Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The only politics at play in climate science are the politicians of the world being divided between delusional denial and paralyzed fear at the magnitude of what's staring them in the face, and has been for many, many years.

[Reelya]

"Science" has always been about the consensus of those labeled "scientists". It's only when people want to be skeptical of particular bits of science that they start spinning semantics like "it's only a theory" or "if it relies on consensus it isn't real science". But logically, those two things literally apply to 100% of science.

The value of the scientific model isn't some claim to inerrancy as in a religion, it's in the process of informed consensus debate. This by itself would lead to stagnation, but it's balanced by the fact that it's the mavericks in science who achieve everlasting fame.

Darwinian evolution itself gives a great metaphor for how science actually works: natural selection vs mutation. Natural selection is the trimming of rival models and consensus building, whereas mutation is the creation of new theories and challenges to the consensus.

[Max™]

Seeing the word consensus brought up as if it matters in the least for science is another source of disappointment I've had to get used to.

Hey, you're posting in a politics thread so you've gotta expect some politcal speak back but feel free to bitch about it, that's also par for the course. If I was a blunt person (which I am) I'd say your posts have contained as much political speak as actual science, so fair is fair. Reread them again if you don't believe me.

Oh, I know they have, though I have tried to specify where I am speaking of science as opposed to politics where I could, or didn't think it clear.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm mostly just compelled to explain why allowing politicians to vote on scientific research mean the results are no longer science

The Climate Change Research Bill 2015 failed 24-88, meaning scientific consensus is now in denial of global warming

That's not how science works. The politicians are voting on policies, not research

I should have specified, I was talking about the process behind the IPCC reports, and the influence it has had on the field of climate science as a whole.

Ideally you would run your own experiments.

Um, why? I can see empirical data that already exists. It's really cool that you're willing to test things yourself, but a bathroom is not a planet.

A computer model is not even an experiment, soooo... similarly empirical data includes experiments, and I did say ideally.

That's still just trivia though

He says, having linked a bunch of charts showing temperatures skyrocketing

the charts are trivia, yes. There is a difference between an average of temperatures and dynamics of a system.

You have read all the reports right?

Have you? There's like a million of the bloody things. Ain't nobody got time for that.

"I read all five of the IPCC reports as they came out." I was following this field back in the early 90's, there's lots of time to read a major compilation related to a topic you're interested in.

that doesn't matter because I'm trying to use scientific findings in a political discussion

Why? Because it's about politics, not facts.

Fuck's sake man, we have thousands of scientists who do this shit for a living telling us that temperatures are rising fast, our atmospheric carbon levels are absolutely obscene, and the two are inextricably linked.
Then you're sitting here in the wake of the hottest year on record saying, "nuh uh the scientists are all politicians and don't know how to science, I know this because I puffed some balloons around in my bathroom, everything will be daijoubu".

Ah yes, the El Nino was really handy for that too, though it's a bummer to the skeptic crowd that they can't go on about however many years without a temperature rise now.

I'm saying that the "two are inextricably linked" is not a fact, but just for the record, that's the same trick they used back in 88 with the first "global warming is a problem" hearing in Congress as I recall. Hottest part of the year, pointing outside the window "see, it's fucking hot, so this is a problem, so you should believe us" like you did with "hottest year on record" as an argument.

Me? Not even 5/7? Honestly not even sure what came across as trolling there.

It's like a textbook example of concern trolling:

Even the AR5 report had to note that plant productivity has been enhanced by CO2, and would be even in the most dire scenarios. Colder climactic periods sucked, by the way. It's no concidence human civilization didn't take off until the most recent glacial period ended.

Smokey the Tailpipe says "Remember kids, only YOU can prevent glaciation, so give a hoot, pollute!"

Acting like it's some big fucking surprise that reality is complex as if everyone else was too stupid to realize this.  Concern trolling of the highest order. 

Ahhh, gotcha.

But why limit your august enlightenment to climate science?  How about spreading your amazing thinking to medicine?  For instance people think that sickle cell anemia is bad but even <mainiac cant be arsed to look up a medical journal> admits that it gives resistance to some infectious diseases.  Or how about economics?  People act like unemployment is bad.  But even the latest Federal Reserve forward guidance statement acknowledged that unemployment puts downward pressure on inflation.

Because I haven't been studying those subjects for years?

No, god didn't grant you with some amazing ability to see both sides of the issue that lesser mortals can only look upon in awe.  You are just ignoring the fact that of the two sides of this argument, the importance overwhelmingly weighs more on one side.

There's this thing called, study, research, etc, which can be used to gain an understanding of various subjects.

That was called the precautionary principle btw, and I'm not saying take no action. I'm saying take action on the right things and stop wasting time trying to legislate CO2 as a bogeyman. I also kinda said that of the two sides of the argument, both are endorsing a flawed hypothesis, it's just a matter of how much they support it where the variance comes in.

The only politics at play in climate science are the politicians of the world being divided between delusional denial and paralyzed fear at the magnitude of what's staring them in the face, and has been for many, many years.

Look into the IPCC report development process.

"Science" has always been about the consensus of those labeled "scientists".

Science is how we distinguish what is from what is not. There's no consensus necessary, where did you get this idea?

It's only when people want to be skeptical of particular bits of science that they start spinning semantic bullshit like "it's only a theory" or "if it relies on consensus it isn't real science". But logically, those two things literally apply to 100% of science.

Where is the consensus about the physics behind stellar life cycles, the Higgs, or gravitational waves? What about the biological mechanisms involved in messenger RNA, or protein folding? Nobody has to agree on these things, they are what we have left after having eliminated possible explanations and confirmed via experiment that the current understanding held up.

Everything is a theory and every theory relies on a consensus to accept it as valid theory. That is why it's illogical to single out any particular bit of science as "only a theory" or "not real science" because "real science doesn't rely on a consensus". Both are bullshit, plain and simple.

Really, where did you hear this? The only test of theory is experiment. Nobody decides if an experiment confirmed a theoretical prediction, you just look at the results and see if it did or not. Nobody agreed that the LHC found the Higgs, there were known properties it should have according to the Standard Model, and after examining the data they were able to confirm that a particle with those properties had been produced.

[Reelya]

This is just blind ignorance right there.

The problem is that in most scientific experiments nothing is directly "observed". That has almost no meaning. We get data back, then we fit that data to a theory, and if the fit is approximately close enough within our error tolerance, we say the theory is proved. Clearly you could reject any evidence you want if you were critical enough with the error tolerance you'll accept, so there's a consensus on how close is close enough for a valid measurement.

And of course almost everything we're talking about as theories are only vague approximate models of reality. Our electron model is not an actual electron, it's just a hypothesized idea of an electron, which is probably way off what electrons actually are. Scientific data and theories only correlate with reality, they're not actual reality. "The map is not the territory".

[Orange Wizard]

Science is how we distinguish what is from what is not. There's no consensus necessary, where did you get this idea?

Where is the consensus about the physics behind stellar life cycles, the Higgs, or gravitational waves? What about the biological mechanisms involved in messenger RNA, or protein folding? Nobody has to agree on these things

Nobody decides if an experiment confirmed a theoretical prediction, you just look at the results and see if it did or not.

Oh for the love of

[Reelya]

... and somehow this "experimental data doesn't lie" logic doesn't extend to thermometers.

Just maybe, almost all scientists agree on global warming because all the experimental data supports that conclusion?

The fact that crackpots are trying to disprove it with "bathroom experiments" rather than citing real data actually strengthens the case for the real data.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Look into the IPCC report development process.

Oh, spare me. The IPCC reports have only increased in fidelity as time has gone on and the general public has come to understand more things about the climate crisis. If anything, the IPCC is at risk of softballing it because being direct has a tendency to convert people into doomers instead of resolving for action.

You do realize that the purpose of the IPCC report is to tell a bunch of lawyers and oligarchs the world over how fucked we are if we don't deal with climate change, right? It's not the determinant of whether or not climate change is real or a threat. All it is is a system to translate the technical language of climatologists into something vernacular.

I don't know what your exact objection to the report development is, but I'll take a stab in the dark and say it's probably something about excluding some information. Not exuding information is impossible while doing this sort of thing, otherwise you're just assembling a bunch of scientific literature, while the IPCC exists to advise the governing bodies of the world.

At the end of the day, the fact is that virtually all of climatology is of one mind on this, and the ones who aren't are almost all being paid by organizations funded by fossil fuel and industrial interests. What you are doing here is equal to denying evolution because there are people who purport to be biologists that believe in intelligent design. On that note, there should be a second wave of Project Steve started for climate scientists.

[PTTG??]

Hey, I've got an idea.

Let's let climate change ruin Earth. Hear me out.

We sell low-lying houses to climate change denialists, who will be too busy convincing themselves that they aren't drowning to notice that we used the profits to buy highlands.

They all die off and then the remaining dramatically more intelligent humans can move to Mars and try it all from scratch.

[Max™]

This is just blind ignorance right there.

The problem is that in most scientific experiments nothing is directly "observed". That has almost no meaning. We get data back, then we fit that data to a theory, and if the fit is approximately close enough within our error tolerance, we say the theory is proved. Clearly you could reject any evidence you want if you were critical enough with the error tolerance you'll accept, so there's a consensus on how close is close enough for a valid measurement.

And of course almost everything we're talking about as theories are only vague approximate models of reality. Our electron model is not an actual electron, it's just a hypothesized idea of an electron, which is probably way off what electrons actually are. Scientific data and theories only correlate with reality, they're not actual reality. "The map is not the territory".

I am still curious where you learned this, not being sarcastic, despite mainiac's insistence I haven't been trolling, though I do try to stay in character as my politician persona because I really want a hover platform, I'm genuinely asking who told you that was how science worked?

I even listed a couple of big examples that were in the news recently of observations or experiments which confirmed theoretical predictions. Relativity is another subject on which I am very well informed, and have known for the last, god, I guess it's closer to 30 years now, that gravitational waves had not been observed. I also knew the Higgs was a missing piece, I'm STILL angry about the Superconducting Super Collider being cancelled.

You ask most people a few years ago, they would be surprised if you told them there was any doubt about the shit Einstein worked on, or about something so well tested we call it the Standard Model, capital letters and all!

Have I missed a complete redefinition of science in the public eye or something?

... and somehow this "facts don't lie" logic doesn't extend to thermometers.

It's not the observations of temperatures which I specifically take issue with (the adjustments on the other hand...) it's the interpretation based on untested theoretical models about the cause of said temperature changes that I am arguing is flawed.

I am getting tired though, trying to explain why what I said means what I said, rather than something I didn't say is annoying.

Look into the IPCC report development process.

Oh, spare me. The IPCC reports have only increased in fidelity as time has gone on and the general public has come to understand more things about the climate crisis. If anything, the IPCC is at risk of softballing it because being direct has a tendency to convert people into doomers instead of resolving for action.

You're talking to someone who has watched this process as it developed remember. I didn't just pop up yesterday and go "oh well shit, these guys are morons" or something.

You do realize that the purpose of the IPCC report is to tell a bunch of lawyers and oligarchs the world over how fucked we are if we don't deal with climate change, right?

Indeed, and I remember when that purpose was to tell them how dangerous global warming was too, but I also realize that getting something cited by an IPCC report is a big deal, and guess what isn't going to get your work included?

At the end of the day, the fact is that virtually all of climatology is of one mind on this, and the ones who aren't are almost all being paid by organizations funded by fossil fuel and industrial interests.

Well fuck, where's my goddamn oil money? You mean I've been doing this shit in the name of honesty for free?

What you are doing here is equal to denying evolution because there are people who purport to be biologists that believe in intelligent design.

Ah, I wasn't aware, I thought it was because I had been doing my own research after studying the subject for years, and after considering it I determined an experiment I could do to test what seemed like a flaw in the hypothesis.

Hey, I've got an idea.

Let's let climate change ruin Earth. Hear me out.

We sell low-lying houses to climate change denialists, who will be too busy convincing themselves that they aren't drowning to notice that we used the profits to buy highlands.

They all die off and then the remaining dramatically more intelligent humans can move to Mars and try it all from scratch.

Well, good news! A cursory glance outside shows that though it is annoyingly cool (12 C in Memphis in mid May?) and the AC won't kick on despite it getting stuffy upstairs, it remains within the same range that it has for the last 30 or so years I've been watching it. Based on that we can safely say the planet is not dominated by unstable positive feedback mechanisms, and even models which include powerful positive feedback mechanisms to produce the most outlandish projections don't fall into "ruin the planet" territory. Though I am curious if the recent temperature spike helps out the model divergence?

[wobbly]

This is just blind ignorance right there.

The problem is that in most scientific experiments nothing is directly "observed". That has almost no meaning. We get data back, then we fit that data to a theory, and if the fit is approximately close enough within our error tolerance, we say the theory is proved. Clearly you could reject any evidence you want if you were critical enough with the error tolerance you'll accept, so there's a consensus on how close is close enough for a valid measurement.

And of course almost everything we're talking about as theories are only vague approximate models of reality. Our electron model is not an actual electron, it's just a hypothesized idea of an electron, which is probably way off what electrons actually are. Scientific data and theories only correlate with reality, they're not actual reality. "The map is not the territory".

I am still curious where you learned this, not being sarcastic, despite mainiac's insistence I haven't been trolling, though I do try to stay in character as my politician persona because I really want a hover platform, I'm genuinely asking who told you that was how science worked?

I even listed a couple of big examples that were in the news recently of observations or experiments which confirmed theoretical predictions. Relativity is another subject on which I am very well informed, and have known for the last, god, I guess it's closer to 30 years now, that gravitational waves had not been observed. I also knew the Higgs was a missing piece, I'm STILL angry about the Superconducting Super Collider being cancelled.

You ask most people a few years ago, they would be surprised if you told them there was any doubt about the shit Einstein worked on, or about something so well tested we call it the Standard Model, capital letters and all!

Eh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you honestly believe what you just said read some philosphy from the 60s. Heck read shit from the 19th, 18th century, go back as far as you like...

Short of the long. Your not saying anything new. Your not bringing up intelligent points that other intelligent people haven't thought about either.

[Orange Wizard]

Have I missed a complete redefinition of science in the public eye or something?

No, you missed what science was about from the get-go. It's always been about consensus. The dudes at the LHC need consensus that the data they're looking at is evidence of the Higgs or whatever, the dudes digging up fossils need consensus that what they're looking at is evidence of evolution, and the dudes looking at climate change need consensus that shit is getting real hot.

Relativity is another subject on which I am very well informed, and have known for the last, god, I guess it's closer to 30 years now, that gravitational waves had not been observed. I also knew the Higgs was a missing piece

>not trolling

I'm STILL angry about the Superconducting Super Collider being cancelled.

To be fair anything called Superconducting Super Collider is guaranteed to be awesome

it's the interpretation based on untested theoretical models about the cause of said temperature changes that I am arguing is flawed.

>calling 450000 years of Earth's history "untested theoretical models"

I had been doing my own research after studying the subject for years

"research"

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You're talking to someone who has watched this process as it developed remember. I didn't just pop up yesterday and go "oh well shit, these guys are morons" or something.

Sure looks like you did, since your argument boils down to "they could want to be in the IPCC report and so will lie about everything", when that's a) unproven and b) wouldn't get you into the IPCC report since it's unverifiable through peer review. Say peer review is a conspiracy to get into the report and be forever banished into the realm of prisonplanet.com.

Indeed, and I remember when that purpose was to tell them how dangerous global warming was too, but I also realize that getting something cited by an IPCC report is a big deal, and guess what isn't going to get your work included?

True, being wrong is indeed quite a detriment to inclusion in the IPCC report.

Well fuck, where's my goddamn oil money? You mean I've been doing this shit in the name of honesty for free?

Try Shell, they're pretty generous.

Ah, I wasn't aware, I thought it was because I had been doing my own research after studying the subject for years, and after considering it I determined an experiment I could do to test what seemed like a flaw in the hypothesis.

Your experiments fail both standards of rigor and reliability.

[Reelya]

@Max: There's the thing like I said: the skepticism vs blind-faith thing you have going there is completely lopsided.

- Is there any doubt about the light absorption and emission characteristics of CO2? Nope?
- How about being able to measure CO2 in air samples and ice samples?
- How about dating ice cores? There's carbon dating and other types of dating which are known to be pretty accurate.
If none of those things are in doubt, then how can the levels of CO2 be in doubt, and how can we doubt the effect that this amount of CO2 would have on the atmosphere, when temperature variation measurements correlate so well with CO2 levels.

And your experiment was goddamn terrible. A bathroom is not a good substitute for a planet. There's a reason we don't automatically assume rat experiment results transfer to a human, and a rat vs a human are more similar than a bathroom vs a planet. Your bathroom could either replicate a result, or it could fail to replicate the result. Neither result proves anything. Because either result could be dismissed by you or others as irrelevant because bathrooms aren't planets.

[Dorsidwarf]

Going back a bit, max, what did you mean when talking about the 500,000 year co2/temp graph?

You said that people ignore the "greater previous spikes", but the co2 rise in our spike is triple anything on record and is virtually instantaneous. I am confused

[Orange Wizard]

He doesn't think CO2 causes temperature rises.