Disparity Between Scientists and General Public on Scientific Views

[Tellenbach]

The science behind climate change is largely sound.

Oh really? Do you think tree ring growth patterns of a population of trees in Canada should be used to "reconstruct" temperature records in Europe? That's what Michael Mann did and no one in the climate change community challenged him. Seriously, doesn't that bother your intuition one bit? How about using a linear regression coefficient of 0.2 to calibrate your standard curve? Does that sound valid to you?

This is why the vast majority of scientists support it.

There's the consensus argument again. It's a logical fallacy and you know this because I already told you so.

You operate under the delusion that everyone is an idiot but yourself.

There is a healthy community of skeptics who do great work. I just read their stuff. I could recommend some websites if that's allowed.

 

[á´…eparted]

Oh really? Do you think tree ring growth patterns of a population of trees in Canada should be used to "reconstruct" temperature records in Europe? That's what Michael Mann did and no one in the climate change community challenged him. Seriously, doesn't that bother your intuition one bit? How about using a linear regression coefficient of 0.2 to calibrate your standard curve? Does that sound valid to you?

You'll reject anything I present to refute this or deem it unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I have tried countless times in the past and I am not going to either. You are by far the most impossibly unreasonable person I have ever come across in my entire life.

There's the consensus argument again. It's a logical fallacy and you know this because I already told you so.

NO. PERIOD. END OF STORY. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS FUCKING MATTERS. YOU ARE WRONG. I AM TELLING YOU THIS AS A SCIENTIST MYSELF. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT.

 

[Tellenbach]

You are by far the most impossibly unreasonable person I have ever come across in my entire life.

Show me the evidence. Is that too much to ask? The CO2 levels have risen in the last 20 years but we haven't seen any warming for 18 years. Why not? Why didn't any of these climate scientists predict this? and if they were wrong about this, why should we trust any of their predictions?

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS FUCKING MATTERS. YOU ARE WRONG. I AM TELLING YOU THIS AS A SCIENTIST MYSELF. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT.

It matters in getting grants and getting published but it has no bearing on the truth of the matter. I could easily list ten consensus opinions that have been proven wrong. It only takes one exception to disprove your consensus argument.

 

[á´…eparted]

Show me the evidence. Is that too much to ask? The CO2 levels have risen in the last 20 years but we haven't seen any warming for 18 years. Why not? Why didn't any of these climate scientists predict this? and if they were wrong about this, why should we trust any of their predictions?

I'm just going to repeat myself: You'll reject anything I present to refute this or deem it unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I have tried countless times in the past and I am not going to either. You are by far the most impossibly unreasonable person I have ever come across in my entire life.

So yes, it is too much to ask.

It matters in getting grants and getting published but it has no bearing on the truth of the matter. I could easily list ten consensus opinions that have been proven wrong. It only takes one exception to disprove your consensus argument.

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS FUCKING MATTERS. YOU ARE WRONG. I AM TELLING YOU THIS AS A SCIENTIST MYSELF. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT.

 

[Xander]

There's the consensus argument again. It's a logical fallacy and you know this because I already told you so.

If ten thousand random Johnnys said it was true then it would be logical to challenge it based on whether any of said Johnnys knew their subject. When ten thousand trained and accredited people say it's true then it is logical to accept their view unless you have evidence to the contrary.

The only other route would be to logically undermine the established methods of accrediting scientists. Trust me, they don't like that and it really holds little gain on further analysis.

Sure, don't be a blind herd beast but it's just as daft to reject something as untrue because you don't want it to be so.

 

[sprinkles]

Without consensus you have random nonsense because one experiment does not make or break a hypothesis. You cant throw everything out because of one bad experiment, and you can't accept it based on one experiment.

Things must be in concurrence, experiments must be repeatable and they must be done many times to rule out any flukes. Consensus must eventually appear. Just like how not all trees are helpful because maybe not all of them grow right, but on average there can be a trend because trees are not totally random, they work a certain way and have upper and lower limits to how "off" they can be, i.e. there is a margin in which the tree can be alive and at the same time grow in the way it does which is something that will be found all over. Not to mention that many trees actually are fairly evenly grown cylinders.

Every statistic has outliers but what we look for is the overall trend, and the trend can't make itself out of nothing. Data is taken from many different sources and several different institutes which is why charts have a bunch of different colored lines on them. A trend of this magnitude cannot lie, especially when many independent sources show a trend, and nearly the same trend.

So we can't really say that the science is wrong. Just say that they fudged the numbers entirely if that's what you think and be done with it so we can move on with our lives. But we can't support the claim that the science is impossible because it isn't.

 

[Tellenbach]

When ten thousand trained and accredited people say it's true then it is logical to accept their view unless you have evidence to the contrary.

It's still a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to authority and in the case of climate science, it's an appeal to circle jerking greenies. Oh, and there is abundant evidence to the contrary, like the last 18 years of satellite surface temperature data.

 

[sprinkles]

Political emotions do not belong in science.

 

[Tellenbach]

[MENTION=16071]sprinkles[/MENTION] Agreed. Scientists should not have political agendas like Michael Mann (who endorsed a Democrat politician).

 

[Mole]

Political emotions do not belong in science.

Scientific paradigms are usually held with political intensity. And usually we have to wait until a generation has died off before we can change a paradigm.

 

[Coriolis]

[MENTION=16071]sprinkles[/MENTION] Agreed. Scientists should not have political agendas like Michael Mann (who endorsed a Democrat politician).

Scientists are not disqualified from having political opinions or even personal beliefs like anyone else. If their science is good or bad, it is so independent of any of this. Your arguments would have more credibility if M. Mann were not the only scientist you felt prepared to attempt to discredit. I can understand quite well how the rings of obviously irregular trees can be used to get quite reliable climate data, or even how trees in Canada can be used to approximate conditions in Europe. For that matter, I have seen boneless chicken used as a convincing stand-in for the flesh of young children. It is part of scientists' job to identify and use analogous circumstances or even approximations in investigating questions. The correlation factor is the only evidence you have presented so far against the soundess of this particular study. Fortunately Mann is far from the only scientist studying climate change. That is part of science, too: results must be repeatable, and corroborated (or refuted) by the work of others.

 

[Xander]

It's still a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to authority and in the case of climate science, it's an appeal to circle jerking greenies. Oh, and there is abundant evidence to the contrary, like the last 18 years of satellite surface temperature data.

What makes me chuckle is the whole global warming vs global cooling. Hardly. A coordinated front.

However, in terms of logic, an appeal to an authority is only going to get you points in a debate unless you can back up why they are wrong. Also you risk ad hominem in your statement so perhaps, as with all debates, it's just scoring points and leading nowhere.

As for politics... Why is it emotion? Why are scientists being held up as paradigms of virtue? They're a bunch of geeks in open toed sandals who happen to be good with a flame and a flask. I don't recall capes being part of the lab gear.

They are professionals, mostly, but without bias and emotion why would they try anything new or push science forwards? Sheer lunacy.

 

[sprinkles]

Scientists are not disqualified from having political opinions or even personal beliefs like anyone else. If their science is good or bad, it is so independent of any of this. Your arguments would have more credibility if M. Mann were not the only scientist you felt prepared to attempt to discredit. I can understand quite well how the rings of obviously irregular trees can be used to get quite reliable climate data, or even how trees in Canada can be used to approximate conditions in Europe. For that matter, I have seen boneless chicken used as a convincing stand-in for the flesh of young children. It is part of scientists' job to identify and use analogous circumstances or even approximations in investigating questions. The correlation factor is the only evidence you have presented so far against the soundess of this particular study. Fortunately Mann is far from the only scientist studying climate change. That is part of science, too: results must be repeatable, and corroborated (or refuted) by the work of others.

Politics doesn't belong in science. Scientists are a different matter.

Scientific paradigms are usually held with political intensity. And usually we have to wait until a generation has died off before we can change a paradigm.

Politics have no place in science. I never said it doesn't get in anyway.

As for politics... Why is it emotion? Why are scientists being held up as paradigms of virtue? They're a bunch of geeks in open toed sandals who happen to be good with a flame and a flask. I don't recall capes being part of the lab gear.

They are professionals, mostly, but without bias and emotion why would they try anything new or push science forwards? Sheer lunacy.

You can have bias in the scientist as long as it isn't in the science. Bitching about greenies or whatever gets nowhere and produces more inaccurate and inferior results. Because we're wanting so hard for the data to say what we want. That shouldn't be how it works.

 

[sprinkles]

And actually this current argument is a prime example of why politics does not belong in science. Such a disruption and a waste of time which needlessly muddies the waters.

 

[Jaguar]

I guess the only way to know for sure is to find out myself

That's right. Do your own research. But there's a larger issue and it's not a new one: Conflict of interest.

Have a read:

Study on genetically modified corn, herbicide and tumors reignites controversy - CBS News

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The General Public is fucking stupid in the US. Either by genetics or choice.

 

[Jaguar]

The General Public is fucking stupid in the US. Either by genetics or choice.

Irrefutable claims: bewitching.

 

[PeaceBaby]

It's still a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to authority and in the case of climate science, it's an appeal to circle jerking greenies. Oh, and there is abundant evidence to the contrary, like the last 18 years of satellite surface temperature data.

Yes, consensus is arguably an appeal to authority and something that science rightly should push at the boundaries of, but that doesn't actually mean that consensus in and of itself has no thought-provoking value.

Have you read the IPCC report? Here's a link to the summary, it's not as long as the actual reports from 2014 yet is an effective overview: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr1.pdf

As I mentioned in your blog, arguing whether or not climate change is primarily caused by humans is almost irrelevant, because even if we ultimately only contribute to a small degree still there are actions we can reasonably take now in the present to minimize our impact on the future and prevent an exacerbation of issues.

Opposing climate science on the basis of a single interpretive is illogical in the face of so many measurable changes.

As far as appealing to circle-jerking greenies, this is the core writing team of the 2014 report:

R.K. Pachauri (Chair); Myles R. Allen (United Kingdom), Vicente Ricardo Barros (Argentina), John Broome (United Kingdom), Wolfgang Cramer (Germany/France), Renate Christ (Austria/WMO), John A. Church (Australia), Leon Clarke (USA), Qin Dahe (China), Purnamita Dasgupta (India), Navroz K. Dubash (India), Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany), Ismail Elgizouli (Sudan), Christopher B. Field (USA), Piers Forster (United Kingdom), Pierre Friedlingstein (United Kingdom/Belgium), Jan Fuglestvedt (Norway), Luis Gomez-Echeverri (Colombia), Stephane Hallegatte (France/World Bank), Gabriele Hegerl (United Kingdom/Germany), Mark Howden (Australia), Kejun Jiang (China), Blanca Jimenez Cisneros (Mexico/UNESCO), Vladimir Kattsov (Russian Federation), Hoesung Lee (Republic of Korea), Katharine J. Mach (USA), Jochem Marotzke (Germany), Michael D. Mastrandrea (USA), Leo Meyer (The Netherlands), Jan Minx (Germany), Yacob Mulugetta (Ethiopia), Karen O'Brien (Norway), Michael Oppenheimer (USA), Joy J. Pereira (Malaysia), Ramón Pichs-Madruga (Cuba), Gian-Kasper Plattner (Switzerland), Hans-Otto Pörtner (Germany), Scott B. Power (Australia), Benjamin Preston (USA), N.H. Ravindranath (India), Andy Reisinger (New Zealand), Keywan Riahi (Austria), Matilde Rusticucci (Argentina), Robert Scholes (South Africa), Kristin Seyboth (USA), Youba Sokona (Mali), Robert Stavins (USA), Thomas F. Stocker (Switzerland), Petra Tschakert (USA), Detlef van Vuuren (The Netherlands), Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (Belgium)

I'm pretty sure this expanded diversity of opinion has been put in place in order to present as objective a picture as possible, to bypass political leanings or appeal to any particular social or political demographic.

 

[Coriolis]

Politics doesn't belong in science. Scientists are a different matter.

Politics have no place in science. I never said it doesn't get in anyway.

The highlighted is my point. Indeed - politics doesn't belong in science, but science does belong in politics. Without it we have politicians making decisions based on assumptions, prejudices, fears, and general ignorance -- as they do now.

 

[Tellenbach]

Scientists are not disqualified from having political opinions or even personal beliefs like anyone else.

Should scientists be advocates for a political ideology and use their research to further that ideology? That's what Dr. Mann has done with the statements he's made.

Your arguments would have more credibility if M. Mann were not the only scientist you felt prepared to attempt to discredit.

I've discredited the entire paleoclimatology profession as pseudoscientific frauds, not just Dr. Mann.

It is part of scientists' job to identify and use analogous circumstances or even approximations in investigating questions.

What kind of precision do you think you can get from using tree rings to guestimate temperature? Dr. Mann thinks it's precise to 0.2 degrees Celcius (insert rofl smiley) with an r value of 0.2. There is better correlation between cheese prices and temperature than tree rings and temperature. Analytical and physical chemists, heck, even biologists would laugh you out the building with that kind of correlation (or lack of correlation).

However, in terms of logic, an appeal to an authority is only going to get you points in a debate unless you can back up why they are wrong. Also you risk ad hominem in your statement so perhaps, as with all debates, it's just scoring points and leading nowhere.

It's not a debate since the other side lacks knowledge of the most basic problems in climate science.

As I mentioned in your blog, arguing whether or not climate change is primarily caused by humans is almost irrelevant, because even if we ultimately only contribute to a small degree still there are actions we can reasonably take now in the present to minimize our impact on the future and prevent an exacerbation of issues.

I reject the premise of this statement since it presumes that there is an ideal temperature or temperature range and any deviation from that ideal temperature will result in catastrophe. Simply nonsense.

As far as appealing to circle-jerking greenies, this is the core writing team of the 2014 report:

It's a veritable who's who of tree hugging, mother gaia worhipping wackadoos.