SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-just-need-a-test-world-to-play-around-with dept.
From The Guardian
Those who reject the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming often invoke Galileo as an example of when the scientific minority overturned the majority view. In reality, climate contrarians have almost nothing in common with Galileo, whose conclusions were based on empirical scientific evidence, supported by many scientific contemporaries, and persecuted by the religious-political establishment. Nevertheless, there's a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong.
To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results.
Alas the results weren't good for that 3%...
Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared. We found that many contrarian research papers omitted important contextual information or ignored key data that did not fit the research conclusions.
The article also notes,
..there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. 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. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:07AM
Exactly. When they fall back on 'consensus' you know they have lost. Because 'consensus' has no place in science but everything to do with politics. In science one dissent with a stubborn repeatable observation, fact or demonstratable flaw in the prevailing 'settled science' wins.
Which is where AGW falls flat. It makes no testable claims, it has no facts other than a lot of obviously 'renormalized' raw climate data and some computer models that ALL failed (failed as in predictions outside the error bars compared to measured reality.. even the 'renormalized' 'reality') to predict current reality when run back a generation ago. They took that setback without blinking an eye and, wearing their snapiest labcoat, look right into the camera and assure that these, new improved models are the shizzle and accurately predict the next century to a fraction of a decimal point. It is nothing more and nothing less than a faith based system. Which is why it is a waste of time to engage a believer in a science based rational debate, may as well try to reason a Christian, Jew or Muslim out their religion.
What we can do is raise these points with the masses who buy into it because the schools taught them and the media reinforced it and they never heard another point of view. They want a political fight, give them one. Then once convince a critical mass we seize the levers of government back; CUT THEIR DAMNED FUNDING OFF and most of the 'scientists' will follow the new funding priorities like the good whores they are while the true believers (Mann) will retreat to some Soros funded institute to fume from their ivory towers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:25AM
Fuck you, ignorant fuck.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:42AM
You know, it is not often that I mod a comment that says
Fuck you, ignorant fuck.
But it seems appropriate in this case. So let me add my opinion to the consensus that is riding up the climate denier's crack, and say, "Fuck you, you ignorant fucks." I think that captures the scientific consensus as well as it could be captured. And I hope you realize, that when you are paid by petrochemical corporations (I have several family members who ended up there), they have nothing to pay you with but more crude.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:56AM
Love this 'logic.' I lay down some finishing moves like "makes no testable claims" and that AGW is "a faith based belief system" and instead of facts I get butthurt; like insulted somebody's religion or fav football team.
And of course the lame 'gotta be on the payroll of big petro' as deflection from the clearly observable reality that almost all bigtime AGW proponents directly benefit financially from the AGW theory. Al Gore made about a hundred mil. The government, which stands to gain almost limitless -power- from 'solving AGW' ladles out billions in grant money to believers who produce good propaganda.
But for the record, I do not work for big oil. I do own a few shares in the petro industry though, hell, the whole stock market was marked down to move early this week and BP was down near Gulf Coast oil spill levels... couldn't resist. :)
(Score: 5, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @06:50AM
And you expect us to take the word of a climate denier when they say they do not work for big oil? Jmorris! Do you take your fellow Soylentils for fools? If you were a shill for big oil, of course you would say that. And if you were not, even more would you say that. But this is not the issue. The issue is that this has been turned into a political issue by the unreconstructed ass-backward conservatives in the United States, and they will deny any and all scientific evidence. But it has finally come to this: if you are a climate change denier, your opinion on anything is worthless. You either are stupid (and just a while ago I read rational stuff by a certain jmorris), or you are bought. There is no other alternative, and your insistence otherwise just tightens the horns of the dilemma. Which are you? (Really?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:13AM
Some screws got loose in your little head, son.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:34AM
I contain multitudes. You? Not so much. Perhaps some work on insults is in order? For example, instead of just saying "screws loose" (congrats on not using "lose"), you could impute severe cognitive disability, or suggest a psychotic detachment from reality! So it has come to this! The only people the oil companies can hire are those not intelligent enough to realize they are being used, or what amount to the same thing, Republicans. (Almost said "Libertarians", since most Republicans are too embarrassed to admit to being Republicans, after the whole 2008 market implosion as a result of tax cuts and de-regulation of the Bush administration, and, oh, the illegal war of aggression against the United States erstwhile ally in the Middle East.) Which oil company is paying you to deny climate change? You know, a free market only works when there is zero cost to information about transactions, so the going rate for an oil company shill should be public information, otherwise they are engaging in distortion of the market! But then, they are Oil Companies, aren't they. But I have to say that either you are not being paid enough, since this is a dirty job and evidently no one else wants to do it, or you are being paid too much because you are so bad at it.
I have no idea how big your head is, but I am quite sure that I am not your son, because I knew my father.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @08:22AM
Did someone insult your sacred cow?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @01:16PM
No. I am a scientist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @06:38PM
More of a Sacred Bull, judging from the scat.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Saturday August 29 2015, @06:12AM
When they fall back on 'consensus' you know they have lost. Because 'consensus' has no place in science but everything to do with politics.
you are correct that consensus doesn't make something true. it doesn't matter how many people agree, thinking something doesn't mean it's true. what makes it true is physics which is why we have scientists record data for later analysis. what this study does is evaluate conflicting data analysis that would explain the incongruent finding. what they found was some scientists manipulated the data by omitting some of it. when the omitted data is put back in, the finding by these scientists are found to be in conflict with the data as a whole.
it's unfortunate that you think the data isn't evidence of the obvious but remember, thinking something doesn't mean it's true, no matter how many people agree with you.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:02AM
Oh, if only the Kock Brothers could get a majority of people to believe that Global Warming was a hoax!
but remember, thinking something doesn't mean it's true, no matter how many people agree with you.
What? Are you saying that the public relations campaign is doomed to failure, because even if it succeeds, it has no bearing on reality and truth (and all that is good and holy, and not part of the John Birch Society, of which the Koch Bros dad was a founding member). Nice to know that the rejection of majority opinion totally discredits those who are rejecting majority opinion. Except, it is majority opinion of scientist, not Lyndon LaRouche supporters and John Birchers, and Infowars, and, well, crazy people in general. A majority of crazy people is, well, still crazy. (After all these years, with apologies to Willie Nelson, who is not. )
(Score: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:35AM
You cannot prove something is correct by showing that something else is wrong. Quite often there are multiple wrong answers.
Showing that the deniers have fudged the data does not mean that the true believers have not fudged it also.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:51AM
Showing that the deniers have fudged the data does not mean that the true believers have not fudged it also.
OH, oH, Oh!!! This is soooo logically correct that it almost hurts my brain. It also is a fallacy. Showing the deniers have fudged data shows they are lying sacks of shit with ulterior motives. Yes, it does not mean that the Climate Change Theorists (we call them "scientists"; "true believers" seems inappropriate) did not also. Of course, equally, and maybe a bit more so, it does not suggest they did fudge the data. Citation needed?
I am starting to think we need a special mod category (yes, yes, I know, and I am against more categories in general): How about Oil Troll? We seem to have so many. And their logic is easily identifiable. Trolls. Oily Trolls. Trolls of Oil. Petroleum Trolls. Climate Denier Trolls.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday August 29 2015, @08:24AM
I do not work for big oil, and I think it is quite likely that humans are changing the climate. Doubling the level of CO2 is going to have an effect.
However, the right way to tackle this is with science, not a 'green' religion.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @02:45PM
And 97% of scientists agree with you.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @12:20PM
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:53PM
Showing that the deniers have fudged the data does not mean that the true believers have not fudged it also.
that is absolutely true, so perhaps we should have a study to see who fudged the numbers in support of human-caused global warming.
(Score: 5, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday August 29 2015, @04:33PM
Controversy! Federal scientists have been accused of fiddling with the temperature record [telegraph.co.uk]. Sky Marshall Tehat Meru launches an investigation! Would you like to know more?
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php [noaa.gov]
The most important bias globally was the modification in measured sea surface temperatures associated with the change from ships throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck, and putting a thermometer in it, to reading the thermometer in the engine coolant water intake. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations so the early data have been adjusted warmer to remove that bias. This makes global temperatures indicate less warming than the raw data.
The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.
Sky Marshall Tehat Meru has also instituted a new methodology for controlling for location or instrument changes at various sites that cause visible jumps in the raw data. Would you like to know more? [noaa.gov]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @09:29PM
So as a scientist, occasionally dabbling in climate change related research, I guess I have to reply.
I admit that sometimes despair when I see replies like yours. You are framing your argument as somehow scientific, while basically completely failing to understand what science is about or how it works, and you obviously have a very low opinion of it.
I could try to start a discussion on some of your claims, but I am convinced it will not work, as you have already made up your mind. Its exactly the same as arguing with a creationist. Its impossible to change your believes as they are not scientific.
In such discussion, I would raise arguments similar to those found in many research papers on this topic, and you would deny them all, by finding some detail not fully in agreement, inconsistencies and mistakes, or simply disbelieving measurements, and you would insist that we are all mislead by the need to get funding or other non-scientific reasons.
So I will not attempt to go into futile endeavors. You have your right to believe as you wish afterall.
What surprises me however is that you seem to think that you can prevent the truth from coming out when you would cut funding to climate research. As someone with some experience in writing successful research proposals I think I can assure you this matters little (though it would be somewhat ridiculous to write things in circumspect ways).
In fact, I have a much better idea that would achieve your goals, and I would like to offer this to you as a reply:
Instead of the imperfect attempt to steer science with funding, I think you should argue for laws and regulations that simply forbid scientist to do certain work, with the appropriate amount of money reserved for people to check up on such rules. Perhaps a council of wise men can be instated that regulates research. Obviously most (all?) of these are not scientists (they would not be able to adequately control themselves), but laymen like you, important religious people, critics, and people who generally have a different opinion, etc. People who simply know what is best for us all, and what is true and what is wrong. Some countries have already implemented such a similar system, and it seems to achieve its goals.
I hope you will soon advocate this wonderful idea in your country (which is, I am happy to know, is unlikely to be the one I currently reside in).
Best,
Moondrake (who forgot his password while on holiday)