4 ms·

>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 political

by 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.
- crux_ 17y ago
  > "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." Isn't this simply an assertion of fraud, made in a less direct manner? > 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. The Catholic Church nicely matches my (a) whether you call it a conspiracy or a priesthood, and I'm sorry, but I don't see it. If one of these outsiders had a truly viable alternative hypothesis, and could back it up, there is plenty of room for them to be heard. > When you look at the raw unadjusted data, there is simply not much room for alarm. ... says one professed layperson to another. Personally I find it almost inconceivable that, given how extensively we intentionally and unintentionally alter our local environments, we wouldn't be making corresponding impacts to the global environment. Argument-by-intuition, sure, but it's just as valid as yours!

by crux_ 17y ago

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.

crux_ 17y ago
> "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." Isn't this simply an assertion of fraud, made in a less direct manner? > 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. The Catholic Church nicely matches my (a) whether you call it a conspiracy or a priesthood, and I'm sorry, but I don't see it. If one of these outsiders had a truly viable alternative hypothesis, and could back it up, there is plenty of room for them to be heard. > When you look at the raw unadjusted data, there is simply not much room for alarm. ... says one professed layperson to another. Personally I find it almost inconceivable that, given how extensively we intentionally and unintentionally alter our local environments, we wouldn't be making corresponding impacts to the global environment. Argument-by-intuition, sure, but it's just as valid as yours!