PDA

View Full Version : It's not the time to discuss climate change



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

BackFistMonkey
10/18/2017 7:35am,
Is the conclusion that the 97% of scientists that agree in human accelerated climate change can take a 30% hit, but the 3% can't?

Of course not. Those 3% are a 100% correct, despite the lack of consensus among that 3% and almost 100% of the peer reviewed human climate change denier papers have been shown to contain serious flaws which affected their outcomes.


"Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed" (https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/)



But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)
Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.
Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.
“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.
One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language R—which conveniently works on all computer platforms—to replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.
Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.
And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup,” the authors write.
Those who assert that these papers are correct while the other 97% are wrong are holding up science where the researchers had already decided what results they sought, the authors of the review say. Good science is objective—it doesn’t care what anyone wants the answers to be.
The review serves as an answer to the charge that the minority view on climate change has been consistently suppressed, wrote Hayhoe. “It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology… They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them.” Indeed, the review raises the question of how these papers came to be published in the first place, when they used flawed methodology, which the rigorous peer-review process is designed to weed out.
In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”

Article is sourced and continues in great detail.

W. Rabbit
10/18/2017 12:53pm,
LOL, you guys getting all riled up, because you think my message or the message of the video conflicts with your world view. This is fun.

I get triggered when people pull probabilities or ratios out of their butthole in any serious discussion about science.

On one hand, respectable peer reviewed journals (ACM, IEEE) have very difficult barriers to entry. You're not going to get your bullshit paper accepted there.

On another hand, you have open access journals that allow far more leniency, and on the third limb, you have the fake or pay-journals where you can get practically anything published as "research", usually for a price.

Doubt is good for science, but peer reviewed journals represent the bleeding edge of scholarly, scientific exploration, so naturally there's going to be some fluff, errata, or downright bullshido in there. Using that fact as any sort of philosophical razor is errant.

But that's why I pay so fucking much money to have access to peer reviewed journals, so I can find the fluff, errata, and bullshido in them and smear it all over myself like the Greasy Strangler.

W. Rabbit
10/18/2017 1:07pm,
This is a good thing to discuss. This "97" item has become a "meta debate", because the original figure came about to settle a very specific research question (what percentage of climate science papers both mention climate change AND conclude the evidence shows strong human interference and other factors). The study concluded that practically every scientific paper on climate change ever written (97%) supports, with a few outliers (and as you noted, those outliers are considered flaws by peer review AKA climate scientists).

This should have settled the argument...but Internet + people = infinite stupidity. As with most frosh-quality debates that don't involve proper critical analysis and discussion of source material, this 97 number now gets abused by climate change deniers as fake news hoaxing that doesn't meet their confirmation bias. In other words, if you pull out "97%!", they'll just say it's a made up number. Except it's not, it's a number developed from a formal, peer reviewed scientific study (immediately rendering 99.999% of the world's population unqualified to challenge the results, but damned if they're not going to try anyway, especially if they're being paid by lobbyists).

This is really no different than Flat Earth "theorists" who can't accept pictures of the Earth from space, or video Apollo astronauts on the Moon, as real things.


Of course not. Those 3% are a 100% correct, despite the lack of consensus among that 3% and almost 100% of the peer reviewed human climate change denier papers have been shown to contain serious flaws which affected their outcomes.

"Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed" (https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/)

Article is sourced and continues in great detail.

submessenger
10/18/2017 2:01pm,
(immediately rendering 99.999% of the world's population unqualified to challenge the results, but damned if they're not going to try anyway, especially if they're being paid by lobbyists)

It is EXACTLY this kind of hubris which fuels the fire. People don't like being called stupid, or patsies, or being generally talked down to. It's going to be exceedingly difficult to convince people on the proper course of action to resolve climate change issues, anthropogenic or not, when you've already alienated them.

BackFistMonkey
10/18/2017 2:35pm,
It is EXACTLY this kind of hubris which fuels the fire. People don't like being called stupid, or patsies, or being generally talked down to. It's going to be exceedingly difficult to convince people on the proper course of action to resolve climate change issues, anthropogenic or not, when you've already alienated them.

It took almost a whole month after the election of inadvertently insulting the **** out of people to really grasp this concept again. Of course I knew it already, I just didn't see myself doing it. Thank God HungryJoe, BKR, and Submessenger took the time to nit pick my comments and pointed out what I was doing, BKR specifically pointed out HOW I was doing it. I'd like to think I am not a moron at times, but I had no idea WTF they were talking about at first. I was throwing shade everywhere like Bnet does.

Neither common sense nor common courtesy are that common in people, I include myself included in that statement.

lant3rn
10/18/2017 2:42pm,
It is EXACTLY this kind of hubris which fuels the fire. People don't like being called stupid, or patsies, or being generally talked down to. It's going to be exceedingly difficult to convince people on the proper course of action to resolve climate change issues, anthropogenic or not, when you've already alienated them.

I'm sorry if you felt insulted or talked down too when people got on your case about this.

You have to understand, it's hard sometimes to talk on the same level all the time because assholes are naturally at a lower level then the human head and brain... this is just simple biology.

submessenger
10/18/2017 3:02pm,
I'm sorry if you felt insulted or talked down too when people got on your case about this.

LOL, thanks for saying. I'm not personally offended, but I understand how many people are. And, it's easy to understand how people on the "correct," side of an argument get huffy when people aren't "listening." I'm guilty of that, aren't we all?

Science and politics shouldn't ever mix, but they have in this case. Not casting blame, just saying we need to collectively find our way out of that trap. I think it's going to be a harder solve than the actual issue in play, because feelings have already been hurt.

W. Rabbit
10/18/2017 3:06pm,
It is EXACTLY this kind of hubris which fuels the fire. People don't like being called stupid, or patsies, or being generally talked down to. It's going to be exceedingly difficult to convince people on the proper course of action to resolve climate change issues, anthropogenic or not, when you've already alienated them.

Spoken like the Catholic Inquisition that put Galileo on trial.

It's not hubris, it's a technical fact that happens to annoy people, but so what. Fine, go be alienated and pound sound.

If you don't have a terminal degree in climate science, you are not qualified to challenge the conclusions of peer-reviewed climate science. There's no debate, nor any need to pander to anyone's feelings of intellectual inferiority, in fact doing so brings the entire thing down to the mob level, as opposed in the laboratory and field research where it belongs.

99.999% is a number I obviously pulled out of my butt to describe everyone, including myself, who doesn't qualify.

submessenger
10/18/2017 3:22pm,
Spoken like the Catholic Inquisition that put Galileo on trial.

It's not hubris, it's a technical fact that happens to annoy people, but so what. Fine, go be alienated and pound sound.

If you don't have a terminal degree in climate science, you are not qualified to challenge the conclusions of peer-reviewed climate science. There's no debate, nor any need to pander to anyone's feelings of intellectual inferiority, in fact doing so brings the entire thing down to the mob level, as opposed in the laboratory and field research where it belongs.

99.999% is a number I obviously pulled out of my butt to describe everyone, including myself, who doesn't qualify.

It is hubris, and yours, specifically, is immeasurably excessive, at times.

DCS
10/18/2017 3:54pm,
Science and politics shouldn't ever mix

Wrong.

submessenger
10/18/2017 4:04pm,
Wrong.

Oh, goody, a fundamental debate. I like philosophy. You start...

W. Rabbit
10/18/2017 4:08pm,
It is hubris, and yours, specifically, is immeasurably excessive, at times.

That's just what the Holy Inquisition's Qualifers told Galileo about his heretical ideas about heliocentricity, right before they called for him to recant and ordered the banishment of Copernican thought.

Hubris is thinking you can challenge and debate things as complex as climate science, evolutionary biology, or astrophysics without the appropriate schooling AND grading. Hubris is using the Internet, a technology intended to promote science education, to assault it with mob-like vulgarity because the newspaper you read or the demagogue you listen to compels you.

Yes, I am aware my whole life people think I'm excessively proud. I got beat up as a kid for getting A's, so I hid myself away. Now you get to hear me shout it from the mountaintop.

Humility is for hypo-Christians and fake gurus. I'll take scientific hubris any day, thanks.

submessenger
10/18/2017 4:26pm,
Hubris is thinking you can challenge and debate things as complex as climate science, evolutionary biology, or astrophysics without the appropriate schooling AND grading.

Hubris is telling people that they can't participate in the debate because they are not smart enough. Nifty trickery in including yourself in that list, but it doesn't absolve the Consensus.

Falenay
10/18/2017 4:30pm,
Oh, goody, a fundamental debate. I like philosophy. You start...

Werturteilsstreit. Basically the quarrel in early German (especially social and economic, as being very close to political matters) sciences about whether it should be science making the normative judgement about what is to be done ideally, or it should merely describe the outcomes of different political means and let politics decide what is the better choice.

Outcome: The latter option basically won, meaning that ever since it has been the common understanding that the job of science is to "objectively" describe the outcome of political options that in the end politics has to evaluate and decide upon. So basically, science and politics are mixed (as they mutually influence each other through wording of descriptions, given options, and descisions), and not mixed (as they formally differ in their function, i.e. description and interpretation vs. evaluation and descision).

What do I mean with "mixed" here? A basic criticism of science as only objectively describing is that it is only the interpretation of data that makes knowledge (as different from mere information) so that there is always intentional action included and there cannot possibly be such a thing as objective scientific description of any particular scenario (See Popper and Kripke). Additionally, the descriptions of outcomes are written for the addressee, so how should scientists be able to word them in an "objective" way, whatever this may mean? Science, to this extent, always is political. It follows an agenda, wants to make a point, and prove better than other theories.

But that's just some thoughts from a philosophy graduate.

BKR
10/18/2017 4:35pm,
LOL, thanks for saying. I'm not personally offended, but I understand how many people are. And, it's easy to understand how people on the "correct," side of an argument get huffy when people aren't "listening." I'm guilty of that, aren't we all?

Science and politics shouldn't ever mix, but they have in this case. Not casting blame, just saying we need to collectively find our way out of that trap. I think it's going to be a harder solve than the actual issue in play, because feelings have already been hurt.

Humans at base level are survival machines (for DNA...kinda like a virus, only replicates).

IMO, you have to make a conscious decision to function at higher levels than the above.

The layers of BS are daunting, or maybe that's just a DNA trick to get me to not care?

In the end, ya gotta move forward.

As I tell my boys, treat yourself and others kindly, even if it hurts...

BKR
10/18/2017 4:38pm,
Spoken like the Catholic Inquisition that put Galileo on trial.

It's not hubris, it's a technical fact that happens to annoy people, but so what. Fine, go be alienated and pound sound.

If you don't have a terminal degree in climate science, you are not qualified to challenge the conclusions of peer-reviewed climate science. There's no debate, nor any need to pander to anyone's feelings of intellectual inferiority, in fact doing so brings the entire thing down to the mob level, as opposed in the laboratory and field research where it belongs.

99.999% is a number I obviously pulled out of my butt to describe everyone, including myself, who doesn't qualify.

All we need is a totalitarian government run by climate scientists to save the day !