cmnf
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by cmnf on Jun 30, 2010 16:47:10 GMT
www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1998644,00.html This article in Time magazine talks to an author about how the public puts too much faith in experts, studies and news stories. Missing the obvious questions about global warming, but it is Time magazine. This may not show up in your version of the web page. At the bottom it has "Quotes of the Day": "It's June. It's too soon for hurricanes." Certainly not an expert there.
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jun 30, 2010 17:34:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 30, 2010 17:56:14 GMT
the striking similarity between CAGW true beleivers and ufoology true believers has amazed me for years.
|
|
|
Post by touko on Jun 30, 2010 18:41:23 GMT
the striking similarity between CAGW true beleivers and ufoology true believers has amazed me for yearsLikewise for me for the similarity of true deniers and Science Officer Ash. Ripley: Ash. Any suggestions from you or Mother? Ash: No, we're still collating. Ripley: [laughing in disbelief] You're what? You're still collating? I find that hard to believe. Ash: What would you like me to do? Ripley: Just what you've been doing, Ash, nothing. Touko
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 30, 2010 19:01:23 GMT
It's a good article and I agree with it, but it's missing something important although it does briefly touch upon it:
You say that some advice is good and even critically important. So how do we go about picking out the good from the bad? It seems like finding a needle in a haystack.
It is a needle in a haystack. Part of the problem is, we're kind of lazy about it. We would like to believe that experts have the answer for us. And what we pay the most attention to are the most recent, most exciting findings. Newspapers, magazines, TV and the Internet oblige us by constantly reporting the stuff. We face this sea of advice all the time.
This in my opinion is exactly why believing skeptic blogs and their 5-a-day takes on some part of the science is a big no no (and most of them aren't even experts - the chance of error is drastically larger). It's also a big no no to believe some new study that comes out concludes on a matter. Anything new is potentially wrong. Waiting is better, as he explains, emphasis added:
So where is that needle in the haystack? I think the best thing to do is to discount as much as possible the more recent findings and pay more attention to the findings that have been floating around for some years. With a little bit of work, I think most of us can figure out how to answer some of these basic questions about whether advice seems to be pointing in the right direction or whether it seems to be falling apart.
This is the important point that he should have emphasised more. New claims are very unreliable. He mentions medical study results being overturned within a few years. A claim that survives a decade or more is more reliable. So too is a claim which many experts have come ot accept because that shows they have looked at it and haven't spotted any obvious problems.
In relation to AGW, the core tenents are decades old. You can go back to IPCC report #1 and see the same stuff. Same co2 rise caused by humans, same warming from co2, same high climate sensitivity climate. The fundamentals of how man is warming the planet through greenhouse gas emissions is something which isn't "new" and so is far less likely to be overturned this year than say a medical study just released making a new claim.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Jun 30, 2010 19:55:49 GMT
Yeah, socold's dead right. Remember Ptolemy. That science was around for quite some time and is therefore unlikely to be overturned either.
"It was embraced by both Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy, and most, but not all, Ancient Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circle the Earth. Similar ideas were held in ancient China." - Wiki
Therefore consensus, and over some time. "And so is far less likely to be overturned.." blah blah blah. You want fries with that?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 30, 2010 20:49:34 GMT
Dealing a 10 of Clubs from the top of a shuffled pack of cards is far less likely than dealing a diamond. Yet if I deal a 10 of Clubs by your logic that means the above statement is false.
Point being that just because you can point to isolated examples of scientific ideas being overturned many years after becoming established as consensus doesn't mean they aren't the best bet. The worst bet is to believe newly published papers (and WUWT blog posts), because they have a worse track record for refutation than arrived consensus ideas.
Additionally even when consensus ideas have been shown wrong - often it's not completely wrong, but only slightly. For example Darwinism was accepted as consensus after many decades, but subsequently turned out wrong - but not entirely the modern theory still includes much of the same stuff. Same with Newtonian physics - consensus of the day but turned out it was wrong. But not entirely wrong.
And I heard there used to be a consensus that the earth was a sphere. It was subsequently found to be slightly pear shaped. So was the scientific consensus that it was a sphere wrong? Yes but only by a matter of a tiny degree.
By and large if you ignore ideas which experts have established as consensus which has lasted for decades you will know less than if you accept what they have concluded. (for example if I am to ignore consensus I won't be beleiving continental drift or the big bang or the age of the earth, or the distance of stars from Earth or the temperature of the sun, etc etc).
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 30, 2010 21:15:52 GMT
Dealing a 10 of Clubs from the top of a shuffled pack of cards is far less likely than dealing a diamond. Yet if I deal a 10 of Clubs by your logic that means the above statement is false.
Point being that just because you can point to isolated examples of scientific ideas being overturned many years after becoming established as consensus doesn't mean they aren't the best bet. The worst bet is to believe newly published papers (and WUWT blog posts), because they have a worse track record for refutation than arrived consensus ideas.
Additionally even when consensus ideas have been shown wrong - often it's not completely wrong, but only slightly. For example Darwinism was accepted as consensus after many decades, but subsequently turned out wrong - but not entirely the modern theory still includes much of the same stuff. Same with Newtonian physics - consensus of the day but turned out it was wrong. But not entirely wrong.
And I heard there used to be a consensus that the earth was a sphere. It was subsequently found to be slightly pear shaped. So was the scientific consensus that it was a sphere wrong? Yes but only by a matter of a tiny degree.
By and large if you ignore ideas which experts have established as consensus which has lasted for decades you will know less than if you accept what they have concluded. (for example if I am to ignore consensus I won't be beleiving continental drift or the big bang or the age of the earth, or the distance of stars from Earth or the temperature of the sun, etc etc). You have the wrong measure Socold!The correct measure isn't how long something has been sitting around for its how useful its been. Usefulness normally increases with time. Its why NWS is respected. Tell me what usefulness AGW climatology has been put to. From that we can measure its importance, relevancy, and even reliability. . . .like the old coupe that just keeps working. In the topic of climatology PDO has been put to practical use in fisheries. And as I explained to GLC that is some stuff that sheds very poor light on AGW.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 30, 2010 22:11:54 GMT
"Tell me what usefulness AGW climatology has been put to." Understanding the climate and figuring out how our purbutation of the climate system (eg changes in atmospheric composition). Now tell me what use knowledge about dinosaurs is? Should we question knowledge about dinosaurs because it has no use? "Usefulness" is no measure of knowledge. PDO suggests the true amount of warming due to greenhouse gases has been masked. PDO cooling effect: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/trendSince 1980 the ENSO index (mirroring the PDO) has been falling. Falling ENSO and falling PDO means cooler ocean waters in those zones and is associated with cooling global temperatures. So why did it warm? Neither PDO or ENSO explain warming. Quite the opposite - they explain cooling. I think it warmed because of rising greenhouse gases. Without human influence I think the Earth may have even cooled in the past 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 1, 2010 0:17:29 GMT
"Tell me what usefulness AGW climatology has been put to."
Understanding the climate and figuring out how our purbutation of the climate system (eg changes in atmospheric composition). [/color] [/quote] Thats only useful if its correct. And the majority of people don't believe it. Thats two conditions prerequisite to usefulness.
Now tell me what use knowledge about dinosaurs is? Should we question knowledge about dinosaurs because it has no use?
"Usefulness" is no measure of knowledge.
[/color] [/quote] What do you mean it is not useful? Its generally correct, people believe it and it teaches us a lot about evolution and our history. After all those who do not study their history are condemned to relive it. Something useful obviously you haven't discovered from history.
PDO suggests the true amount of warming due to greenhouse gases has been masked. PDO cooling effect: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/trend
Since 1980 the ENSO index (mirroring the PDO) has been falling. Falling ENSO and falling PDO means cooler ocean waters in those zones and is associated with cooling global temperatures. So why did it warm? Neither PDO or ENSO explain warming. Quite the opposite - they explain cooling.
[/color] [/quote] Knock knock knock. . . .PDO has been in warm phase since 1976! I guess you would rather ignore the historic role of PDO in elevating temperatures and cooling the earth. Gee I guess you have to!!! Cause otherwise you would know it was likely all the warming.
I think it warmed because of rising greenhouse gases. Without human influence I think the Earth may have even cooled in the past 30 years.[/color] [/quote] Just the opposite of what the temperature record suggests huh? Looks to me pre-1998 mostly warming influence, post-1998 mostly level. Perhaps we will get to see the oscillation go negative with predictions of sun inactivity and see what happens. Myself I am breaking out the easy chair and popcorn an watch the show.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jul 2, 2010 5:07:33 GMT
Re: OT: Don't believe experts « Reply #7 June 1, 2010 at 4:15pm » icefisher makes an excellent point: In the topic of climatology PDO has been put to practical use in fisheries. So, the fish knew that the PDO affects their "climate". The fishermen learned from the fish that the PDO affects their "climate". The AGW advocates do not consider PDO in climate swings. Are then the AGW advocates dumber than fish? ;D (Could not resist)
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jul 2, 2010 5:27:51 GMT
"It was embraced by both Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy, and most, but not all, Ancient Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circle the Earth. " - Wiki Reminds me of a cautionary fable of a student and a professor out for an evening stroll. The student, eying the setting sun, berated the ancients for believing that the sun, planets and stars circled around the earth. "How ignorant they were! Anyone can see that the earth goes around the sun!" "Yes", said the professor, "they were ignorant." A few steps later, the professor mused "I wonder how it would have looked if the sun did go around the earth?" Perhaps the take-away point is to keep an open mind about alternative causes.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jul 2, 2010 6:39:46 GMT
We would like to believe that experts have the answer for us.... This in my opinion is exactly why believing skeptic blogs and their 5-a-day takes on some part of the science is a big no no (and most of them aren't even experts - the chance of error is drastically larger). It's also a big no no to believe some new study that comes out concludes on a matter. Anything new is potentially wrong. Waiting is better, .... ... New claims are very unreliable. In relation to AGW, the core tenents are decades old. You can go back to IPCC report #1 and see the same stuff. Same co2 rise caused by humans, same warming from co2, same high climate sensitivity climate. Once upon a time the standard theory was that light must propagate as a wave, like sound, but through the "aether". The Michelson-Morley Experiment upset that "knowledge". From the rubble arose Special Relativity and a paper that extended the concept of light to light particles (quanta). Dealing a 10 of Clubs from the top of a shuffled pack of cards is far less likely than dealing a diamond. Yet if I deal a 10 of Clubs by your logic that means the above statement is false. But there are several alternative explanations: - The 1 in 52 probability of turning up a 10-of-Clubs from a well-shuffled honest deck occurred.
- The deck consisted of 52 10-of-Clubs.
- The deck was stacked.
Enter ClimateGate stage left.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jul 2, 2010 21:37:07 GMT
Aptly timed.Bailey, Ronald. “Scientific Consensus Redux.” Opinion. Reason Magazine, June 29, 2010. reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agreeConclusion: So what to make of this increase in the use of the concept of “scientific consensus?” After all, several scientific consensuses before 1985 turned out to be wrong or exaggerated, e.g., saccharin, dietary fiber, fusion reactors, stratospheric ozone depletion, and even arguably acid rain and high-dose animal testing for carcinogenicity. One reasonable response might be that anthropogenic climate change is different from the cited examples because much more research has been done. And yet. One should always keep in mind that a scientific consensus crucially determines and limits the questions researchers ask. And one should always worry about to what degree supporters of any given scientific consensus risk succumbing to confirmation bias. In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality. To which we can add our friend and counselor Leif Svalgaard in the great solar cycle prediction debate.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 2, 2010 22:55:29 GMT
Knock knock knock. . . .PDO has been in warm phase since 1976! The PDO phase has been dropping since 1980: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/trendDropping at a rate of 0.41 PDO index per decade. Is a PDO index of 1 cooler than a PDO index of 2? There is no such known role. Your basis for thinking it has one is anyone's guess. I guess you are just lining up hadcrut3 with the PDO and thinking correlation = causation. Funny thing is I didn't think you trusted hadcrut3 or any pre-satellite global surface temperature records. Yet even the overall hadcrut record trend over the 20th century does not correlate with PDO. PDO has a flat trend. HadCRUT3 shows about 0.7C warming. I've no doubt PDO explains some of the variation, afterall it tracks ENSO quite well. But this variation doesn't explain the longterm trend and as pointed out above that variation has a cooling effect since 1980.
|
|