Judy Curry on the Consensus

[IanC]

Scientists and motivated reasoning | Climate Etc.


Steve Mosher had a great comment with a Feynman quote embedded

"... It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn’t they discover the new number was higher right away? It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of – this history – because it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong – and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that..”

 

[SSDD]

group think resulting in an error cascade....faulty data being used as if it were reliable proven data.

 

[skookerasbil]

These scammers make it up as they go!!!

The models are wrong | Behind The Black

 

[mamooth]

It's also known as "SSDD Syndrome". You know, the refusal to admit you messed up on an epic scale, and that you actually have no clue in the area that you're professing expertise in.

It's very common among the hardcore denialists, and essentially a requirement if you want to move up in the cult.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Consensus is another way of saying, "I'm afraid of thinking for myself"

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, unbridled admiration for 'Tail Gunner Joe' and believing in a hollow moon inhabited by aliens is thinking for oneself.

 

[SSDD]

It's also known as "SSDD Syndrome". You know, the refusal to admit you messed up on an epic scale, and that you actually have no clue in the area that you're professing expertise in.

It's very common among the hardcore denialists, and essentially a requirement if you want to move up in the cult.

Messed up on an epic scale? You mean like claiming that a branch of mathematics is the fundamental mechanism of the foundational law of nature?

Spoken like a truely bitter idiot. It is you who repeatedly gets shut down for your idiotic comments. My sig represents one of the stupidest things ever said on this board and who said it?...You did. Congratulations.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ah yes, unbridled admiration for 'Tail Gunner Joe' and believing in a hollow moon inhabited by aliens is thinking for oneself.

Out of the mouths of babes.

That's actually a perfect example of what I'm describing! We're trained to believe that Joe McCarthy's House Unamerican Activities Committee started a "Red Scare" and Blacklisted innocent people like Zero Motel and we have consensus.

But when you take a look at the facts we learn:

Joe McCarthy had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the HUAC which had been running for decades before he made his first speech on February 1950 speech on Communist infiltration of the WH

The "Red Scare" Was started by the Russian who tried to start WWIII with the Berlin Blockade in 1948-49 and by the ChiComs who were behind the Korean War in 1950

Moreover, in much the same way the Warmers can't produce a single lab experiment showing AGW, they can't name a single innocent person blacklisted by McCarthy.

The same people antiAmerican people behind destroying Joe McCarthy are using the same tactics to promote the destruction of the US Economy through climate "science" (aka: Consensus)

The Hollow Moon results from the Sherlock Holmes "When you eliminate all possibilities whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" There is no theory using our current understanding of celestial mechanics that can explain why something as large as the Moon is in the orbit it's in around planet Earth. The last theory of it's formation the "Double Whack" fell by the wayside a few months ago when it was discovered that there was no second body that slammed into Earth, that the Moon has an identical composition and date as Earth.

But it takes some small degree of intellectual courage to even consider these possibilities even when all the facts are in your favor.

 

[IanC]

Did anyone read Curry's piece, and want to discuss it?

 

[Abraham3]

I did.

"If we know that distrust in science increases with increasing education among political conservatives, and we know that advocacy increases distrust in science and scientists among those at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, what does that mean?"

I think she is being a little too aloof in all of this. As she herself admits, climate research has larger social effects than almost any other field. Researchers in other fields do not face the open hostility faced by climate scientists. Michael Mann is not a cancer researcher. James Hansen does not study snails. There are real causes for climate scientists to abrogate normal professional tenets on occasion. The world is not as black and white as she would have it.

 

[mamooth]

Did anyone read Curry's piece, and want to discuss it?

It seems to be Curry projecting her own sort of herd-loyalty (to the denialist camp) on to other people.

Curry is now a specialist in handwaving and cherrypicking so she can reach the conclusions that will win her approval among her own herd, the denialists. She doesn't dare buck the consensus. Being that she's more interesting in gaining favor with a political group than doing good science, naturally she's earned disfavor from nonpolitical scientists.

 

[IanC]

I did.

"If we know that distrust in science increases with increasing education among political conservatives, and we know that advocacy increases distrust in science and scientists among those at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, what does that mean?"

I think she is being a little too aloof in all of this. As she herself admits, climate research has larger social effects than almost any other field. Researchers in other fields do not face the open hostility faced by climate scientists. Michael Mann is not a cancer researcher. James Hansen does not study snails. There are real causes for climate scientists to abrogate normal professional tenets on occasion. The world is not as black and white as she would have it.

Aloof? maybe.

Curry has tried to take a non partisan look at climate science for the last half dozen years. She found it disturbing that many of her colleagues were getting results in their work that did not jibe with CO2 theory, yet they would pledge allegiance to the cause and discount their findings as anomolous. contradictory findings would be delayed, shelved, or hidden away inside of larger projects.

"it would only provide fodder for the skeptics" had become an important aspect to consider when shaping and publishing papers. advancement of science depends on all information to be made available, not just that which supports your personal preference.

someone questioned my support of an in-house NASA presentation by Zwally that gave evidence that Antarctica was gaining ice mass overall. it was not publicized much, and the last time I searched for it the slides had vanished leaving only a rather bland description in the abstract. I give a lot more credence to evidence presented by someone that I know is choking on the words because he doesnt want to say them.

Why wasnt Zwally's 2012 presentation (and 2011 presentation with lower but still positive numbers) splashed over the media? "it would only provide fodder for the skeptics".

there are many who now see the climate debate as a political showdown. I dont. while I see the influence (both sides) that politics plays, I try to just distill what the science says, and so far the evidence is inconclusive other than the trivial case that increased CO2 must have some effect. circumstances in the 80s and 90's gave far too much weight to CO2, circumstances in the 00's and 10's have been basically ignored because they dont conform to 'consensus' opinion. what is the truth? who knows, but science has not been able to give a definitive answer, at least in my understanding of the scientific method.

 

[IanC]

I did.

"If we know that distrust in science increases with increasing education among political conservatives, and we know that advocacy increases distrust in science and scientists among those at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, what does that mean?"

I think she is being a little too aloof in all of this. As she herself admits, climate research has larger social effects than almost any other field. Researchers in other fields do not face the open hostility faced by climate scientists. Michael Mann is not a cancer researcher. James Hansen does not study snails. There are real causes for climate scientists to abrogate normal professional tenets on occasion. The world is not as black and white as she would have it.

Mann should be excoriated and excommunicated from the climate science community for his blatant mistakes that he refuses to admit or address. Hansen was a good scientist who has progressively slipped farther and farther into advocacy. I respect him as a man but his science has become somewhat suspect, especially the handling of the GISS temperature datasets. his retirement was a good thing.

 

[IanC]

Did anyone read Curry's piece, and want to discuss it?

It seems to be Curry projecting her own sort of herd-loyalty (to the denialist camp) on to other people.

Curry is now a specialist in handwaving and cherrypicking so she can reach the conclusions that will win her approval among her own herd, the denialists. She doesn't dare buck the consensus. Being that she's more interesting in gaining favor with a political group than doing good science, naturally she's earned disfavor from nonpolitical scientists.

I can see that you dont know anything about Judy Curry.

 

[skookerasbil]

Meatheads like Mammooth continually talk about the denialist cult.......but has anybody else noticed that there is a consistent dynamic displayed in the thinking of all AGW true believers........

To ALL of them, costs do not matter.

In the real world though, ( outside the realm of the bubble dwellars) costs do matter.

The meatheads can talk about consensus science 'till the cows come home.......it isn't going to matter for dick.

But don't take my word for it..........



Meanwhile, China and India and other booming parts of the developing world are inclined -- just as the rich world long has been -- to gorge on the cheapest and most readily available energy sources to keep their economies growing and their standards of living rising. They are busy building hundreds of new coal- and gas-fired power plants, and are poised to keep nudging global warming emissions rapidly upward over the century to come.

By some estimates, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are expected to reach 45 billion metric tons annually by 2040, according to data published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration last month. For some perspective, that's approaching 200 times the amount of CO2 naturally released by all of the planet's land-based and undersea volcanoes combined in any given year.

"Coal is an affordable and available source of energy," says Victor K. Der, a former assistant secretary for fossil energy with the Department of Energy and now the general manager for North America operations at the Global CCS Institute, a trade organization. Developing countries in particular, Der noted, need affordable power to create industry and jobs, to improve sanitation and water treatment, to provide better levels of human health and higher standards of living as they climb out of the trap of poverty -- just as the rich world did over the preceding two centuries.

Der points to recent estimates that as many as 1,200 new coal power plants are currently in the planning stages worldwide. "How many of these actually will be built remains to be seen, but clearly the amount of new, unabated coal capacity will be very large," he says. "And these new plants will require post-combustion capture sometime in the future in order to meet climate objectives."


Carbon Capture And Storage: Global Warming Panacea, Or Fossil Fuel Pipe Dream?





Debating the science is a nice little fun internet hobby.....but that's about it. The consensus science isn't mattering........and wont.


Because in the real world........costs matter.

 

[Abraham3]

I did.

"If we know that distrust in science increases with increasing education among political conservatives, and we know that advocacy increases distrust in science and scientists among those at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, what does that mean?"

I think she is being a little too aloof in all of this. As she herself admits, climate research has larger social effects than almost any other field. Researchers in other fields do not face the open hostility faced by climate scientists. Michael Mann is not a cancer researcher. James Hansen does not study snails. There are real causes for climate scientists to abrogate normal professional tenets on occasion. The world is not as black and white as she would have it.

Aloof? maybe.

Curry has tried to take a non partisan look at climate science for the last half dozen years. She found it disturbing that many of her colleagues were getting results in their work that did not jibe with CO2 theory, yet they would pledge allegiance to the cause and discount their findings as anomolous. contradictory findings would be delayed, shelved, or hidden away inside of larger projects.

"it would only provide fodder for the skeptics" had become an important aspect to consider when shaping and publishing papers. advancement of science depends on all information to be made available, not just that which supports your personal preference.

someone questioned my support of an in-house NASA presentation by Zwally that gave evidence that Antarctica was gaining ice mass overall. it was not publicized much, and the last time I searched for it the slides had vanished leaving only a rather bland description in the abstract. I give a lot more credence to evidence presented by someone that I know is choking on the words because he doesnt want to say them.

Why wasnt Zwally's 2012 presentation (and 2011 presentation with lower but still positive numbers) splashed over the media? "it would only provide fodder for the skeptics".

there are many who now see the climate debate as a political showdown. I dont. while I see the influence (both sides) that politics plays, I try to just distill what the science says, and so far the evidence is inconclusive other than the trivial case that increased CO2 must have some effect. circumstances in the 80s and 90's gave far too much weight to CO2, circumstances in the 00's and 10's have been basically ignored because they dont conform to 'consensus' opinion. what is the truth? who knows, but science has not been able to give a definitive answer, at least in my understanding of the scientific method.

I do not challenge her contention that some research results are being witheld because they would feed and embolden the denialist camp. I blame that, however, on the denialist camp. Or, to put the blame where it actually belongs, on the fossil fuel industry who finances the denialist camp.

Whenever the progress of science has become a conflict reaching outside of science - eg, the Church vs heliocentrism or the Church vs evolution, the knowledge and welfare of mankind is not the benefactor. This is a power struggle in which one side has tied its fortunes to the maintenance of a falsehood, just as did the Church.

The facts will always win in the end, but the cost of the war... the cost of having a war where none was needed, is high.

 

[skookerasbil]

True scientists need to learn from their mistakes.........


Scientists Gain New Insight Into Climate Change ? And What To Do About It | Washington's Blog

 

[skookerasbil]

We need to prevent scientists from killing more people like they have been doing for a long, long time.........these people are the ultimate in narcissism. They become even more dangerous when they work for the government,


Scientists Gain New Insight Into Climate Change ? And What To Do About It | Washington's Blog

 

[IanC]

I did.

"If we know that distrust in science increases with increasing education among political conservatives, and we know that advocacy increases distrust in science and scientists among those at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, what does that mean?"

I think she is being a little too aloof in all of this. As she herself admits, climate research has larger social effects than almost any other field. Researchers in other fields do not face the open hostility faced by climate scientists. Michael Mann is not a cancer researcher. James Hansen does not study snails. There are real causes for climate scientists to abrogate normal professional tenets on occasion. The world is not as black and white as she would have it.

Aloof? maybe.

Curry has tried to take a non partisan look at climate science for the last half dozen years. She found it disturbing that many of her colleagues were getting results in their work that did not jibe with CO2 theory, yet they would pledge allegiance to the cause and discount their findings as anomolous. contradictory findings would be delayed, shelved, or hidden away inside of larger projects.

"it would only provide fodder for the skeptics" had become an important aspect to consider when shaping and publishing papers. advancement of science depends on all information to be made available, not just that which supports your personal preference.

someone questioned my support of an in-house NASA presentation by Zwally that gave evidence that Antarctica was gaining ice mass overall. it was not publicized much, and the last time I searched for it the slides had vanished leaving only a rather bland description in the abstract. I give a lot more credence to evidence presented by someone that I know is choking on the words because he doesnt want to say them.

Why wasnt Zwally's 2012 presentation (and 2011 presentation with lower but still positive numbers) splashed over the media? "it would only provide fodder for the skeptics".

there are many who now see the climate debate as a political showdown. I dont. while I see the influence (both sides) that politics plays, I try to just distill what the science says, and so far the evidence is inconclusive other than the trivial case that increased CO2 must have some effect. circumstances in the 80s and 90's gave far too much weight to CO2, circumstances in the 00's and 10's have been basically ignored because they dont conform to 'consensus' opinion. what is the truth? who knows, but science has not been able to give a definitive answer, at least in my understanding of the scientific method.

I do not challenge her contention that some research results are being witheld because they would feed and embolden the denialist camp. I blame that, however, on the denialist camp. Or, to put the blame where it actually belongs, on the fossil fuel industry who finances the denialist camp.

Whenever the progress of science has become a conflict reaching outside of science - eg, the Church vs heliocentrism or the Church vs evolution, the knowledge and welfare of mankind is not the benefactor. This is a power struggle in which one side has tied its fortunes to the maintenance of a falsehood, just as did the Church.

The facts will always win in the end, but the cost of the war... the cost of having a war where none was needed, is high.

why do you think the skeptical side is driven by bad intentions and paid for by Big Oil? Steve McIntyre is one of the most influential skeptics in the world. I personally think he should have been rewarded by someone, or some govt, at least to the tune of enough of a stipend that he could hire an intern to do some of the research. he gets nothing and it actually costs him money.

do you actually believe that the majority of skeptics are motivated by anything else than the weakness of the evidence? has Freeman Dyson been bought off? really????

do you actually think that climate scientists that expose skeptical tendencies dont have to pay a steep price?

 

[Abraham3]

why do you think the skeptical side is driven by bad intentions and paid for by Big Oil?

Because of a few things:

1) An overwhelming majority of the experts accept AGW. That tells me there is very little evidentiary justification for opposing it.
2) The level of opposition and the close alignment between political viewpoints and AGW viewpoints tell me that the opposition is not motivated by the evidence.
3) The considerable, physical evidence that the fossil fuel industry IS financing a disinformation campaign and has been doing so for many years.

I think if I had to say, I'd say that the "bad intentions" of the denialist camp is a result of their political outlook on the world. Republicans are not, generally, humanitarians. They see bad in others whether or not such views are justified.

Steve McIntyre is one of the most influential skeptics in the world.

That's not saying much. He caused one paper to be adjusted but the adjustment had NO effect on the paper's conclusion.

I personally think he should have been rewarded by someone, or some govt, at least to the tune of enough of a stipend that he could hire an intern to do some of the research. he gets nothing and it actually costs him money.

He is free to apply for research grants. If he is as successful and influential as you suggest, companies should be lining up to finance his work.

do you actually believe that the majority of skeptics are motivated by anything else than the weakness of the evidence?

I think Professor Curry has it right when she brings up motivated reasoning. We are all subject to it. That makes it more important than ever that we follow the evidence. And the evidence is NOT weak. The evidence points to AGW. But there is a small camp of people who have motives for rejecting that evidence and their reasoning is affected to reject that.

has Freeman Dyson been bought off? really????

Dyson is a bit of a case. The man is currently 90 years old. He has always considered himself a "subversive" and a "heretic" and believes that such roles are crucial to the advancement of science. From, Wikipedia:

Global warming
Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[o]ne of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[37] However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:
The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in...[37]
He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC[38][39] and has also argued against the ostracization of scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "heretics" have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. "[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."[37]
Dyson says his views on global warming has been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[40]
More recently, he has endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to recent "measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science."[41]
He has, however, argued that political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority:
I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.[42]
Since originally taking interest in climate studies in the 1970s, Dyson has suggested that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could be controlled by planting fast-growing trees. He calculates that it would take a trillion trees to remove all carbon from the atmosphere.[43][44]

So, if you're looking for support from Dyson in rejecting the greenhouse effect or replacing it with TSI, you're going to be disappointed.