2 ms·

> Thus the layman reading only the NYTimes keeps hearing that "recent measurements have been worse than predicted", despite that there are dozens of other data

by crux_ 17y ago

> Thus the layman reading only the NYTimes keeps hearing that "recent measurements have been worse than predicted", despite that there are dozens of other data points going the other way. And a layperson reading the WSJ hears the exact opposite. That's politics & demagogues, not climate scientists (in either case). As to your links and quotes alleging blacklisting: 1) Blacklisting happens in science. Nobody has the time to respond to crackpots. This is acceptable when it's new-age physics kooks. It's acceptable when they are intelligent design advocates. 2) I can produce a list of links of people making the same accusations of suppression about evolutionary biologists; or about theoretical physicists. Why should climate 'outsiders' carry extra weight, when they have contributed correspondingly little to the field of climate science? > My real problem is that newspapers and people like you still treat these scientists as unbiased experts, rather than as expert witnesses for the prosecution. See, my problem is that newspapers include unqualified outsiders as 'balance' and treat them as having equal expertise, when the fact is that they are often completely unversed in climate science! (For example, the many economists treated as climate experts.) Are they unbiased? No, although I would say their biases have a lot of individual variation. Are they experts? Hell, yes. Do you really believe they aren't gaining deeper understanding of our climate through their work? > The advantage other sciences have is that their theories can be proven or disproven on a short time scale. Either your rocket works or it doesn't. Your medicine either kills people or saves them. Thus you have independent verification and falsifiability. This isn't even close to true. On a philosophical level, theories can never be proven (only dis-proven). On a practical level, there are huge amounts of established, consensus, science that cannot be tested on a short time scale. (Examples range from the big bang to human evolution; even for smaller time scales "short" is relatvie -- e.g. it's taken nearly a century for us to be able to test huge portions of Einstein's predictions.) Further, there is a lot of independent corroboration (if not outright verification) in climate science. Do you think policy makers would be giving them the time of day if there weren't? > So all we hear about is a "consensus" when that consensus is really just a self-replicating group of believers. Of course a consensus is a group of people who share a belief; that's the #@$@#ing definition! And if they're "self replicating," maybe that would be because their arguments are compelling? You're trying to have things both ways: There is no conspiracy, only a 'priesthood'. Yet your accusations here are that the religion is maintained by a conspiracy! > For a layman's summary of the main issues with the science Shall I send you convincing-to-a-layperson links about "irreducible complexity" as the main issue with evolution?

bokonist 17y ago
And a layperson reading the WSJ hears the exact opposite. That's politics & demagogues, not climate scientists (in either case). That is true. I personally rarely read the WSJ or NYTimes because I don't find either effective sources of truth. But the links I sent you come from much better sources, in my opinion, than either the WSJ or NYTimes. Did you read any of the links? I mean, you seemed to agree before when I said that the climate scientists were like lawyers for the prosecution. So have you read the case for the defense ( a case that is written by people much smarter than WSJ writers)? For example, why specifically so you think Nir Shaviv is wrong? http://www.sciencebits.com/FittingElephants http://www.sciencebits.com/FittingElephants
- crux_ 17y ago
  >But the links I sent you come from much better sources, in my opinion, than either the WSJ or NYTimes. ... For the link you repeated... blogs about politically charged topics are 'better source' than the NYT or WSJ? ;) I'd say they're equally horrible sources. Why do I specifically think Nir Shaviv is wrong? I don't know that he is, but I know that he's failed to change the consensus, while his hypotheses have indeed been taken into account. (cite: a google search or two.) So we're once again down to (a) a widespread conspiracy to hide the truth and force predetermined conclusions; or (b) an honest but imperfect process gradually iterating towards accuracy. (N.b. If you accept his hypotheses about cosmic ray activity / solar warming, you also accept that warming is in fact happening (just not anthropogenic); if you find him convincing then by rights you ought to find McIntyre et al less so; yet everyone including you always seems to excerpt them side-by-side in some great litany of throwing it all at the wall and seeing what sticks...) (Note: hit 'reply' by accident early, so this is an edit.)
  - bokonist 17y ago
    blogs about politically charged topics are 'better source' than the NYT or WSJ? ;) I'd say they're equally horrible sources. Blogs in general have a much worse average quality than the NYT, but a much higher peak quality. The links I sent you are among the best I have come across at making a clear case for the defense. I don't in particular buy Shaviv's point about cosmic rays, but rather I agree with him on this point: "The fact that GCMs can fit the temperature increase is totally meaningless. Why? Because the allowed parameter space is so large climatologists could fit anything from a small temperature decrease (as was claimed in the 70's, before the imminent ice-age) to double or triple the observed 20th century increase." Again, I have not studied climatalogy in depth. But I have studied economics in depth. I find the statistics and models published in peer reviewed journals and used by the central banks to be atrocious. I can read a very technical article and pull my hair out looking at the flaws. And lo, the predictions these models make invariably turn out to be crap. Yet these errors persist because the selection process in economics academia does not reward truth seeking. I see the same pattern in climate science. There is a selection process that rewards conformity, not truth seeking. And a cursory look at the models and statistics shows that the scientists are indeed "fitting elephants". When you look at the raw unadjusted data, there is simply not much room for alarm. So until I can actually look at the data myself, or I can find experts that I actually do trust to give me an honest take, my default stance is skepticism. (a) a widespread conspiracy to hide the truth and force predetermined conclusions; or (b) an honest but imperfect process gradually iterating towards accuracy. or c) a priesthood. There is a big difference between a conspiracy and a priesthood. Priesthoods are very, very common in history, and they result in very widespread consensuses that turn out to be very wrong. See: The Catholic Church.

by crux_ 17y ago

bokonist 17y ago

And a layperson reading the WSJ hears the exact opposite. That's politics & demagogues, not climate scientists (in either case). That is true. I personally rarely read the WSJ or NYTimes because I don't find either effective sources of truth. But the links I sent you come from much better sources, in my opinion, than either the WSJ or NYTimes. Did you read any of the links? I mean, you seemed to agree before when I said that the climate scientists were like lawyers for the prosecution. So have you read the case for the defense ( a case that is written by people much smarter than WSJ writers)? For example, why specifically so you think Nir Shaviv is wrong? http://www.sciencebits.com/FittingElephants http://www.sciencebits.com/FittingElephants

crux_ 17y ago
>But the links I sent you come from much better sources, in my opinion, than either the WSJ or NYTimes. ... For the link you repeated... blogs about politically charged topics are 'better source' than the NYT or WSJ? ;) I'd say they're equally horrible sources. Why do I specifically think Nir Shaviv is wrong? I don't know that he is, but I know that he's failed to change the consensus, while his hypotheses have indeed been taken into account. (cite: a google search or two.) So we're once again down to (a) a widespread conspiracy to hide the truth and force predetermined conclusions; or (b) an honest but imperfect process gradually iterating towards accuracy. (N.b. If you accept his hypotheses about cosmic ray activity / solar warming, you also accept that warming is in fact happening (just not anthropogenic); if you find him convincing then by rights you ought to find McIntyre et al less so; yet everyone including you always seems to excerpt them side-by-side in some great litany of throwing it all at the wall and seeing what sticks...) (Note: hit 'reply' by accident early, so this is an edit.)
- bokonist 17y ago
  blogs about politically charged topics are 'better source' than the NYT or WSJ? ;) I'd say they're equally horrible sources. Blogs in general have a much worse average quality than the NYT, but a much higher peak quality. The links I sent you are among the best I have come across at making a clear case for the defense. I don't in particular buy Shaviv's point about cosmic rays, but rather I agree with him on this point: "The fact that GCMs can fit the temperature increase is totally meaningless. Why? Because the allowed parameter space is so large climatologists could fit anything from a small temperature decrease (as was claimed in the 70's, before the imminent ice-age) to double or triple the observed 20th century increase." Again, I have not studied climatalogy in depth. But I have studied economics in depth. I find the statistics and models published in peer reviewed journals and used by the central banks to be atrocious. I can read a very technical article and pull my hair out looking at the flaws. And lo, the predictions these models make invariably turn out to be crap. Yet these errors persist because the selection process in economics academia does not reward truth seeking. I see the same pattern in climate science. There is a selection process that rewards conformity, not truth seeking. And a cursory look at the models and statistics shows that the scientists are indeed "fitting elephants". When you look at the raw unadjusted data, there is simply not much room for alarm. So until I can actually look at the data myself, or I can find experts that I actually do trust to give me an honest take, my default stance is skepticism. (a) a widespread conspiracy to hide the truth and force predetermined conclusions; or (b) an honest but imperfect process gradually iterating towards accuracy. or c) a priesthood. There is a big difference between a conspiracy and a priesthood. Priesthoods are very, very common in history, and they result in very widespread consensuses that turn out to be very wrong. See: The Catholic Church.