Buh-loan-ey! It's an emotional attachment to an ideology that is promoted to advance a particular political agenda. Mars and Jupiter have warmed too. Are we causing that? No. It's natural cycles.
"The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message." - If they are "shaping their message", don't they cease to be scientists at that point?
There's counter evidence that shows it cannot affect the earth on the global scale that climate change activists claim it can. The fact that the earth has experienced an ice age and then a medieval warming period without internal combustion and Mars and Jupiter have been warming along with the earth shows the cyclical nature of these warm and cool periods.
The data has been used to develop models that have been endorsed by the majority of scientists in the discipline. I'm not a scientist but I have worked with many scientists, and I have talked to global warming scientists. In my experience, they are not, as a group, prone to exaggeration and wild theories, but to conservatism. It's not certain, but it's probable, that the models are good predictors. Risk assessment says we should act, cautiously, and continue to monitor. Action will be costly but not disastrous; inaction could be more costly and disastrous.
The data has been used to develop models that have been endorsed by the majority of scientists in the discipline.
What about the data they are ignoring that shows a cooling trend? You perception and admiration for certain scientists doesn't change the fact that this has been happening. If it helps them monetarily, politically, and ideologically, then I think scientists in a specific field can and will bend data to reach a desired conclusion, as has been shown with the hacked e-mails.
"What about the data they are ignoring that shows a cooling trend?"
I'm not sure what alleged cooling trend you are talking about here, so I may not respond relevantly. Many people say the world's hottest year was in 1998, and it has been cooling since, but I understand this conclusion, though it appears correct, is actually erroneous.
(1) 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the last decade. This is by far the hottest decade on record, and any apparent decline in temperature from 1998 is relatively minor compared to the rises that have taken place.
(2) The quoted data excluded some polar regions where there were no records, but when estimates are made for these, the hottest year was 2005.
(3) Anyway, science doesn't work by just using a simple statistic like the hottest year - you can "prove" many erroneous things by selected statistics. The important thing is the models.
"If it helps them monetarily, politically, and ideologically, then I think scientists in a specific field can and will bend data to reach a desired conclusion, as has been shown with the hacked e-mails."
This is a strong charge to make, and I for one would want to be more careful. I don't think the hacked emails prove anything like what you suggest. And I don't see how anyone can think that climate change is a "desired conclusion".
This is one case where Pascal's wager actually seems like a good inference strategy. If it isn't anthropogenic, and we act, no major foul. If it is, and we act, thank goodness.
I know I certainly don't want to give up our data before I am finished analyzing it as I might get scooped (even if I've already published one paper with a data set there are more things I want to do with the data). Plus it's a pain in the butt to put it in a format for every Tom Dick and Harry to use.
And yes, some of us get attached to our theories to an extent unjustified by the data. That is what replication, peer review, and such are for. Other people should get independent samples of the same data (preferably from different sources), and check what everyone is saying.
Scientists are human, we get pissed off, territorial, jealous, dismissive, impatient (while ideally striving for impartiality and trying to kill our theories with data as much as we can).
9 comments:
Buh-loan-ey! It's an emotional attachment to an ideology that is promoted to advance a particular political agenda. Mars and Jupiter have warmed too. Are we causing that? No. It's natural cycles.
"The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message." - If they are "shaping their message", don't they cease to be scientists at that point?
None of this changes the size of the icecaps, the shrinking glaciers, the heat trapping properties of CO2.
None of this changes the size of the icecaps
There are alternative explanations.
the shrinking glaciers
There are alternative explanations.
the heat trapping properties of CO2
There's counter evidence that shows it cannot affect the earth on the global scale that climate change activists claim it can. The fact that the earth has experienced an ice age and then a medieval warming period without internal combustion and Mars and Jupiter have been warming along with the earth shows the cyclical nature of these warm and cool periods.
The data has been used to develop models that have been endorsed by the majority of scientists in the discipline. I'm not a scientist but I have worked with many scientists, and I have talked to global warming scientists. In my experience, they are not, as a group, prone to exaggeration and wild theories, but to conservatism. It's not certain, but it's probable, that the models are good predictors. Risk assessment says we should act, cautiously, and continue to monitor. Action will be costly but not disastrous; inaction could be more costly and disastrous.
The data has been used to develop models that have been endorsed by the majority of scientists in the discipline.
What about the data they are ignoring that shows a cooling trend? You perception and admiration for certain scientists doesn't change the fact that this has been happening. If it helps them monetarily, politically, and ideologically, then I think scientists in a specific field can and will bend data to reach a desired conclusion, as has been shown with the hacked e-mails.
"What about the data they are ignoring that shows a cooling trend?"
I'm not sure what alleged cooling trend you are talking about here, so I may not respond relevantly. Many people say the world's hottest year was in 1998, and it has been cooling since, but I understand this conclusion, though it appears correct, is actually erroneous.
(1) 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the last decade. This is by far the hottest decade on record, and any apparent decline in temperature from 1998 is relatively minor compared to the rises that have taken place.
(2) The quoted data excluded some polar regions where there were no records, but when estimates are made for these, the hottest year was 2005.
(3) Anyway, science doesn't work by just using a simple statistic like the hottest year - you can "prove" many erroneous things by selected statistics. The important thing is the models.
"If it helps them monetarily, politically, and ideologically, then I think scientists in a specific field can and will bend data to reach a desired conclusion, as has been shown with the hacked e-mails."
This is a strong charge to make, and I for one would want to be more careful. I don't think the hacked emails prove anything like what you suggest. And I don't see how anyone can think that climate change is a "desired conclusion".
This is one case where Pascal's wager actually seems like a good inference strategy. If it isn't anthropogenic, and we act, no major foul. If it is, and we act, thank goodness.
I know I certainly don't want to give up our data before I am finished analyzing it as I might get scooped (even if I've already published one paper with a data set there are more things I want to do with the data). Plus it's a pain in the butt to put it in a format for every Tom Dick and Harry to use.
And yes, some of us get attached to our theories to an extent unjustified by the data. That is what replication, peer review, and such are for. Other people should get independent samples of the same data (preferably from different sources), and check what everyone is saying.
Scientists are human, we get pissed off, territorial, jealous, dismissive, impatient (while ideally striving for impartiality and trying to kill our theories with data as much as we can).
Post a Comment