K
Karen107
Guest
When a bunch of doctors examine smokers and say that in 97% of the time they will develop adverse affects from smoking will that mean that the 3 percent of doctors disagree that they won’t means they probably wont?
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Suppose I accept that scientists are not to be trusted. That raises the question of who we should trust instead. The view with the most blog posts? My own personal view based on personal observations? Back in the days of snake oil salesmen, people were convinced by the strength of personality or charisma of the salesman. Was that a better way of determining truth? There is a definite shortage of good alternatives to trusting the consensus of working scientists. I would be interested to know what your choice would be for a replacement.
Why should I trust Lindzen over a group of equally passionate scientists who happen to be on the side of the consensus? What elevates what he says above what the others are saying?
If this is the criterion on which scientists should be mistrusted, why doesn’t that criterion apply to the equally political opponents of the consensus view?
After telling me to distrust scientists because they are becoming too political, you quote a politician.
Do you honestly believe there is more money in promoting global warming theory than in opposing it?
S
sps49
Guest
You could say that, and it would be your opinion, but it would of course be wrong. No where did I say I do not trust all scientists. Your grasp of what science is and what I know is equally distorted and incorrect. This may serve in a marginal way your rhetoric, but it will ultimately fail since it is unsupported, as the rest of your claims are.
The IPCC consensus is political, not scientific, since it is a political structure. And of course the IPCC, as well as almost all scientific bodies are secular, what made you think it was spiritually based?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
My statement was about strategies for the seeker of truth. Your “in other words” is about a strategy for persuaders to influence what people think is true. They are strategies for difference groups of people. So your statement is not the same as mine “in other words”. Your statement is more like “on the other hand…”
So taking it that way, I will say that when one is seeking truth, one must be careful that others may try to use an appearance of consensus to influence opinion, which is what I think you were warning against. I agree this is a danger to be taken into account when searching for truth.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
If one doctor had verifiable PROOF that 97% of the time people actually develop adverse effects from smoking…then he would be right.
K
Karen107
Guest
Real science includes prevention… When it is cold out, people can put another layer of clothes on but when the sun comes out and the heat is on people can only so much they can do to keep from burning up. That goes for people, plants, water, animals. All the things that we need to survive. In other words, our world is what it is because the conditions are right, not too warm and not too cold and if we don’t pay attention to it, nothing will matter the earth will build up heat and become inhabitable. The best way to prevent illness is to stop it in it’s tracks by living a healthy lifestyle and the same goes for our earth… Our livestyles in the modern world is lavish and people just don’t want to give up their things… Well there are always alternatives which may not be the same but none the less keep our lives enjoyable. It appears Zoltan that you believe giving up means having less instead of having more… More in the way of a healthier lifestyle for all concerned. .
K
Karen107
Guest
But there are those who would ‘deny’ it’s wasn’t the smoking it was their diet and lifestyle that made them sick so why worry about smoking even as the PROOF existed that smoking caused illnesses…:
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Too late for that now…Real scientists have concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.
I recall that the earth has built up heat before…and cooled down…many times in it’s billion year lifespan…with or without man.
That is assuming that your idea of an unhealthy lifestyle is the cause of the “illness”.
No, I believe that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. The one who speaks of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Then they are fools. As are those who followed Chicken Little…
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
To be clear, it is not that I don’t trust any scientists at all. I distrust members of the climate science establishment. Within that community there are some I trust more than others. For example, I will trust Richard Muller more than Michael Mann.
And I agree that the IPCC has positioned itself as the gold standard authority as the world’s interpreter and summarizer of current state of climate science. However, I disagree that deserves that title. Contrary to what you say, the IPCC is not an organization of scientists. It is an organization of governments. Which scientific organization lets the politicians pick which scientists participate in its review process? Which scientific organization, worth of the name, lets the politicians summarize its findings? Which scientific organization lets the politicians rewrite the scientific reports so that they conform to the prewritten summaries?
You really need to read Donna Laframboise’s book, The Delinquent Teenager. It will quickly demolish the IPCC’s scientific pretentions. And don’t forget to read my cross-x of Dr. Pachauri early in this thread.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferdgoodfellow in response to Leaf. View Post
In general, I agree with you. Normally we do trust the collective and cumulative wisdom of scientists. However, there are fields where we ought not be so trusting. Climate science is definitely one of them.
Reply from Leaf:
Who then to trust? If the consensus position of working scientists is suspect, then you look to what the dissenting minority is saying. And in this debate you need to recognize that the climate science establishment is a political majority. They occupy the high ground in this debate. The federal government, the whole Obama administration, is on their side. They have stacked the American Academy of Sciences in their favor. The control NOAA and NASA and all the other custodians of the surface temperature record. They control the funding process and apparatus. But they have had their critics along the way. Are these all quacks, cranks, and tools of the oily, coaly, gassy, fossil fuel industry (nod to Lynn) or erstwhile defenders of tobacco?
Quote, originally posted by ferd:
Richard Lindzen, retired atmospheric physicist, thinks the entire discipline is corrupt.
Leaf replied:
Quote from ferd:
There is no single explanation, but we can begin by noting the disturbing trend towards “post-normal” science which encourages political activism by scientists.
To which Leaf replied:
Quote from ferd:
Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech is famous for his dire warnings about the “military industrial complex.” Not so well known is his warning about the danger of becoming captive to a “scientific-technological elite,” which seems to describe very well what has happened in the United States.
To which Leaf replied:
Quote by ferd:
Of course, there is money and greed. Today no one gets funded saying global warming isn’t a problem.
To which Leaf replied:
Originally Posted by ferdgoodfellow in response to Leaf. View Post
In general, I agree with you. Normally we do trust the collective and cumulative wisdom of scientists. However, there are fields where we ought not be so trusting. Climate science is definitely one of them.
Reply from Leaf:
Some scientists, who have given us good reason not to trust them, are not to be trusted.
Who then to trust? If the consensus position of working scientists is suspect, then you look to what the dissenting minority is saying. And in this debate you need to recognize that the climate science establishment is a political majority. They occupy the high ground in this debate. The federal government, the whole Obama administration, is on their side. They have stacked the American Academy of Sciences in their favor. The control NOAA and NASA and all the other custodians of the surface temperature record. They control the funding process and apparatus. But they have had their critics along the way. Are these all quacks, cranks, and tools of the oily, coaly, gassy, fossil fuel industry (nod to Lynn) or erstwhile defenders of tobacco?
Quote, originally posted by ferd:
Richard Lindzen, retired atmospheric physicist, thinks the entire discipline is corrupt.
Leaf replied:
Well, has he behaved as badly as the climate science establishment led by the IPCC? I know this is a negative way to approach the question of trust, but that is a way to begin.
Quote from ferd:
There is no single explanation, but we can begin by noting the disturbing trend towards “post-normal” science which encourages political activism by scientists.
To which Leaf replied:
I don’t know too many of the dissenters who are scientists who have gone post-modern and don’t believe in objective truth or least that we can get some grasp of it. Even those that begin with a definite political bias–say Christy and Spencer–still show a greater fidelity to the truth than–say Mann, Jones, Schneider.
Quote from ferd:
Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech is famous for his dire warnings about the “military industrial complex.” Not so well known is his warning about the danger of becoming captive to a “scientific-technological elite,” which seems to describe very well what has happened in the United States.
To which Leaf replied:
Not just any politician. Read his farewell speech. As a former general, he was trying to first warn about the military industrial complex, which liberals are fond of remembering. What they are not so fond of remembering is that he, as a soon to be departed president and head of the executive branch, saw how the country can become subject to the scientific-technological elite. Bjorn Lomborg applied this notion to the climate science establishment–although I thought of it first!–in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. I forget what he called it (something like the climate industrial complex). Think EPA, General Electric, Exelon Energy, NASA, Duke Energy, universities, Enron, Goldman Sachs…
Quote by ferd:
Of course, there is money and greed. Today no one gets funded saying global warming isn’t a problem.
To which Leaf replied:
Yes. Check out what Lindzen says on this. We are talking about billions and billions of government spending via federal funding of grants, wind farm boondoggle, Solyndra… When it comes to federal funding of research, all the incentives point in the direction of global warming alarmism.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Do you see this insight at all applicable to the climate science establishment led by the IPCC?
K
Karen107
Guest
Yes each time it was done over many thousands perhaps millions of years and they were devastating to life on the globe or man had to migrate, but now it will happen at an unnatural rate due to humans causing it and there are absolutely more humans on the earth who will be affected. Last I heard there were 7 billion people on earth many of them living next to the oceans and many people have already started to migrate due to changes in climate. Where are these people to go if the land is unfit for them to survive off of make the cities even more crowded and poverty stricken?? That wasn’t the case when people migrated before. They had time on their side and land that was fertile…
That’s the difference.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I do not agree that the IPCC has the power to “lead” climate scientists around the world to support a view that those scientists do not agree with. Scientists are notoriously stubborn people, and very skeptical. They are generally more interested in truth and their reputation than in making a quick buck. I just don’t see how a politically involved organization (like the IPCC) can do what you claim.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And many more non-scientists have given us good reason not to trust them either. On scientific questions, scientists still come off as more trustworthy than those that are not making the particular field their life’s work.
No, you said “Some scientists” have given us good reason not to trust them. You can’t automatically apply that to all, or even a majority of scientists.
Look at it, yes. But how do you evaluate it?
Sounds like a good thing to me. Not something that should cast doubt on their trustworthiness. Consider the converse: "This group here, the proponents of the flying spaghetti monster theory of climate change, are in a definite minority position. Therefore they should be trusted all the more!
Again, that’s a good thing.
Let’s see if I understand this (without using the prejudicial word “stacked”): The majority view scientists have made it so the American Academy of Sciences represents the majority view. Well, that’s better than having the American Academy of Sciences represent the minority view. Although ideally they should allow all views. Still, there is no evidence that the Academy is unfairly suppressing a widespread dissenting view, is there?
Who else besides scientists do you want to entrust with the gathering and presenting of surface temperature data? Non-scientists who don’t know what they are doing?
It would be a fine way to establish your point, if it were true. First of all, as I said before, there is no proof that political elements within the IPCC are capable of “leading” climate scientists to go where they do not want to go. Secondly, I do not know that the majority of climate scientists have “behaved badly”, and the only reason I don’t know about Lindzen’s behavior is that I don’t know anything about him. He may be an axe murder, or maybe a saint, for all I know.
Uh, where did you establish that the majority of climate scientists do not believe in objective truth?
The only obvious difference between these two groups of scientists is that the first group represents the view you favor while the second group does not.
Why? There is plenty of money available from the oil industry to fund anyone who wants to make the case that global warming isn’t a problem.
When you talk about billions and billions you are no doubt combining every research and development grant having to do with energy efficiency and the development of alternate energy. In the US, 17 billion is spent on pet food every year. That’s a lot more than is spent on alternate energy. And the research grants for global warming specifically are just a tiny fraction of the overall funding that you mentioned.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Good morning Leaf,
The reality is something quite different. The IPCC does not always pick the best and the brightest to be its lead authors. The member governments pick the scientists, and they often choose people based on criteria other than status in their field. Graduates students years away from their PHD’s have often filled that role. Leading scientists with dissenting views are shut out or quit in frustration. The number of participating scientists is greatly exaggerated and so is their implied agreement. Actually a small handful participate in writing the summaries. Those contributing to the report are really only signing off on their particular section and not endorsing the whole report. Reviewers who have been critical of the reports are nevertheless counted among the “thousands of scientists.” I could expound much more, but you get the idea.
So I would say the IPCC is very guilty of using the appearance of consensus to influence the public and public policy.
I
We can talk about the leadability of climate scientists, but first lets look at how IPCC tries to use an appearance of consensus to influence public opinion and policymaking. The IPCC claims that its published reports and summaries are the work of thousands of the best climate scientists from around the world who have painstakingly distilled pure climate truth from only the best peer-reviewed studies and following only the very best scientific practices.
The reality is something quite different. The IPCC does not always pick the best and the brightest to be its lead authors. The member governments pick the scientists, and they often choose people based on criteria other than status in their field. Graduates students years away from their PHD’s have often filled that role. Leading scientists with dissenting views are shut out or quit in frustration. The number of participating scientists is greatly exaggerated and so is their implied agreement. Actually a small handful participate in writing the summaries. Those contributing to the report are really only signing off on their particular section and not endorsing the whole report. Reviewers who have been critical of the reports are nevertheless counted among the “thousands of scientists.” I could expound much more, but you get the idea.
So I would say the IPCC is very guilty of using the appearance of consensus to influence the public and public policy.
Scientists are poor, pitiful hooman beans suffering from concupiscence, just like you and me. The climategate emails are very revealing of the coercive nature of the IPCC and the weakness of individual scientists. e.g. Keith Briffa resisted for a time the drive to “present a nice tidy story” concerning the unprecedented warming in the late 20th century. Mann et al were concerned that Briffa’s tree ring study, which showed temperatures dropping in the late 20th century (the so-called divergence problem plaguing paleo studies), diluted the message they wanted to give in the summaries for policymakers. They wanted to show a spaghetti graph with all strands showing a sharp uptick at the end, but Briffa’s graph had a pronounced drop. The emails show he resisted but eventually overcame his pangs of conscience and caved totally. The embarrassing decline was simply deleted. Briffa went on to be the lead author of the paleo section where he slavishly towed the company line.
I
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Good morning to you too, ferd.
You are trying to get me to switch from supporting scientists to supporting the IPCC and/or governments. It won’t work.
Could it be that PhDs have more lucrative things to do than to work for the IPCC? Like work for industry. That’s where the real money is.
You seem to think that only the IPCC funds climate research.
The same could be said of those who deny climate science. But if you look over the long history of science, back to when science was a non-paying hobby, the desire to know the truth has always been a strong motivator. And the desire for fame. Even today, the desire for fame is just as strong as the desire for money. Since the perceived consensus is for global warming, a scientist would have much more fame if he could poke holes in the existing theory and prove that it was wrong. You don’t need to assume altruism on the part of these scientists to see that there is a strong self-interest motivation for them to be the one that finally shot down global warming. How much fame is there in being the scientist who says “Yup, all those guys at the IPCC are right, I guess.” ?
Anecdotes do not establish statistical significance.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
In general, yes. But you have to admit that are circumstances where individual scientists, and even entire communities of them, should not be trusted. For example, let’s imagine that we are on a jury where Michael Mann has been called as an expert witness. He has been called to testify on the unprecedented warming in the latter part of the 20th century. He has been qualified as expert witness by citing all his degrees, publications, status as an IPCC lead author, etc. He gives his testimony and cites his studies and the work of all his colleagues. He then delivers the money quote: The warming in the latter part of the 20th century was unprecedented in 1,000-2,000 years.
But then via cross-examination and the testimony of other witnesses we learn the following:
- He materially misrepresented his data and methods in his famous 1998 Hockey Stick study.
- He was guilty of conduct unbecoming a scientist in that he impeded efforts to replicate his study.
- He did not disclose results which contradicted his conclusions and he spoke falsely about the fact that his reconstructions failed key verification tests.
- Two expert panels, including one very friendly to him (the NAS panel), agreed that his his hockey stick was an artifact of his faulty statistical methods.
- The NAS panel also dinged him for using certain proxies (bristlecone pine) which are inappropriate for temperature reconstructions.
- He continued to use bristlecone proxies in subsequent studies.
- He encouraged a fellow scientist to delete emails in order to thwart a FOIA request.
- He conspired with other scientists to prevent skeptical articles from being published in journals.
- The paleo-community, of which he is the undisputed leader, is very close-knit and insular. Friends’ review each other’s work.
- There is a culture of cherry picking the data.
- Mann’s colleagues all follow Mann’s lead and stonewall efforts to audit their work.
- They all tend to use the same data over and over again.
and so on.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If the entire case rested on this one man, you might have a point.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
In some cases…yes. Other times proved beneficial. The mild summers and winters of the Medieval Warm Period led to good harvests in much of Europe. Wheat cultivation and vineyards flourished at far higher latitudes and elevations than today. Norse colonies in Iceland and Greenland prospered.
That was followed by the Little Ice Age. Alpine glaciers advanced far below their previous (and present) limits, obliterating farms, churches, and villages in Switzerland, France, and elsewhere. Frequent cold winters and cool, wet summers ruined wine harvests and led to crop failures and famines over much of northern and central Europe. The North Atlantic cod fisheries declined as ocean temperatures fell in the 17th century. The Norse colonies on the coast of Greenland were cut off from the rest of Norse civilization during the early 15th century as pack ice and storminess increased in the North Atlantic. The western colony of Greenland collapsed through starvation, and the eastern colony was abandoned. In addition, Iceland became increasingly isolated from Scandinavia.
All of this in the last 1900 years…not millions of years. Also since this happened before I bought my first SUV…what caused it?
:tsktsk: You can’t say that, Karen. AGW is still a theory Whatever caused the big swing from the Medieval Warm period to the Little Ice Age was not man made CO2.
Gee, if that’s the case maybe I should invest in some potential beachfront property in Nevada.and there are absolutely more humans on the earth who will be affected. Last I heard there were 7 billion people on earth many of them living next to the oceans and many people have already started to migrate due to changes in climate. Where are these people to go if the land is unfit for them to survive off of make the cities even more crowded and poverty stricken?? That wasn’t the case when people migrated before. They had time on their side and land that was fertile…
- Status