Conservative War On Science

[TimG]

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

Excuse me. I have stated quite clearly what I am looking for: objective tests that would confirm that theories have merit. There is nothing unreasonable about this position and I am perfectly willing to change my mind if such evidence can be found. I am not interested interested in the unverifiable opinions of "experts" because between the hockey stick fiascos and climategate I trust the average climate scientist as far as I could throw him (or her).

Now I realize that you are more credulous than I and appear to be willing to trust the word of this particular group of experts even though they cannot validate their claims with real experiments. That is your perogative but it is quite rediculous to insist that anyone who does not share your credulity is 'anti-science'. At the end of the day it is my money that the government wants to pay for these climate initiaves so the onus is one the government to convince me that underlying science has merit. So far they have not made their case.

Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Now I realize that you are more credulous than I and appear to be willing to trust the word of this particular group of experts even though they cannot validate their claims with real experiments.

Okay, let's start here. Define "experiments". What do you think that means?

[wyly]

Excuse me. I have stated quite clearly what I am looking for: objective tests that would confirm that theories have merit. There is nothing unreasonable about this position and I am perfectly willing to change my mind if such evidence can be found. I am not interested interested in the unverifiable opinions of "experts" because between the hockey stick fiascos and climategate I trust the average climate scientist as far as I could throw him (or her).

Now I realize that you are more credulous than I and appear to be willing to trust the word of this particular group of experts even though they cannot validate their claims with real experiments. That is your perogative but it is quite rediculous to insist that anyone who does not share your credulity is 'anti-science'. At the end of the day it is my money that the government wants to pay for these climate initiaves so the onus is one the government to convince me that underlying science has merit. So far they have not made their case.

97% of climate scientists are convinced but you want more?...I would suggest then there is no amount of evidence that would satisfy you...

[Oleg Bach]

Courtesy of "The Office"'s Dwight Shrute:

"Through concentration, I can raise and lower my cholesterol at will."

"My feelings regenerate at twice the speed of a normal man"

"When my mother was pregnant with me, they did an ultrasound and found she was having twins. When they did another ultrasound a few weeks later, they discovered that I had adsorbed the other fetus. Do I regret this? No, I believe his tissue has made me stronger. I now have the strength of a grown man and a little baby."

Point I was making was one day I had a chest pang or pain...I thought the usual..that a man my age might be having a heart attack...so as I rode on the street car just about to pass one of Toronto's fine hospitals - I said to my self..."better get off and have this checked out" - then --- I gave it a thought and thought to myself.."what has sustained all these years..that insitution ...or your faith in God and yourself?'

So the answer was..mankind and science are fine...BUT it is God that controls nature and super nature - and faith in that fact is powerful - SO I STAYED ON THE STREET CAR AND WAS FINE.

Besides...the immigrants who clean the hospitals are loser..they come from third world filth and don't have a clue...I also have a bright friend who has brain palsy..he has trouble cutting his nails and bathing..He works as a cleaner at a large urban hospital.. his nails are packed with dirt - and HE cleans the operating room some nights ....You want a hospital enduced disease..be my guest.

[dre]

97% of climate scientists are convinced but you want more?...I would suggest then there is no amount of evidence that would satisfy you...

Of course not. Theres a massive global conspiracy involving an entire segment of the scientific community .

[Oleg Bach]

Of course not. Theres a massive global conspiracy involving an entire segment of the scientific community .

Scientists are not benevolent priests who have taken an oath of poverty..most are self serving brain masterbating twits..and they will do and say anything for a pay cheque.

[Saipan]

“Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books,

for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate

to do the same with his pen”

Maimonides

[TimG]

Okay, let's start here. Define "experiments". What do you think that means?

I mean any reproducable real life process where the outcome is successfully predicted by the theory. The word "reproducable" is key because that is the only way to seperate an accurate prediction from a lucky guess. Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

“Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books,

for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate

to do the same with his pen”

Maimonides

That's one of the most banal observations I've ever seen quoted.

[Michael Hardner]

and they will do and say anything for a pay cheque.

...but yet you do it here, for free. Hmm ?

[Michael Hardner]

Excuse me. I have stated quite clearly what I am looking for: objective tests that would confirm that theories have merit. There is nothing unreasonable about this position and I am perfectly willing to change my mind if such evidence can be found. I am not interested interested in the unverifiable opinions of "experts" because between the hockey stick fiascos and climategate I trust the average climate scientist as far as I could throw him (or her).

So you're not going to accept the testimony of experts ? Then you will have to collect ice core samples, and tree ring data from all over the world, enter the data, and perform your own regression analysis.

But even then, you will only show a correlation between CO2 and temperatures. That won't be enough to convince you. You'll have to set up a mini-earth with perfect conditions, then inject CO2 into it and take measurements.

Then you'll have your perfect proof, God.

[Saipan]

So you're not going to accept the testimony of experts ? Then you will have to collect ice core samples, and tree ring data from all over the world, enter the data, and perform your own regression analysis.

Not really. I just cut more firewood and hope this winter won't be as lousy as the few previous ones.

As for lousy cold summers I already use 1/8" wetsuit here, and enjoy January one month snorkling at Phi-Phi Islands in very warm water

Edited October 1, 2010 by Saipan

[TimG]

So you're not going to accept the testimony of experts? Then you will have to collect ice core samples, and tree ring data from all over the world, enter the data, and perform your own regression analysis.

It depends entirely on data set. With ice core samples the results can be replicated by drilling different holes in different locations. This gives me a much higher degree of confidence than the data from trees where different samples have a completely different trend.

It is also not about doing things myself - it is about having confidence that the experts have come to their conclusions for the right reasons. If the experts followed a process I can trust I will accept their word. Having repeatable tests is a key part of a trustworthy process.

[Michael Hardner]

It depends entirely on data set. With ice core samples the results can be replicated by drilling different holes in different locations. This gives me a much higher degree of confidence than the data from trees where different samples have a completely different trend.

They use both methods.

It is also not about doing things myself - it is about having confidence that the experts have come to their conclusions for the right reasons. If the experts followed a process I can trust I will accept their word. Having repeatable tests is a key part of a trustworthy process.

Have come to their conclusions for the right reasons ? What does that mean ? They use mathematics, climatology and life sciences and the tests have been shown using different data...

Of course, if you're only looking for anomalies then you will find all kinds of strange things. But then you're not basing your study on data, just on your desire to find something weird.

[TimG]

Have come to their conclusions for the right reasons ? What does that mean ? They use mathematics, climatology and life sciences and the tests have been shown using different data.

There was no selection bias in the ice core data. They found the place where they thought they could get the longest record and drilled. Whatever came out was accepted and published. To verify their algorithms the compared results from different holes and got the same result. Tree rings are a different business. The scientists select the cores that provide the 'best story'. If a series does not provide the desired results it never gets used. They choose statistical algorithms that are known to create artificial hockey sticks. Basically, the dendro scientists do not follow a process I have confidence in but the ice core scientists do.

Of course, if you're only looking for anomalies then you will find all kinds of strange things. But then you're not basing your study on data, just on your desire to find something weird.

I am looking for evidence that the process followed meets the scientific standards that I have.

[ToadBrother]

I mean any reproducable real life process where the outcome is successfully predicted by the theory. The word "reproducable" is key because that is the only way to seperate an accurate prediction from a lucky guess.

Can you define "real life process"? You seem to be using a helluva lot of wiggle words, things that don't map so far as I can tell to actual methodological approaches. What, for instance, would be a real life process to comparing the femur of an extinct Australopithecine to a modern human? What is the real life process for testing planetary formation models?

I'm thinking you probably would reject most of science, except probably for engineering, which isn't a science at all. But I need to understand the terminology here, because you're not using anything like the terminology I'm familiar with.

[ToadBrother]

I am looking for evidence that the process followed meets the scientific standards that I have.

And how do *your* scientific standards apply to, say, quantum chromodynamics? How about evolutionary population genetics?

[TimG]

How about evolutionary population genetics?

The concept of evolution has been validated in real life experiments in the lab and in the wild. The evolution of drug resistent bacteria and pesticide resistent insects are perhaps the best examples.

I see no need to have an opinion on "quantum chromodynamics". If someone starts using it to justify government policy changes that I care about I will look into it.

[ToadBrother]

The concept of evolution has been validated in real life experiments in the lab and in the wild. The evolution of drug resistent bacteria and pesticide resistent insects are perhaps the best examples.

What about more complex concepts like molecular clocks, which used statistical techniques not all that removed the kind used in climatology?

I see no need to have an opinion on "quantum chromodynamics". If someone starts using it to justify government policy changes that I care about I will look into it.

In other words, you don't have an answer but the stock "climatology says bad things".

You're just a denier, my friend, and not even a very good one at that. The whole Nature claim, I see, has been disposed of once I presented to you that, if true, dozens of disciplines would be in trouble.

[Michael Hardner]

Tree rings are a different business. The scientists select the cores that provide the 'best story'. If a series does not provide the desired results it never gets used.

That was the accusation with using recent tree ring data, but it's ridiculous - you can use modern temperature measurements and ignore tree ring data for recent years as they don't match temperature.

[TimG]

That was the accusation with using recent tree ring data, but it's ridiculous - you can use modern temperature measurements and ignore tree ring data for recent years as they don't match temperature.

Ok. This is an excellent example of how shoddy science has become 'accepted practice' in climate science. You see the tree reconstructions are based on the *assumption* that tree rings are linearly related to temp. If tree rings do not correlate with temps during the modern period then that assumption is clearly wrong and the entire dataset must be thrown out. However, a discarded dataset does not pad the publishing record for a scientist so he looks for an excuse to justify using the data despite the lack of correlation. The excuse used is there was something unique about the modern period that explains the divergance. There is no evidence fo this assumption and no way to show a similar divergance did not occur in the past. But the excuse is quietly accepted because it is convenient. These kinds of subjective claims is why many aspects of climate science are nothing but opinion. Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

In other words, you don't have an answer but the stock "climatology says bad things".

My answer is I have done research into climate science. I understand how they draw their conclusions from the available data and I find that they do not meet my standards. I don't really care if you claim other fields that do similar things because I can't know if they are really similar without researching the field as much as I have researched climate science. If I have no information about a scientific field I look for evidence that the claims can be verified experimentally. If they can then that gives me confidence that shoddy claims would be discovered and repudiated. If they can't be verified experimentally then I can't say about the field. It is quite possible that other fields have similar problems.

My rant about Nature was entirely based on their approach to the climate issue. I was wrong to suggest that the everything the magazine does is as tainted as its climate work. But as far as climate goes I have nothing but whithering contempt for so called 'piller of the scientific establishment' that uses words like 'denier' to denigrate scientists who do not support their political views. It is the position of Nature that leads me to believe that the entire field has been corrupted by the belief they need to save humanity from itself and it is not simply a matter of a few bad apples.

Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Ok. This is an excellent example of how shoddy science has become 'accepted practice' in climate science. You see the tree reconstructions are based on the *assumption* that tree rings are linearly related to temp. If tree rings do not correlate with temps during the modern period then that assumption is clearly wrong and the entire dataset must be thrown out.

Except that tree ring data does align to temperatures for other periods, which is borne out by the ice data. And tree ring data is only wrong for recent times, for which we have better data.

However, a discarded dataset does not pad the publishing record for a scientist so he looks for an excuse to justify using the data despite the lack of correlation. The excuse used is there was something unique about the modern period that explains the divergance. There is no evidence fo this assumption and no way to show a similar divergance did not occur in the past. But the excuse is quietly accepted because it is convenient. These kinds of subjective claims is why many aspects of climate science are nothing but opinion.

There could easily be something else affecting tree growth, such as pollution. Clearly something is happening, as the data doesn't correlate into the modern period.

Even if you throw the tree ring data out, it still shows warming, but there are warmer periods in the MWP, from what I've read. Therefore, this amounts to a quibble.

[TimG]

Except that tree ring data does align to temperatures for other periods, which is borne out by the ice data.

There is no ice data that can be compared to the tree ring data. The glacier cores don't go back to the MWP. The polar cores don't have the resolution. There is not one shred of evidence that supports the view that the divergence is unique to the late 20th.

There could easily be something else affecting tree growth, such as pollution. Clearly something is happening, as the data doesn't correlate into the modern period.

The most likely explanation is trees are not thermometers and any apparent correlation is coincidental. There is peer reviewed literature that shows trees may actually have a non-linear response to temps but this is ignored because it would destroy the careers of several scientists. They have no choice but to believe trees have a linear response.

Even if you throw the tree ring data out, it still shows warming, but there are warmer periods in the MWP, from what I've read. Therefore, this amounts to a quibble.

Actually, there are no proxies that give us compelling evidence of the temperatures over the last 2000 years. Everyone is flawed and the reasonable conclusion we can make is the MWP could have been warmer than today but we don't and cannot know.

[waldo]

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.

nonsense - a parameter tuning capability does not imply model reproductions are fit to observations... if that were the case there wouldn't be such a large spread in model reproductions. (note: my overt generalization follows lock-step with your continual lack of specificity).