Climate Science Doubts: Not Because of Payment, but Because the Science Is Bad

[Vigilante]

AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!

Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....

 

[Mr. H.]

Climate orthodoxy.

Oppose the battle plan, prepare to be opposed.

This shit is rich.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[IanC]

from the OP's article -

"
The Followers of Eris

What the dogmatists understand well is eristic argument, after Eris the Greek goddess of discord and chaos. Eristic tactics come to us from the ancient Greek sophists. Eristic methods manifest themselves today in the works of Saul Alinsky. As the goddess’s qualities suggest, they are inherently divisive. The objective is victory, not truth. This is foreign to the training and personalities of most scientists. I, like other scientists, go into debates with a collegial attitude, tolerant of contrary thinking, no matter how wrong it may seem. Freely doubt the ideas; respect the people. When confronted with eristic tactics though, which are often absurd, aggressive, and deeply irrational, we are left gobsmacked. Like any other humans, scientists can speak the language of political nonsense, but they speak it badly. Their famous political naivety makes them easy prey for any political operative. And so we loose against eristic tactics, even when we know they are coming.

The followers of Eris see opposition in terms of a struggle for power, while scientists see opposition as a means for testing thinking. For scientists, opposition is a feature not a bug. Authorities can proudly convince themselves to be absurdly wrong, until some brave souls stand up to them. Sometimes there is a heavy price.

An easily comprehensible example would be the case of the physician Ignaz Semmelweis. He proposed that patients would be helped if you thoroughly washed your hands between patients. The consensus among experts of his day was that he was wrong. He was driven out and ended his days in a psychiatric hospital. This phenomenon is not the exception, but the rule. In countless cases ranging from obscure technical issues, known only by experts, to grand insights like continental drift, this story, or something like it, has been played out again and again in history.

It does not mean that experts are always even mostly wrong. It only means that when humanity does take a step ahead, that step naturally concerns something that prideful experts didn’t know before. Over the generations, this lesson has been gradually absorbed into the scientific world. The heretics and crackpots might just be right, and so there is an awareness (even if grudging) that tolerance of what seems wrong is essential—the scientific version of free speech. It is probably no accident that scientific advances tend to be made in the freest environments. Scientists must ask critical questions of each other about their works to move us all ahead. It’s their job. Opposition is necessary, but only opposition with a presumption of good will, where all agree that the objective is truth, not crushing your enemies.
"

eristic....I like that word. victory foremost, truth be damned.

 

[mamooth]

So much denier cryng. So little science. They only care now about scoring attaboys with their fellow cultists.

So, deniers, did this thread give you a dose of that precious emotional affirmation that you crave so insatiably?

Deniers, you should know your anti-science cult isn't the only option for emotional affirmation. Might I suggest cheering for a sports team instead? I suggest that option for you because it would kill far less people, and steal much less money from our pockets.

 

[jc456]

So much denier cryng. So little science. They only care now about scoring attaboys with their fellow cultists.

So, deniers, did this thread give you a dose of that precious emotional affirmation that you crave so insatiably?

Deniers, you should know your anti-science cult isn't the only option for emotional affirmation. Might I suggest cheering for a sports team instead? I suggest that option for you because it would kill far less people, and steal much less money from our pockets.

are you referring to the pay pals of the peer groups?

 

[Old Rocks]

AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!

Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....

So, you get your science from Briebart. Might as well be the Weekly Globe. Idiots are as idiots do.

 

[Old Rocks]

ever consider going back to the third grade? You might pass it this time.

You get science for scientific journals, not yellow political rags.

 

[IanC]

AlGore on suicide watch....no one cares!

Breitbart ^ | 03/25/2015 | Dr. Christopher Essex
Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate. Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so damn bad....

So, you get your science from Briebart. Might as well be the Weekly Globe. Idiots are as idiots do.

as usual Old Rocks refuses to debate the content, and focusses on dismissing the opinion piece because he hates one of the sources! what an eristic thing to do. he doesnt understand that he is proving the point of the article.

Judith Curry has put it up at her website. Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry Climate Etc.

Essex is a PhD mathematician with a lot of experience with the climate wars, btw.

her bolded points from the essay-

Accusing scientists of venal motives when they raise questions about climate has come to be what passes for scientific debate

(Eristic tactics come to us from the ancient Greek sophists.As the goddess’s qualities suggest, they are inherently divisive.) The objective is victory, not truth.

The followers of Eris see opposition in terms of a struggle for power, while scientists see opposition as a means for testing thinking. For scientists, opposition is a feature not a bug

when humanity does take a step ahead, that step naturally concerns something that prideful experts didn’t know before

tolerance of what seems wrong is essential—the scientific version of free speech. It is probably no accident that scientific advances tend to be made in the freest environments. Scientists must ask critical questions of each other about their works to move us all ahead. It’s their job. Opposition is necessary, but only opposition with a presumption of good will, where all agree that the objective is truth, not crushing your enemies.

climate science remains frozen and deeply flawed with no way to grow up, despite avalanches of funding thrown at it

If they want to employ the credibility of science to support their agendas, they must learn to treat scientists holding contrary views in a credible manner. Such scientists have an important and respected role to play in advancing science

to those who havent read the Essex piece, I suggest that you do. it does a good job of defining one of the major problems of post-normal science.



.

 

[SSDD]

to those who havent read the Essex piece, I suggest that you do. it does a good job of defining one of the major problems of post-normal science.

You might apply the Essex piece broadly across all science rather than just your opposition on this board...you are quick to rail against anyone who questions your dearly held beliefs regarding QM which is a highly contested and conflicted field of study. Your believe vigorously in the unobserved and untested conclusions of mathematical models and don't seem to be able to tolerate anyone who doesn't hold your belief.... You also are a poster child for the major problems of post normal science.

 

[IanC]

to those who havent read the Essex piece, I suggest that you do. it does a good job of defining one of the major problems of post-normal science.

You might apply the Essex piece broadly across all science rather than just your opposition on this board...you are quick to rail against anyone who questions your dearly held beliefs regarding QM which is a highly contested and conflicted field of study. Your believe vigorously in the unobserved and untested conclusions of mathematical models and don't seem to be able to tolerate anyone who doesn't hold your belief.... You also are a poster child for the major problems of post normal science.

honestly, I am sad that you feel that way. more so than most here, I have been ready to discuss your ideas. I have often encouraged you to explain your thoughts and put them into context with reality. but you very seldom even made a meagre attempt. your style is to repeat the same thing over and over again, ever more stridently.

Im sorry that you feel QM is over-rated. I feel that its successful predictions for many situations gives it a high standing in science, the flip side to climate science's poor success in predictions that give it a bad reputation.



anyways, good to see you back. I hope everything is OK.

 

[SSDD]

honestly, I am sad that you feel that way. more so than most here, I have been ready to discuss your ideas. I have often encouraged you to explain your thoughts and put them into context with reality. but you very seldom even made a meagre attempt. your style is to repeat the same thing over and over again, ever more stridently.

Im sorry that you feel QM is over-rated. I feel that its successful predictions for many situations gives it a high standing in science, the flip side to climate science's poor success in predictions that give it a bad reputation.

Successful for predictions of many situations? Really? Climate science predicted many situations till it didn't...same for QM. In fact, in the September edition of Nature, the results of an experiment done at the University of Florida rewrote a long held "rule of thumb" in QM. You can read about it here: New experiment corrects prediction in quantum theory. Whether you care to admit it or not, we don't know much about what goes on at the sub atomic level and at this point we are for the most part just making up stories about what goes on at that level...and the books are being rewritten all the time.

QM is going on what, 80 years now and a few years ago at a meeting among the top shelf QM scientists, a poll was passed around..one of the questions asked simply which interpretation of QM do you prefer....none of the approaches to QM even achieved 50% of those being polled. The Copenhagen interpretation managed 42%...the Everet, many worlds interpretation got 18%....Information based interpretation got 24%....objective collapse got 9%....Quantum Bayseianism got 6%....Relational quantum mechanics got 6%....other got 12%....hell...no preference got 12%...We are 80 years on now Ian and the top shelf physicists at this point can't even agree on what QM means..the most fundamental question possible....but you believe anyway.

Hell Ian, physics isn't even very close to unifying and reconciling QM with general relativity.

If you look, you will find that the failures and contradictions of QM far outnumber the successes and any honest physicists will admit that the successes are as likely to be mere coincidence as any actual knowledge. But you have your beliefs whether they are based on anything real or not. One of the truths that my experience has taught me is that it is damned difficult to remove by logic an idea that was not placed there by logic in the first place...

The fact is Ian, that logically, observation trumps untestable, unobservable, unprovable mathematical models and for some reason, you have abandoned logic and what you see in favor of mathematical models and what people tell you that they mean in one breath and in the other admit that they don't really know what they mean. Logic didn't make you accept mathematical models over observation so it is highly unlikely that any amount of logic, or any number of failures on the part of QM will ever cause you to suspend your belief...You hold your position as an article of faith...simple as that.

, good to see you back. I hope everything is OK.

All is fine... I am a guitar player of sorts and Back in December I sat in with a group of guys who had temporarily lost their lead guitarist...The gig has changed from temporary to permanent...or as long as I care to stay with them and has become quite lucrative. These guys play a blues/jazz format and I have always enjoyed playing the blues, but jazz doesn't really come naturally to me so I spend quite a few hours per week practicing. Being that there are only so many hours and I can't quit my job (and don't think I would if I could) I have to find that time somewhere. USMB was it. I still stop by to read some but just don't have much time to post any more.

Nothing much is changing here anyway except that the momentum of science seems to be visibly moving, almost daily, further and further away from the alarmists and they are predictably becoming more shrill, and more alarmist in their denial of reality. Very interesting to watch from the outside. Howls of denier...denier...denier while the science goes more firmly against them is very interesting to watch. One must wonder how far it must go before they become so ridiculous that they must see it for themselves.

 

[IanC]

honestly, I am sad that you feel that way. more so than most here, I have been ready to discuss your ideas. I have often encouraged you to explain your thoughts and put them into context with reality. but you very seldom even made a meagre attempt. your style is to repeat the same thing over and over again, ever more stridently.

Im sorry that you feel QM is over-rated. I feel that its successful predictions for many situations gives it a high standing in science, the flip side to climate science's poor success in predictions that give it a bad reputation.

Successful for predictions of many situations? Really? Climate science predicted many situations till it didn't...same for QM. In fact, in the September edition of Nature, the results of an experiment done at the University of Florida rewrote a long held "rule of thumb" in QM. You can read about it here: New experiment corrects prediction in quantum theory. Whether you care to admit it or not, we don't know much about what goes on at the sub atomic level and at this point we are for the most part just making up stories about what goes on at that level...and the books are being rewritten all the time.

QM is going on what, 80 years now and a few years ago at a meeting among the top shelf QM scientists, a poll was passed around..one of the questions asked simply which interpretation of QM do you prefer....none of the approaches to QM even achieved 50% of those being polled. The Copenhagen interpretation managed 42%...the Everet, many worlds interpretation got 18%....Information based interpretation got 24%....objective collapse got 9%....Quantum Bayseianism got 6%....Relational quantum mechanics got 6%....other got 12%....hell...no preference got 12%...We are 80 years on now Ian and the top shelf physicists at this point can't even agree on what QM means..the most fundamental question possible....but you believe anyway.

Hell Ian, physics isn't even very close to unifying and reconciling QM with general relativity.

If you look, you will find that the failures and contradictions of QM far outnumber the successes and any honest physicists will admit that the successes are as likely to be mere coincidence as any actual knowledge. But you have your beliefs whether they are based on anything real or not. One of the truths that my experience has taught me is that it is damned difficult to remove by logic an idea that was not placed there by logic in the first place...

The fact is Ian, that logically, observation trumps untestable, unobservable, unprovable mathematical models and for some reason, you have abandoned logic and what you see in favor of mathematical models and what people tell you that they mean in one breath and in the other admit that they don't really know what they mean. Logic didn't make you accept mathematical models over observation so it is highly unlikely that any amount of logic, or any number of failures on the part of QM will ever cause you to suspend your belief...You hold your position as an article of faith...simple as that.

, good to see you back. I hope everything is OK.

All is fine... I am a guitar player of sorts and Back in December I sat in with a group of guys who had temporarily lost their lead guitarist...The gig has changed from temporary to permanent...or as long as I care to stay with them and has become quite lucrative. These guys play a blues/jazz format and I have always enjoyed playing the blues, but jazz doesn't really come naturally to me so I spend quite a few hours per week practicing. Being that there are only so many hours and I can't quit my job (and don't think I would if I could) I have to find that time somewhere. USMB was it. I still stop by to read some but just don't have much time to post any more.

Nothing much is changing here anyway except that the momentum of science seems to be visibly moving, almost daily, further and further away from the alarmists and they are predictably becoming more shrill, and more alarmist in their denial of reality. Very interesting to watch from the outside. Howls of denier...denier...denier while the science goes more firmly against them is very interesting to watch. One must wonder how far it must go before they become so ridiculous that they must see it for themselves.

really??? a variation in phase change to Bose-Einstein condensate done at 0.001K is your reason for chucking QM? Newtonian physics is wrong but useful, QM fixed many of the problems in Newtonian physics and led the way to surge in technology that is truly amazing. perhaps something else will come along and supplant QM but the new system will incorporate much of QM. experiments at the fringes do not relegate the whole thing to the dustbin.

I find it confusing that you have religious faith in the generalized statements of scientists from 150 years ago but you are unwilling to even accept the idea that photons exist.

good luck with that band thingy. it sounds like fun.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Doubt's good. It's the very step towards wisdom. But when 98% of the scientific community has no doubt, but you continue to, then you're not wise so much as an idiot.

 

[SSDD]

really??? a variation in phase change to Bose-Einstein condensate done at 0.001K is your reason for chucking QM?

Not at all and it is good to see that you can still disregard everything someone has said and mischaracterize a whole position based on a single statement. The key statement there was that the failures and contradictions of QM far outnumber the successes and any honest physicists will admit that the successes are as likely to be mere coincidence as any actual knowledge. And I haven't chucked QM...I simply don't place anywhere near as much faith in the results of mathematical models....when the models themselves are based largely on best guesses as you. Observation still rules in my book.

I find it confusing that you have religious faith in the generalized statements of scientists from 150 years ago but you are unwilling to even accept the idea that photons exist.

Interesting that you call trust in statements that have been supported by every observation ever made "religious faith"...when QM can't produce any observable result that can overturn those crusty old statements from 150 years ago.

Which really requires faith Ian? Believing the one which is supported by every observation ever made or the one that can't be observed because the claim is that the very act of observing changes the result? Try to manage an honest answer to that one if you can.

Good luck with that band thingy. it sounds like fun.

Great fun...and the best thing is that at long last my wife off my back over the $6K I spent on my guitar. Women just have no understanding, or sense of humor when it comes to mens' toys.

 

[SSDD]

Doubt's good. It's the very step towards wisdom. But when 98% of the scientific community has no doubt, but you continue to, then you're not wise so much as an idiot.

When a claimed 98% of the scientific community has no doubt of the veracity of a hypothesis, and that same claimed 98% will freely admit that the uncertainty across the board is very high, and that they are really only beginning to scratch the surface of what there is to be known in the field, only an idiot, or a brain washed minion is not skeptical.

Which are you?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Doubt's good. It's the very step towards wisdom. But when 98% of the scientific community has no doubt, but you continue to, then you're not wise so much as an idiot.

When a claimed 98% of the scientific community has no doubt of the veracity of a hypothesis, and that same claimed 98% will freely admit that the uncertainty across the board is very high, and that they are really only beginning to scratch the surface of what there is to be known in the field, only an idiot, or a brain washed minion is not skeptical.

Which are you?

I'm the one that doesn't need other scientists to tell me a thing trusting the evidence of my own senses. It's getting hotter. Sea levels are rising. Ice caps are melting. I know because I've seen the documentaries and the satellite imagery.

 

[SSDD]

Doubt's good. It's the very step towards wisdom. But when 98% of the scientific community has no doubt, but you continue to, then you're not wise so much as an idiot.

When a claimed 98% of the scientific community has no doubt of the veracity of a hypothesis, and that same claimed 98% will freely admit that the uncertainty across the board is very high, and that they are really only beginning to scratch the surface of what there is to be known in the field, only an idiot, or a brain washed minion is not skeptical.

Which are you?

I'm the one that doesn't need other scientists to tell me a thing trusting the evidence of my own senses. It's getting hotter. Sea levels are rising. Ice caps are melting. I know because I've seen the documentaries and the satellite imagery.

You just called skeptics idiots because they don't believe the claimed 98% scientific consensus (a claim that has been debunked repeatedly) then in the next statement you disregard your appeal to authority...why make it if you know it was meaningless..

As to what your own senses are telling you...sorry but you are misinformed. It has been getting warmer for the past 14,000 years....but for the past 2 decades, while man's CO2 output has increased, it has not been getting warmer....and more and more outrageous manipulation of the temperature record is required to even maintain the appearance of no warming....the most advanced temperature gathering network on the face of the earth...one so pristinely placed, and redundant that no adjustment of its data is required is finding a cooling trend of about 2 degrees per decade....logic suggests that if the network were extended across the whole globe, similar results would probably be the result.

And I am afraid that your ice cap statement is also the product of misinformation. Clearly you are not actually looking, but are just repeating what you have been told...rendering the claim that your position is based on your own senses is a lie. Antarctic sea ice is above normal and has been for over 1,200k consecutive days now...

You clearly have not been really looking at Antarctica either..the melting in western Antarctica which is the only place it is melting has been going on for a very long time...perhaps for centuries. Observations of that shrinking have been going on since the 1800's, as indicated by this news clipping from July 1932

And the Arctic? Again, you haven't been looking. Arctic ice is on the increase. This measurement taken yesterday, March 27, 2015 shows the ice well above the 2005 level. If you were relying on your senses, and actual observation tells you that ice is on the increase at both poles, your senses should tell you that perhaps the earth is cooling...certainly not warming.

You rely on documentaries? Who funds them? What is their agenda? And satellite images? They tell us that the ice is increasing from previous lows. Here is an image of the arctic flashing between 2006 and 2015...the circled areas show some slight decrease...your senses tell you that is the dreaded Arctic melt down? Note the areas of increase as well as the indicated areas of decrease.

One final question for you and your senses. The worldwide anthropogenic (man made) CO2 output has increased a whopping 350% since 2002 and no warming that is statistically different from zero has happened in that time...but that isn't the kicker. Even though man made CO2 has increased 350% since 2002, the measured atmospheric CO2 continues to increase at a steady 2.1ppm per year much the same as it has since measurements started in the 1960's. What do your senses tell you about that fact?

And rates of sea level increase have actually decreased steadily since the mid 20th century.

Slowing sea level rise Climate Etc.

The fact is, delta, if you were relying on your senses, and actual observations you would be as skeptical of the AGW claims as I am. Clearly, it is not your senses you are relying on....perhaps those documentaries funded by green organizations with political agendas are playing the greater part in forming your position.

Ao I ask again, which are you, an idiot or a brain washed minion?

 

[Crick]

I see I've regained highlighted billing. And that you're as stupid and dishonest as ever.

Global heat content continues to increase. The radiative imbalance at ToA continues to grow. The earth's temperature has not warmed, nor has the CO2 level risen, as it has the last 100 years, at any point in the prior 65 million,

 

[SSDD]

I see I've regained highlighted billing. And that you're as stupid and dishonest as ever.

You must be speaking of yourself. You are and always were a liar. Proven over and over.

Global heat content continues to increase. The radiative imbalance at ToA continues to grow.

Radiation escaping at the TOA is on the increase as it has been for some time....indicating that the earth is losing heat.

In addition a paper recently published in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that annual incident solar radiation at the top of atmosphere should be independent of longitudes. However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations.

On the incident solar radiation in CMIP5 models - Zhou - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Thats THREE ZERO W/m2 of spurious variations. You know what spurious means? Look it up. The entire claimed forcing of manmade CO2 since the 1700s is claimed by the IPCC to be....what...1.68 W/m2...and the error in your models is 18 times larger than the total forcing claimed since the 1700's. I am still laughing in your stupid face.

The earth's temperature has not warmed, nor has the CO2 level risen, as it has the last 100 years, at any point in the prior 65 million,

Which proxy are you claiming can tell how fast the temperature during the Holocene maximum? The Minoan warm period? The Roman warm period? The Medieval warm period?

We both know that there is no proxy that can provide such resolution so, as usual, you are just making it up as you go and spouting bullshit that you just pulled from your ass....and since CO2 doesn't cause warming, how quickly it rose is irrelevant. I will reiterate that CO2 has been increasing steadily at a rate of about 2.1ppm per year since measurements started in spite of the fact that our own CO2 output has increased 350% since 2002...reality just doesn't jibe with your claims on any point.

So tell me, are you an idiot or a brainwashed mindless minion?