Dilbert speaks out on climate change concensus

IanC

Gold Member
Sep 22, 2009
11,061
1,344
245
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has published an astonishingly insightful article: The non-expert problem and climate change science. Excerpts:

Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. I endorse the scientific consensus on climate change to protect my career and reputation. To do otherwise would be dumb, at least in my situation.

If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side. Then skeptics provide links to credible-sounding articles that say the science is bunk, and why. How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?

You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?

Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong.

It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

  1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed.
  2. Prediction models are complicated.
  3. The models require human judgment to decide how variables should be treated.
  4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.
  5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.
  6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

end quote


hahahahaha, Adams seems pretty clever to me. I think points #1 and #5 say it all. the AGW theory was invented in the 80's based on coincidence, and since then the theory has remained intact while the data has been changed on a regular basis.
 
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has published an astonishingly insightful article: The non-expert problem and climate change science. Excerpts:

Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. I endorse the scientific consensus on climate change to protect my career and reputation. To do otherwise would be dumb, at least in my situation.

If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side. Then skeptics provide links to credible-sounding articles that say the science is bunk, and why. How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?

You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?

Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong.

It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

  1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed.
  2. Prediction models are complicated.
  3. The models require human judgment to decide how variables should be treated.
  4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.
  5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.
  6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

end quote


hahahahaha, Adams seems pretty clever to me. I think points #1 and #5 say it all. the AGW theory was invented in the 80's based on coincidence, and since then the theory has remained intact while the data has been changed on a regular basis.
Scott Adams was the most insightful on the election from the start.
 
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has published an astonishingly insightful article: The non-expert problem and climate change science. Excerpts:

Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. I endorse the scientific consensus on climate change to protect my career and reputation. To do otherwise would be dumb, at least in my situation.

If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side. Then skeptics provide links to credible-sounding articles that say the science is bunk, and why. How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?

You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?

Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong.

It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

  1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed.
  2. Prediction models are complicated.
  3. The models require human judgment to decide how variables should be treated.
  4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.
  5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.
  6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

end quote


hahahahaha, Adams seems pretty clever to me. I think points #1 and #5 say it all. the AGW theory was invented in the 80's based on coincidence, and since then the theory has remained intact while the data has been changed on a regular basis.
Scott Adams was the most insightful on the election from the start.


Maybe. He chose an unpopular position and made a case for it. If it turns out to be true he is a genius, if it doesn't pan out then no one remembers. Big reward for little risk.

Science is like that too. If you are the first to state a new idea, you get priority. A lot of goofy ideas get presented in the hopes that it may turn out to be true.
 
Science is like that too. If you are the first to state a new idea, you get priority. A lot of goofy ideas get presented in the hopes that it may turn out to be true.

Like back radiation
 
Science is like that too. If you are the first to state a new idea, you get priority. A lot of goofy ideas get presented in the hopes that it may turn out to be true.

Like back radiation


already taken, over a century ago.

M Mann's disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period is a better example. He may have got personal fame for a decade but the cost to humanity has been pretty steep.
 
  1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed.
Claims are made that required adjustments made to the data are unjustified with no evidence whatsoever to support the claim.
  1. Prediction models are complicated.
Prediction models began simply and have added parameters as computational power improved in an attempt to more accurately model reality. There is nothing inherently dubious about the complexity of the real climate system
  1. The models require human judgment to decide how variables should be treated.
Variables are almost invariably "treated" to the values found for those variables in the Earth's environment.
  1. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.
The cost of dealing with the problem will be high. The cost of not dealing with it, per deniers, is nothing since they believe nothing harmful will happen.
  1. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.
But that is not what happens. Model ensembles cluster around a single average for specific emissions scenarios. The purpose of a GCM is not what COULD happen, it is what WILL happen.
  1. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.
What argument is that? The Earth is not warming? The greenhouse effect doesn't exist? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Humanity is not the source of the added CO2? The Earth is only coming out of a cold spell? The Earth is moving into an ice age? What denier argument do you believe is credible?
 
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has published an astonishingly insightful article: The non-expert problem and climate change science. Excerpts:

Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. I endorse the scientific consensus on climate change to protect my career and reputation. To do otherwise would be dumb, at least in my situation.

If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side. Then skeptics provide links to credible-sounding articles that say the science is bunk, and why. How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?

You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?

Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong.

It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

  1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed.
  2. Prediction models are complicated.
  3. The models require human judgment to decide how variables should be treated.
  4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.
  5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.
  6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

end quote


hahahahaha, Adams seems pretty clever to me. I think points #1 and #5 say it all. the AGW theory was invented in the 80's based on coincidence, and since then the theory has remained intact while the data has been changed on a regular basis.
A perfect example of #4

Is the Field of Psychology Biased Against Conservatives?
 
  1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed.
Claims are made that required adjustments made to the data are unjustified with no evidence whatsoever to support the claim.
  1. Prediction models are complicated.
Prediction models began simply and have added parameters as computational power improved in an attempt to more accurately model reality. There is nothing inherently dubious about the complexity of the real climate system
  1. The models require human judgment to decide how variables should be treated.
Variables are almost invariably "treated" to the values found for those variables in the Earth's environment.
  1. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.
The cost of dealing with the problem will be high. The cost of not dealing with it, per deniers, is nothing since they believe nothing harmful will happen.
  1. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.
But that is not what happens. Model ensembles cluster around a single average for specific emissions scenarios. The purpose of a GCM is not what COULD happen, it is what WILL happen.
  1. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.
What argument is that? The Earth is not warming? The greenhouse effect doesn't exist? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Humanity is not the source of the added CO2? The Earth is only coming out of a cold spell? The Earth is moving into an ice age? What denier argument do you believe is credible?

WTF was that spew?

Are you saying that you disagree with Adams? By quoting sentences out of context?

Perhaps you have just as many problems understanding language as you do with understanding graphs.
 
  1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed.
Claims are made that required adjustments made to the data are unjustified with no evidence whatsoever to support the claim.
  1. Prediction models are complicated.
Prediction models began simply and have added parameters as computational power improved in an attempt to more accurately model reality. There is nothing inherently dubious about the complexity of the real climate system
  1. The models require human judgment to decide how variables should be treated.
Variables are almost invariably "treated" to the values found for those variables in the Earth's environment.
  1. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.
The cost of dealing with the problem will be high. The cost of not dealing with it, per deniers, is nothing since they believe nothing harmful will happen.
  1. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.
But that is not what happens. Model ensembles cluster around a single average for specific emissions scenarios. The purpose of a GCM is not what COULD happen, it is what WILL happen.
  1. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.
What argument is that? The Earth is not warming? The greenhouse effect doesn't exist? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Humanity is not the source of the added CO2? The Earth is only coming out of a cold spell? The Earth is moving into an ice age? What denier argument do you believe is credible?

WTF was that spew?

Are you saying that you disagree with Adams? By quoting sentences out of context?

Perhaps you have just as many problems understanding language as you do with understanding graphs.

Do show me where I quoted anyone out of context.
 
  1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed.
Claims are made that required adjustments made to the data are unjustified with no evidence whatsoever to support the claim.
  1. Prediction models are complicated.
Prediction models began simply and have added parameters as computational power improved in an attempt to more accurately model reality. There is nothing inherently dubious about the complexity of the real climate system
  1. The models require human judgment to decide how variables should be treated.
Variables are almost invariably "treated" to the values found for those variables in the Earth's environment.
  1. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.
The cost of dealing with the problem will be high. The cost of not dealing with it, per deniers, is nothing since they believe nothing harmful will happen.
  1. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore.
But that is not what happens. Model ensembles cluster around a single average for specific emissions scenarios. The purpose of a GCM is not what COULD happen, it is what WILL happen.
  1. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.
What argument is that? The Earth is not warming? The greenhouse effect doesn't exist? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Humanity is not the source of the added CO2? The Earth is only coming out of a cold spell? The Earth is moving into an ice age? What denier argument do you believe is credible?

WTF was that spew?

Are you saying that you disagree with Adams? By quoting sentences out of context?

Perhaps you have just as many problems understanding language as you do with understanding graphs.

Do show me where I quoted anyone out of context.


I really don't know why I bother. Did you read Adams' article? Did you understand his article and what he was trying to say? Your comments seem to show that you did neither.

And why did you attribute his statements to me? Piecemeal, no less.

eg...

  1. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field.
The cost of dealing with the problem will be high. The cost of not dealing with it, per deniers, is nothing since they believe nothing harmful will happen.


His article discusses experts and consensus. He points out that it is detrimental to have an opinion too far out of consensus in 'soft' sciences where data and methodologies are 'chosen' out of a much larger range of possibilities. You ignore his point and do a politician's pivot to one of your favourite talking points. If you don't want to talk about Adams' article why bother spamming yet another thread?



edit- he claimed it was dangerous to have a non-consensus position on climate change even if the person isn't a scientist, or working in the field.
 
Last edited:
When someone presents items in a numbered list, it is fair and syntactically correct to deal with them piecemeal.

You failed to show where I quoted anyone out of context. I'd like a retraction.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top