Conservative War On Science

[Michael Hardner]

Just an opinion. We no longer have those sweltering warm summers we could go swimming.

Your memory isn't a substitute for published, reviewed, and validated scientific evidence.

(Also - it just occurred to me that we are violating the "short answer" rule here... so I'll add this bit...)

If there were a problem with the data points, then I would expect Lindzen or Christensen to put that at the forefront of their criticism. Maybe they have said this, but I don't think so. Furthermore, Lindzen has to use likely the same data points as evidence in his counter-theories that cosmic radiation causes warming.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[ToadBrother]

Squid claimed that nature is only biased towards 'good science'. I asked him to prove it. Mostly to demonstrate the aburdity of you demanding "proof" for my opinion.

I don't give a crap what anyone else claimed or not. I'm interested in what you claimed. You're claims against Nature are, so far as I can tell, utterly unfounded. You have refused to back them up.

It takes more than statistics and computer models to make a field a hard science. If that was the definition economics would be a "hard" science. Climatology is a soft science because it impossible to use real life experiments to validate a hypothesis.

Then theories of quantum gravity can't be science either. You're attempt to create this artificial boundary would basically toss many branches of "hard" science to the curb. Fortunately actual scientists don't use your self-serving rules as to what constitutes a rigorous discipline.

For example, McIntrye has demonstrated using statistics that proxy reconstructions of the past climate are little more than exercises in data mining but he can't prove they are wrong because he can't go back and measure the real temperatures.

This ambiguity allows scientists to choose to believe the reconstructions are realistic and there is no evidence or argument that can change than belief.

One doesn't measure paleo temperatures. One looks for other ways of determining those values. This is a standard form of methodology used in everything from geology to astrophysics. Again, this artificial distinction you've created spells doom for a huge number of lines of research in many different fields.

You can't observe an electron, so you find ways of measuring its effect. Your complaint is identical epistemologically to a Creationist saying "We didn't see apes turn into men!"

The same goes for the attribution studies. It is impossible to quantify the effect of clouds and aerosols on climate because we don't really understand the phenomena and even if we did we don't have the data. As a result, all studies from the past fabricate the data required and then estimate the effect of CO2 based on that fabricated data.

An incredible accusation. Care to back that one up, too?

In a hard science such calculations would be considered an unverified hypothesis and would not be given much credence until the hypothesis was used to predict future outcomes. In climate science they simply choose to believe the fabricated data that happens to confirm whatever apriori expectations they have. As with the paleo reconstructions there is no evidence or argument than can possibly refute these beliefs because real life experiments are not possible. This means the claims are really nothing but opinion and therefore cannot be called a hard science.

Again, you're just invoking the standard Creationist argument of "you weren't there." It's extraordinary how much the climatology skeptics like yourself have in every way duplicated the fallacious and outright dishonest methods pioneered by generations of Creationists.

[Pliny]

Good point, but most of the areas that spark the controversies are controversial exactly because solid scientific fact is challenged with unscientific viewpoints, or conspiratorial ideas...

Solid scientific fact cannot be challenged. You will find that the areas of contention are science's best guesses for the most part or the most accepted "theory".

Someone is bound to bring up the few flat-earthers who will argue solid scientific fact but, as the skeptics say themselves, there is no absolute truth so for whatever reason a flat-earther maintains his point of view he should be allowed it. "Science" may claim him insane or at best deluded but now we are getting into the realm of opinion unless there is a physiological marker that can be determined to be the source of the deluded thinking.

[ToadBrother]

Solid scientific fact cannot be challenged. You will find that the areas of contention are science's best guesses for the most part or the most accepted "theory".

All science can be founded. And what is with "theory" in quotes. Is this a lead-in to the infamous pseudoskeptical "it's only a theory".

Someone is bound to bring up the few flat-earthers who will argue solid scientific fact but, as the skeptics say themselves, there is no absolute truth so for whatever reason a flat-earther maintains his point of view he should be allowed it.

When has anyone suggested people not be allowed their point of view. The issue becomes rather of how much importance is given to it.

"Science" may claim him insane or at best deluded but now we are getting into the realm of opinion unless there is a physiological marker that can be determined to be the source of the deluded thinking.

This sounds like epistemological nihilism. In the real world, not all opinions are equal. A flatearther or geocentrist is allowed their opinion, what they cannot demand is that their opinion be taken seriously.

Beyond that, scientific theories are not mere opinions. I mean, do you think General Relativity or the Germ Theory of Disease are just opinions?

[TimG]

Then theories of quantum gravity can't be science either. You're attempt to create this artificial boundary would basically toss many branches of "hard" science to the curb.

The distinction does not mean the field is useless. It just means any claims made are nothing but opinions and any predictions made have to taken with a huge grain of salt.

Quantum gravity, string theory and similar fields are largely mathematical constructs that only need to be internally consistent. That said, rigorous mathematical foundation gives them more credibility than climate science.

One doesn't measure paleotemperatures. One looks for other ways of determining those values. This is a standard form of methodology used in everything from geology to astrophysics. Again, this artificial distinction you've created spells doom for a huge number of lines of research in many different fields.

I think your are missing my point. I am not saying that developing opinions based on long sequences of unverifiable guesses and assumptions is a bad thing in itself. What I am say is if a field is nothing but a long sequences of unverifiable guesses and assumptions then it wrong to claim it is anything more than an opinion.

You can't observe an electron, so you find ways of measuring its effect. Your complaint is identical epistemologically to a Creationist saying "We didn't see apes turn into men!"

Absolutely wrong. Many people have used the theory of the electron to predict the outcome of an experiment. For that reason, we can have confidence that the electron model is a useful representation of the world. This ability to conduct experiments is what separates the "hard" sciences from the "soft" sciences. This is what climate science lacks.

An incredible accusation. Care to back that one up, too?

Read the IPCC report. They make clear that aerosol and cloud forces are largely unknown. There is no way to calculate the effect of CO2 without knowing those effects. Therefore all of the claims of attribute depend on fabricated data.

It's extraordinary how much the climatology skeptics like yourself have in every way duplicated the fallacious and outright dishonest methods pioneered by generations of Creationists.

Actually the reverse is true. Creationism/intelligent design is not science precisely because there is no way to falsify the claims. No matter what new evidence appears the claims can always be adjusted to preserve the original hypothesis. Climate science has the same problem and there are many examples of climate scientists applying dubious manipulations to data that contradicts their conclusions and when it is not possible to adjust the data they wave the hands and insist that their claims are true but we have random variables masking the true signal. Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[nicky10013]

The distinction does not mean the field is useless. It just means any claims made are nothing but opinions and any predictions made have to taken with a huge grain of salt.

Quantum gravity, string theory and similar fields are largely mathematical constructs that only need to be internally consistent. That said, rigorous mathematical foundation gives them more credibility than climate science.

I think your are missing my point. I am not saying that developing opinions based on long sequences of unverifiable guesses and assumptions is a bad thing in itself. What I am say is if a field is nothing but a long sequences of unverifiable guesses and assumptions then it wrong to claim it is anything more than an opinion.

Absolutely wrong. Many people have used the theory of the electron to predict the outcome of an experiment. For that reason, we can have confidence that the electron model is a useful representation of the world. This ability to conduct experiments is what separates the "hard" sciences from the "soft" sciences. This is what climate science lacks.

Read the IPCC report. They make clear that aerosol and cloud forces are largely unknown. There is no way to calculate the effect of CO2 without knowing those effects. Therefore all of the claims of attribute depend on fabricated data.

Actually the reverse is true. Creationism/intelligent design is not science precisely because there is no way to falsify the claims. No matter what new evidence appears the claims can always be adjusted to preserve the original hypothesis. Climate science has the same problem and there are many examples of climate scientists applying dubious manipulations to data that contradicts their conclusions.

Uhhh, just so you know...the scientists caught sending those e-mails were completely cleared of fabricating data to back up their hypothesis. As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been another case. So, you're twisting the data to fit your hypothesis, ironically, in the same way you're accusing those scientists even though they didn't do anything to begin with.

[TimG]

Beyond that, scientific theories are not mere opinions. I mean, do you think General Relativity or the Germ Theory of Disease are just opinions?

The validity of both theories has be shown with real experiments where the theory successfully and unambigiously predicted the outcome. Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Uhhh, just so you know...the scientists caught sending those e-mails were completely cleared of fabricating data to back up their hypothesis.

I am not using the emails as my source. I am using the IPCC report where the state which quantities are unknowns and had to be fabricated in order to determine the effect of CO2. Of course the IPCC report uses words like 'large uncertainties' and 'estimated data' but changing the words does not change the meaning.

[nicky10013]

I am not using the emails as my source. I am using the IPCC report where the state which quantities are unknowns and had to be fabricated in order to determine the effect of CO2. Of course the IPCC report uses words like 'large uncertainties' and 'estimated data' but changing the words does not change the meaning.

You read all 400 pages of that report?

[TimG]

You read all 400 pages of that report?

Most of Chapter 9 which is the part that covers this topic.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

[nicky10013]

Most of Chapter 9 which is the part that covers this topic.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

Ok, so where exactly does it say data had to be fabricated?

[ToadBrother]

Read the IPCC report. They make clear that aerosol and cloud forces are largely unknown. There is no way to calculate the effect of CO2 without knowing those effects. Therefore all of the claims of attribute depend on fabricated data.

I think your vastly overstating the problems posed, but neither one of us are climatologists. I have to, in any field I'm not an expert in, "lean" on the expertise of those that are. AGW is not a complete theory, but then again, no theory is. To say that because there are questionable or unknown variables and therefore its predictive capacity is nil is, again, to say that a wide array of fields have useless theories. Hell, beyond the most basic scenarios, even Newtonian mechanics becomes insanely difficult for complex orbital problems, and physicists have to start having to make assumptions.

I hesitate to call you a pseudo-skeptic, but your level of incredulity is so high with AGW that if you turned it on to some of the, as you define it, "hard" sciences would render them apparently so unreliable as to be useless.

Take a look at evolutionary theory. It's still a huge debate as to the full effect of neutral genetic drift on populations over time. There's a considerable amount of what amounts to educated guesswork. Does that mean that the study of evolutionary forces on population is a fruitless, pointless field made up of little more than conjecture? If I applied your level of skepticism to it, I guess it would be.

Actually the reverse is true. Creationism/intelligent design is not science precisely because there is no way to falsify the claims. No matter what new evidence appears the claims can always be adjusted to preserve the original hypothesis. Climate science has the same problem and there are many examples of climate scientists applying dubious manipulations to data that contradicts their conclusions and when it is not possible to adjust the data they wave the hands and insist that their claims are true but we have random variables masking the true signal.

Nonsense. Climate study certainly is falsifiable. New data on the (lack of) glacier recession in the Himalayas is forcing reconsideration. Trying to state that AGE is unfalsifiable is, my friend, pure falsehood. It's part of the rhetorical bag of tricks of the denier community, to assert somehow that AGW is science at all. It's a shameful thing. Even if AGW is utterly wrong, you have to deal with the fact that it is science. The fact that you're willing to invoke all this sort of denier t-shirt sloganeering tells me you're not terribly interested in the science itself.

[TimG]

Ok, so where exactly does it say data had to be fabricated?

Studies vary key climate and forcing parameters in those models, such as the ECS, the rate of ocean heat uptake, and in some instances, the strength of aerosol forcing, within plausible ranges. The ECS can be varied directly in simple climate models and in some EMICs (see Chapter 8), and indirectly in more complex EMICs and AOGCMs by varying model parameters that influence the strength of atmospheric feedbacks, for example, in cloud parametrizations. Since studies estimating ECS and TCR from observed climate changes require very large ensembles of simulations of past climate change (ranging from several hundreds to thousands of members), they are often, but not always, performed with EMICs or EBMs.

The idea underlying this approach is that the plausibility of a given combination of parameter settings can be determined from the agreement of the resulting simulation of historical climate with observations.

The rough translation for the above paragraph is we took all of the parameters which are unknown. Twiddled them until we came up with a good match to historical temps. This approach is usually called curve fitting and is a good way to fool yourself into believing you know something when you don't.

[ToadBrother]

The rough translation for the above paragraph is we took all of the parameters which are unknown. Twiddled them until we came up with a good match to historical temps. This approach is usually called curve fitting and is a good way to fool yourself into believing you know something when you don't.

Somehow I'm thinking your "rough translation" probably doesn't reflect the actual text itself, or its context.

[TimG]

Nonsense. Climate study certainly is falsifiable. New data on the (lack of) glacier recession in the Himalayas is forcing reconsideration. Trying to state that AGW is unfalsifiable is, my friend, pure falsehood.

You have to be careful to state what claim you are referring to. The claims that CO2 has caused the majority of warming over the last 50 years is definitely unfalsifiable. The claim that CO2 sensitivity is 3 degC/doubling is also unfalsifiable in any reasonable timeframe since no matter what happens there will other factors that can be used to explain away any discrepancy. We have seen this already with scientists speculating that ocean currents will cause cooling over the next 15 years but warming will return with vengeance (classic pseudo-science trick - when current data fails to co-operate insist the diveragance is temporary). All of the climate science claims that matter to policy makers are unfalsifiable within timeframes that matter. Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[RNG]

The rough translation for the above paragraph is we took all of the parameters which are unknown. Twiddled them until we came up with a good match to historical temps. This approach is usually called curve fitting and is a good way to fool yourself into believing you know something when you don't.

You are spot on about this being an important step when working with computer models. And you are spot on in your criticism. I'm more used to the term "history matching" rather than curve fitting, but the same thing, and it involves fudging the various parameters you can't measure till you get a fit. As a model gets more complex, the probability of a unique solution becomes less and less.

To the best of my knowledge none of the climate models can include water vapor. At least this was true 3 years ago. And that is a huge lack. Till that is fixed, I am going to be hard to convince that conclusions coming from existing models are valid.

Edited October 1, 2010 by RNG

[ToadBrother]

You have to be careful to state what claim you are referring to. The claims that CO2 has caused the majority of warming over the last 50 years is definitely unfalsifiable. The claim that CO2 sensitivity is 3 degC/doubling is also unfalsifiable in any reasonable timeframe since no matter what happens there will other factors that can be used to explain away any discrepancy. We have seen this already with scientists speculating that ocean currents will cause cooling over the next 15 years but warming will return with vengeance (classic pseudo-science trick - when current data fails to co-operate insist the diveragance is temporary). All of the climate science claims that matter to policy makers are unfalsifiable within timeframes that matter.

None of these are unfalsifiable. What are you talking about? They are predictions which can either be determined to be true or false. You're just claiming them untestable, with nothing to back it up but, well, your claim that somehow they're not testable.

We've already established that your claims about peer-reviewed articles in Nature is nothing more than pure subjectivity on your part. We've established that you basically invoke special pleading to make the case that climatology isn't a "hard" science, despite the fact that numerous other fields, indeed some of the "hardest" around also use similar techniques and methods of inference. Now we're just at you making bald faced claims, throwing the term falsifiability around in a stunning fashion that either indicates some pretty severe ignorance of general methodological techniques, or a more troubling disregard for how science actually is done.

None of this, by the way, suggests that AGW theories right now are the final answer, or that they may ultimately be right or wrong. Science, no matter how much you like to believe, doesn't work that way. Short term predictions are always more difficult and less certain, and I doubt there's a researcher out there who wouldn't admit as much, but what they're saying to policy makers is "Look, the evidence we have, the models we have, indicate that puking CO2 into the atmosphere has had and will continue to have an ever-increasing number of potentially dangerous effects on global and regional climate." That may in fact be wrong, though thus far alternative explanations like solar output have in fact not explained the observations.

Frankly, I don't think you know, or even give a crap about the science. This is a rhetorical game, which is why you take frequently used techniques like variable assumptions and suddenly turn it into the word "fabrication", attempting to take statistical analysis that is used on numerous other fields like radioactive decay and so forth, but spinning it as nefarious in this case. I'm not particularly interested in why you do this, but you should know that, as I said, your method of critique would bring down a huge number of fields that have little or nothing at all to do with climatology.

Edited October 1, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Pliny]

double post

Edited October 1, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Beyond that, scientific theories are not mere opinions. I mean, do you think General Relativity or the Germ Theory of Disease are just opinions?

They are theories and thus our "best guess". They are not hard scientific fact. There is thus room to question and debate. Your position is to use the theory to close any argument.

I question your use of science for this purpose. You have no argument to close debate or discussion which is your entire purpose. I am waiting for the hard scientific facts that end theory.

If we assume the theory correct we will not look for or find the true explanation. The theory of General Relativity has anomalies it can't explain. It is our best guess. And as for the germ theory of disease we have a few questions on that one too that need to be closed before we end the discussion.

[TimG]

None of these are unfalsifiable. What are you talking about? They are predictions which can either be determined to be true or false.

Please explain how the claim that the majority of warming over the last 50 years is due to CO2 can be shown to be false. Note that it is not enough to come up with an alternate explaination - one must *prove* that the claim is false. It is impossible.

You're just claiming them untestable, with nothing to back it up but, well, your claim that somehow they're not testable.

Sophistry. Asking me to prove a negative. If you believe they are testable then explain what test could possibly show that IPCC view of sensitivity is too high if the reality is in line with what Linzden and Spencer claim? You won't find one.

Now we're just at you making bald faced claims, throwing the term falsifiability around in a stunning fashion that either indicates some pretty severe ignorance of general methodological techniques, or a more troubling disregard for how science actually is done.

I think you are the one that does not understand the limitations of the scientific process as it exists today. We do not have objective researchers looking for answers. We have intensely competitive humans with big egos looking to promote their own careers. This creates a incentive to make claims and ignore the unknowns that undermine them.

Frankly, I don't think you know, or even give a crap about the science. This is a rhetorical game, which is why you take frequently used techniques like variable assumptions and suddenly turn it into the word "fabrication"

I call a spade a spade. You can dress up 'data estimation' with fancy words but at its core you are basically making stuff up and you validate the made up data by checking to see if you get the answer you expect. This is a fine technique if what you expect happens to be reality but it is also a great way to fool yourself. That is why verification with real experiments is essential to science because without that connection to reality it is not possible to seperate the scientists who have it right from those that are just fooling themselves

[ToadBrother]

They are theories and thus our "best guess". They are not hard scientific fact. There is thus room to question and debate. Your position is to use the theory to close any argument.

They are certainly substantially more than best guess. And "hard scientific fact" is a meaningless term.

I question your use of science for this purpose. You have no argument to close debate or discussion which is your entire purpose. I am waiting for the hard scientific facts that end theory.

Again, "hard scientific facts" is a meaningless term. But I'm finding amusing that your objections to AGW are so strong that you're now willing to even talk as if General Relativity and germ theory are just "best guesses".

If we assume the theory correct we will not look for or find the true explanation. The theory of General Relativity has anomalies it can't explain. It is our best guess. And as for the germ theory of disease we have a few questions on that one too that need to be closed before we end the discussion.

What does "truth" have to do with science? Science cannot provide truth, save only provisionally. This idea of yours that scientists just declare a theory "true" and then walk away is utterly without foundation. Take a look at GR. A century's worth of scientists, starting with Einstein himself, have been working on it, refining it, even understanding the basic premises. There is nothing static about physics, or any other field. AGW is a constantly evolving field, and no doubt the final answer will be different in many respects from what we're getting now. The question is whether, by the time we get the level of certainty you want, the investigation will be pointless. To my mind, even if AGW is completely incorrect, the fact is that we are wasting one of the most important resources we know of, and should be moving with all swiftness away from many of our uses for long-chain hydrocarbons. If we can stop a severe climactic shift that has the potential to kill hundreds of millions, then I think we're on to something. If AGW as it understood now proves to be wrong, or at least overly pessimistic, the benefit of moving from the fossil fuel economy will more than make up for it.

[ToadBrother]

Please explain how the claim that the majority of warming over the last 50 years is due to CO2 can be shown to be false. Note that it is not enough to come up with an alternate explaination - one must *prove* that the claim is false. It is impossible.

You find an alternative explanation that better fits the evidence, like any other theory.

AS I said, you're the one invoking special pleading, treating climatology as somehow methodologically different, even inferior, to dozens of other fields that use similar statistical techniques.

[TimG]

You find an alternative explanation that better fits the evidence, like any other theory.

The decision on whether something 'better fits the evidence' is entirely subjective. Being fasifiable requires a objective test. Sounds like you are agreeing that climate science is not falsifiable.

AS I said, you're the one invoking special pleading, treating climatology as somehow methodologically different, even inferior, to dozens of other fields that use similar statistical techniques.

The examples you have used has some ability to test their claims or are based on pure mathemetical models. If you can come up with another field which is untestable like climate science then I would make the same criticisms. The difference is I don't care if scientists want to make untestable claims about the mating habits of the 3 striped squirrel because their claims are not being used to set government policy. If science is being used to set government policy I expect it to meet certain standards and climate science cannot meet those standards.

[Saipan]

If we can stop a severe climactic shift that has the potential to kill hundreds of millions, then I think we're on to something.

Where is the "severe climactic shift that has the potential to kill hundreds of millions"?

Would 2-4 mile thick layer of ice do it?

It WILLL happen but there's nothing we can do about that. And it won't be any time soon. So we can relax.

[ToadBrother]

The decision on whether something 'better fits the evidence' is entirely subjective. Being fasifiable requires a objective test. Sounds like you are agreeing that climate science is not falsifiable.

And here's the rub. You've just invoked epistemological nihilism.

I love climate deniers. They're just like Creationists. When cornered, they'll just simply deny that any knowledge is suitable.

Can I start calling you Michael Behe now?