Disparity Between Scientists and General Public on Scientific Views

[sprinkles]

Also what do you think is more likely:

Are big corporations paying media witch hunters to cast aspersions which could save billions of dollars by maintaining the status quo so they don't have to rebuild infrastructure and retool everything they do,

or

Are green startup companies paying a lot of scientists to lie so they can sell some wind turbines and electric cars

 

[Tellenbach]

Here's a climate scientist who dared question the IPCC dogma. Judith Curry raised some questions concerning hurricanes and climate change and she was promptly excommunicated from the Church of Climate Science.

At climateaudit, the posters had some questions about statistics and wanted to see the raw data. I was pretty impressed by the level of discussion, and wondered why I had not come across this blog before over at the realclimate blogroll. Then I realized that I was on Steve McIntyre’s blog (I had sort of heard of his tiff with Mann, but wasn’t really up on all this at the time). I was actually having much more fun over at climateaudit than at realclimate, and I thought it made much more sense to spend time at climateaudit rather than to preach to the converted at realclimate.

November 19, 2009: bucket of cold water #2. When I first saw the climategate emails, I knew these were real, they confirmed concerns and suspicions that I already had. After my first essay “On the credibility . . .” posted at climateaudit, I got some emails that asked me to be sensitive to the feelings of the scientists involved. I said I was a whole lot more worried about the IPCC, in terms of whether it could be saved and whether it should be saved. I had been willing to substitute the IPCC for my own personal judgment [in public statements], but after reading those emails, the IPCC lost the moral high ground in my opinion. Not to say that the IPCC science was wrong, but I no longer felt obligated in substituting the IPCC for my own personal judgment.

What happened? Did the skeptics and the oil companies and the libertarian think tanks win? No, you lost. All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand. What I want is for the climate science community to shift gears and get back to doing science, and return to an environment where debate over the science is the spice of academic life. And because of the high relevance of our field, we need to figure out how to provide the best possible scientific information and assessment of uncertainties. This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.

Climate science has become a religion of sorts and don't you dare question the church leaders or you will be branded a heretic and thrown out.

Heresy and the creation of monsters

 

[grey_beard]

I wouldn't give data to witch hunters either if it were me. Can't get away from this so might as well give up and let idiots sort themselves out.

Give data and it'll be misused to paint you wrong. Don't give data and you're hiding something. Just fuck it because it doesn't matter either way.

Go troll elsewhere please. You are engaged in a mix of ad hominem and petitio principii by saying Give data and it'll be misused to paint you wrong.

If the raw data is available, then by definition it will support your conclusions.
If there are legitimate reasons to adjust the data, explain them as well as the original and massaged data.

The way that fraud *is* detected, is when results cannot be replicated, or data is fudged: refusal to supply the data means that the theorem purportedly derived from that data are
(the drum roll, please) "non-falsifiable".

Which is, you know, what "scientists" claim their entire grounds for superiority over quacks, frauds, and charlatans, resides in.

Or, as the late Nobel physicist Richard Feynman (PhD in theoretical physics from MIT at age 21) said,

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

 

[sprinkles]

Go troll elsewhere please. You are engaged in a mix of ad hominem and petitio principii by saying Give data and it'll be misused to paint you wrong.

If the raw data is available, then by definition it will support your conclusions.
If there are legitimate reasons to adjust the data, explain them as well as the original and massaged data.

The way that fraud *is* detected, is when results cannot be replicated, or data is fudged: refusal to supply the data means that the theorem purportedly derived from that data are
(the drum roll, please) "non-falsifiable".

Which is, you know, what "scientists" claim their entire grounds for superiority over quacks, frauds, and charlatans, resides in.

Or, as the late Nobel physicist Richard Feynman (PhD in theoretical physics from MIT at age 21) said,

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

It doesn't work like that when it comes to the public media filter and you know it.

Edit:
Also I'm not the one trolling because I haven't been the one disrupting the thread with repeated annoyances which accomplish nothing.

 

[grey_beard]

Scientists who do not submit their work to professional scrutiny do not get published, do not get promotion or tenure, do not get funded, and in short, are not successful. And those skeptics raising questions? Mostly other scientists who know better and can raise questions that are actually relevant and intelligent.

'Professional' == 'getting paid to do it' vs. 'Professional' == 'accredited by having earned an advanced degree in a relevant field' vs. 'Professional' == 'dog-whistle to indicate one who agrees with our current fad' ?

 

[grey_beard]

It doesn't work like that when it comes to the public media filter and you know it.

Edit:
Also I'm not the one trolling because I haven't been the one disrupting the thread with repeated annoyances which accomplish nothing.

Calling people an emotive term such as "witch hunters" (designed as an emotional appeal to the reader, to bias the situation...*especially* when those to whom the term is applied, are calling for transparency, and access to raw data, which *is* the proper modus operandi of science)...is trolling.

I would understand, possibly even agree with the term, if those who do accept the meme of anthropogenic global warming, were asking to suppress data, or ignore it.
But they are alleging something quite different: that the raw data is being modified before being fed into the models, and that neither the models nor any of the related data, are being made available for *INDPENDENT* corroboration, instead only being parceled out to those known to be safely "on the AGW team."

This, again, is not how science works. It bears the same relation to science, as the huge government bailouts of "too big to fail" banks, bears to actual capitalism.

 

[sprinkles]

Calling people an emotive term such as "witch hunters" (designed as an emotional appeal to the reader, to bias the situation...*especially* when those to whom the term is applied, are calling for transparency, and access to raw data, which *is* the proper modus operandi of science)...is trolling.

I would understand, possibly even agree with the term, if those who do accept the meme of anthropogenic global warming, were asking to suppress data, or ignore it.
But they are alleging something quite different: that the raw data is being modified before being fed into the models, and that neither the models nor any of the related data, are being made available for *INDPENDENT* corroboration, instead only being parceled out to those known to be safely "on the AGW team."

This, again, is not how science works. It bears the same relation to science, as the huge government bailouts of "too big to fail" banks, bears to actual capitalism.

This is about science vs public opinion and media is the middle man.

There are witch hunters in the form of bloggers and conspiracy theorists and general citizens who post their opinions like you or I. The media also doesn't necessarily care about facts.

What you're talking about may or may not happen but what I'm talking about can and does happen. Like how what's his name just now was talking about what the Wall Street Journal said. Is that scientific data? No. Does WSJ publish the data? No. Does this guy have access to the data? No. Does he do the experiments? No. He's just reading what a newspaper says. How does he know anything about anything that way?

That's how the public gets screwed up. They read a paper and think they know some shit. Most of the time they don't have access to the actual data or the experiments, and even when we do it's through a second hand filter most of the time. All it would take is for somebody to just CLAIM that data is being withheld and a lot of the public are going to fall for it whether it is true or not. This is what I find so irritating.

 

[grey_beard]

Also what do you think is more likely:

Are big corporations paying media witch hunters to cast aspersions which could save billions of dollars by maintaining the status quo so they don't have to rebuild infrastructure and retool everything they do,

or

Are green startup companies paying a lot of scientists to lie so they can sell some wind turbines and electric cars

False dichotomy, on both ends.

First, if you think media witch hunters, which attack green causes, exist, you are incorrect.
Just for kicks, do a search for major stories (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, Fox, The New York Times, The Washington Post) which *defend* Exxon-Mobil or Westinghouse (for example).
Do a similar search for major stories, which are overtly skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.
Or another search for stories which end with the conclusion that the United States must increase its reliance on coal and oil for energy.

Try to find major themes in Hollywood movies which argue for increased reliance on fossil fuels.

On the other end -- it is not the green startup companies which are paying scientists to lie --

oh, and by the way, nice propaganda trick in forcing the fictitious juxtaposition "big corporations" vs "green startups"--


The government is the one funding both the green initiatives, *and* the scientists: and often mandating the use of "green" energy sources,
DESPITE both their inefficiency, and the higher infrastructure costs, *as a matter of policy*.

E.g. ethanol from corn is less energetically dense than petroleum distillates; drives up the cost of food (e.g. in Mexico where corn is a staple); and beyond a certain concentration within gasoline, has deleterious effects on the engines it fuels.

Or you might consider President Obama's statement "under my plan electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"
(from Policitco, which as we all know is owned by the Koch brothers, right?)

Uttered in 2008, still haunting Obama in 2012 - Erica Martinson - POLITICO.com

Whereas there are examples of green companies going belly up due to lack of sales:

Rest in Peace: The List of Deceased Solar Companies : Greentech Media

Note the source, which was obviously jointly funded by Faux News and Sarah Palin, right?

Oh, I'm sorry. Those were solar energy companies, not wind turbines nor electric car companies.

GE and Siemens are two of the largest producers of wind turbines. Yeah, they're startups. *snicker*.

So, too, are GM, Nissan, and Toyota, right? See the link below for their sales of electric cars in 2014...

Plug-In Electric Car Sales In April: Leaf Widens Lead, Volt Flat Again: FINAL UPDATE

Compare that to the total number of cars on the road, and the sticker price, OK?

Then explain to me how green it is, to have to charge a battery where the electricity comes from a conventional power plant;
and allowing for the reduced range compared to conventional cars.

 

[grey_beard]

This is about science vs public opinion and media is the middle man.

There are witch hunters in the form of bloggers and conspiracy theorists and general citizens who post their opinions like you or I. The media also doesn't necessarily care about facts.

What you're talking about may or may not happen but what I'm talking about can and does happen. Like how what's his name just now was talking about what the Wall Street Journal said. Is that scientific data? No. Does WSJ publish the data? No. Does this guy have access to the data? No. Does he do the experiments? No. He's just reading what a newspaper says. How does he know anything about anything that way?

That's how the public gets screwed up. They read a paper and think they know some shit. Most of the time they don't have access to the actual data or the experiments, and even when we do it's through a second hand filter most of the time. All it would take is for somebody to just CLAIM that data is being withheld and a lot of the public are going to fall for it whether it is true or not. This is what I find so irritating.

Read my earlier post in the thread, OK? I posted links to articles, which contain links to the actual data, the massaging of the data, and exactly what is fishy about it.

Here, I'll save you the trouble of looking it up.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...scientific-views-post2417700.html#post2417700

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=20856]grey_beard[/MENTION]

Yes it was a false dichotomy and I'm really getting sick of this. You actually believed I gave that little bit of crap any serious thought? Please.

This is how people think you know. I just love how one little forumite is smarter than the entire fucking government and multibillion dollar massive megacorporations which have their VERY EXISTENCE hinging on getting the right things done. And we have this little nobody from nowhere coming in here IN THIS THREAD spouting off about how climate change is entirely wrong as if it's a foregone conclusion. In this thread. Like it does anything here.

I know that green cars aren't green. I know that batteries aren't green. I know that producing solar panels is incredibly fucking toxic as well. This is not new to me. But I think one thing you will notice is that I haven't actually said that climate change is a fact. Yet we've apparently got some kind of genius in here spouting off about how they know for damn sure that it isn't a fact. They should get with the government and GE instead of being here wasting their obviously great potential for solving the worlds problems.

 

[á´…eparted]

This is about science vs public opinion and media is the middle man.

There are witch hunters in the form of bloggers and conspiracy theorists and general citizens who post their opinions like you or I. The media also doesn't necessarily care about facts.

What you're talking about may or may not happen but what I'm talking about can and does happen. Like how what's his name just now was talking about what the Wall Street Journal said. Is that scientific data? No. Does WSJ publish the data? No. Does this guy have access to the data? No. Does he do the experiments? No. He's just reading what a newspaper says. How does he know anything about anything that way?

That's how the public gets screwed up. They read a paper and think they know some shit. Most of the time they don't have access to the actual data or the experiments, and even when we do it's through a second hand filter most of the time. All it would take is for somebody to just CLAIM that data is being withheld and a lot of the public are going to fall for it whether it is true or not. This is what I find so irritating.

I do not agree with grey_beard's views as how it relates between science and politics, but the core of what he is saying is right. You're taking the conversation at hand in a different direction which is too far removed from the original discussion and thus it really just loses meaning. I'm getting the impression you're just trying to use this to justify your views on the political aspect of this to prove him wrong. It doesn't work that way.

The general public doesn't start "witch hunts" as you're portraying it to be. The most the general public does with their views on scientific matters (and whether or not they choose to agree with it) mostly just effects how it gets applied. It doesn't effect the science itself, because that simply speaks for itself. There really isn't ant main group or think tank that drives this view one way or another. Politicans can and do do this to some degree, but not the general public. They're really at the end of the information chain.

It's also not entirely fair to be angry and fault the public. I feel a little strange saying this because I get all kinds of bent out of shape over the general public being idiotic on major scientific points, but it's the truth. The fact of the matter is being able to understand and interpret scientific information is hard, and it takes a lot of concerted time, effort, and focus. Most of which most do not want to do. I didn't really learn how to read, understand, and objectively view scientific publications and results until I was in graduate school for a few years. It's kind of funny to look back at who I was when I was in college thinking I was able to interpret things I thought I had the ability to do. Boy was I wrong. Even then, there are some fields where I fully acknowledge are outside of my ability to grasp and understand well, and will often then defer judgement to the opinion of the experts on this when that happens. The crux of the problem is the general public thinks they can understand things, when they don't. They wrongfully disregard experts in place of themselves which is where many things go wrong.

 

[Jaguar]

The way that fraud *is* detected, is when results cannot be replicated [...]

Is redoing scientific research the best way to find truth?
During replication attempts, too many studies fail to pass muster

Full article:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article...t-way-find-truth?mode=magazine&context=189624

"Scientists are less certain than ever that what they read in journals is true."

It's a long article, but worth the time. I subscribe to the print edition.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION]

Yeah sorry I start going off the rails when I get annoyed and pointless banter annoys me pretty fast.

 

[grey_beard]

[MENTION=20856]grey_beard[/MENTION]

Yes it was a false dichotomy and I'm really getting sick of this. You actually believed I gave that little bit of crap any serious thought? Please.

This is how people think you know. I just love how one little forumite is smarter than the entire fucking government and multibillion dollar massive megacorporations which have their VERY EXISTENCE hinging on getting the right things done. And we have this little nobody from nowhere coming in here IN THIS THREAD spouting off about how climate change is entirely wrong as if it's a foregone conclusion. In this thread. Like it does anything here.

I know that green cars aren't green. I know that batteries aren't green. I know that producing solar panels is incredibly fucking toxic as well. This is not new to me. But I think one thing you will notice is that I haven't actually said that climate change is a fact. Yet we've apparently got some kind of genius in here spouting off about how they know for damn sure that it isn't a fact. They should get with the government and GE instead of being here wasting their obviously great potential for solving the worlds problems.

*sigh*. You *did* tremendously change your tune compared to your last post, ok?

The actual goal, should be to look at the actual raw data; look at the models; and decide if the models are accurate.

But that isn't what's happening. In fact, the issue is SO important, we can't wait for the data (TM).

Did you notice how it was predicted back in 2012, that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2015, due to global warming? Busted.

And you might note, that as far as CO2 emissions -- China is building up to two new coal-fired power plants PER WEEK.

Why no outcry against them?

 

[sprinkles]

*sigh*. You *did* tremendously change your tune compared to your last post, ok?

The actual goal, should be to look at the actual raw data; look at the models; and decide if the models are accurate.

But that isn't what's happening. In fact, the issue is SO important, we can't wait for the data (TM).

Did you notice how it was predicted back in 2012, that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2015, due to global warming? Busted.

And you might note, that as far as CO2 emissions -- China is building up to two new coal-fired power plants PER WEEK.

Why no outcry against them?

What does this have to do with public opinion vs the opinion of the scientific community?

 

[grey_beard]

What does this have to do with public opinion vs the opinion of the scientific community?

Obviously...the scientific community is not regarding the actual raw data, and deciding if the models are accurate;
the politicians are using the unverified results, to push for societal change (advantageous to them, for power, and to their cronies, for money);
the public is being misled by sensationalist headlines "The Arctic will be ice-free in three years!"
the scientists are not shouting down the sensationalist headlines as inaccurate.

The remark about China is the proof of bad faith on those touting the need for *IMMEDIATE DRASTIC CHANGE* (TM) --
for if the situation were as dire, for all of humanity, as presented, surely more political -- or in the last need, even military --
pressure would be exerted on China.

 

[sprinkles]

Obviously...the scientific community is not regarding the actual raw data, and deciding if the models are accurate;
the politicians are using the unverified results, to push for societal change (advantageous to them, for power, and to their cronies, for money);
the public is being misled by sensationalist headlines "The Arctic will be ice-free in three years!"
the scientists are not shouting down the sensationalist headlines as inaccurate.

The remark about China is the proof of bad faith on those touting the need for *IMMEDIATE DRASTIC CHANGE* (TM) --
for if the situation were as dire, for all of humanity, as presented, surely more political -- or in the last need, even military --
pressure would be exerted on China.

Ok and now what do you want me to say about it?

 

[grey_beard]

Ok and now what do you want me to say about it?

Well, you don't have to say anything if you don't want to.

Live long and prosper (Vulcan salute.)

 

[Tellenbach]

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

According to yesterday's (February 7, 2015) Telegraph (a UK paper), climate scientists have been re-adjusting temperature data to show a warming of 1 degree C.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

How can they possibly justify changing actual raw data (and in one direction)? Does it mean the weather station thermometers were not properly calibrated? If that's the case, wouldn't the adjustments be random (in both directions?) or is something more sinister at hand? We'll never know because the climate scientists who are adjusting the temperatures have not given an explanation.

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

 

[á´…eparted]

I refuse (and have for several years now) to debate or discuss the issue of climate change against those who think it is a farce. I kind of slipped with that in the beginning because I didn't want to watch the thread become only that, but alas it did. It is a waste of energy and they don't have arguments to stand on anyway. I stand by this and still refuse to do so.

Nevertheless, I find it painfully ironic that this thread is being hijacked by climate change deniers to push their issues, when the premise of the thread was discussing the issue of the general public disagreeing with the scientific consensus and views of the scientists who have worked on these very topics. Honestly, I also find it to be really sad.