It was the Official Truth, e.g. in the science fiction of the period (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_the_Great_Freeze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_the_Great_Freeze), that man was bringing on a new ice age. I remember when the Party Line changed to "global warming". And I of course remember when that became untenable and changed to "climate change". And I read some of the scientific literature for each stage, I knew by the end of 1st grade that my calling was to be a scientist. You may prefer to get your received wisdom from entities that make full use of modern style versions of Nineteen Eighty Four memory holes, I'll stick with what I personally witnessed and now remember.
  - phaemon 12y ago
    > And I of course remember when that became untenable and changed to "climate change". Really? When did that happen? What year?
    - hga 12y ago
      Why should I be called upon to remember exactly which year ... for that matter, this is not the sort of thing that can generally be pinned down to one year, although it's possible it was that fast. Fashions can change rather rapidly. But let's focus on the meat of my argument here: do you deny that the big thing use to be "global warming?", in the '80s and '90s? If not, this article is evidence that it's now "climate change". But to partly answer your question, even the massaged global temperature data stopped showing warming ~15 years ago. For a while, of course, nobody thought much of it, a year or three's pause means nothing. Hmmm, maybe it was around 10 years into that? It did take a while for the short term trend to become evident, then after taking enough flack on that....
      - phaemon 12y ago
        > Why should I be called upon to remember exactly which year Your own words were: "I of course remember when that became untenable". I didn't think it would be any effort. > Hmmm, maybe it was around 10 years into that? So about 5 years ago then? 2009 or so. Let's say after 2000 just to be safe. Because the IPCC - you know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - was formed in 1988. That's "Climate Change". In 1988. I think perhaps your memory is faulty. Also, "global temperature data stopped showing warming ~15 years ago" is just wrong. I thought you said you were a scientist?
        waterlesscloud 12y ago
        It's not a clear cut thing, but there was definitely a period when "Global Warming" was the popular phrase, as a result of being promoted by scientists talking about public policy. http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-war... "But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming." So it looks like his memory was just fine on that topic.
snowwrestler 12y ago
The theory of anthropogenic climate change aka global warming can be tested and falsified. The general hypothesis was put forth in the late 19th century: that an increase in the burning of fossil fuels would lead to a warming of the atmosphere. This is indeed what we have observed since then. More granularly, you could test and falsify components of the theory: that CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR light; that burning fossil fuels release CO2; that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a certain duration; that the ocean absorbs CO2 at a certain rate; that CO2-driven warming is not fully offset by another system such as clouds or snowfall; etc. All of these (and more) have already been repeatedly tested. It was the cumulative results of all these tests that drove scientists to begin sounding the alarm in the 1980s--almost a century after the first hypothesis.