Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

Recommended Posts

 

If Green ideology ( of which there are many strands ) is based on a false premise, then it's perversely one of the healthiest con jobs pulled on modern society, ever.

What you are saying is it's OK to subvert and distort science because you have decided it is for the greater good.Therein lies the problem and explanation of why the issue is contentious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are saying is it's OK to subvert and distort science because you have decided it is for the greater good.Therein lies the problem and explanation of why the issue is contentious.

 it is also a problem when people realise they have been lied to as they will reject all those good green objectives that have been put forward as the only way to say the planet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are saying is it's OK to subvert and distort science because you have decided it is for the greater good.Therein lies the problem and explanation of why the issue is contentious.

 

No I never said such a thing. I said If AGW science was and is a conspiratorial plot to prop up western economies, and scientific research is somehow being twisted to accomodate it,  then the organic growth of environmental awareness in other fields ( everything as diverse from habitat protection, clean air and waterways, recycling materials, anti littering campaigns, pesticide use, etc ).. is an enormous productive and positive list of results that has come out of it. It has upskilled human beings understanding and respect for the health of the environment. I don't believe AGW is a world plot...but i certainly do appreciate that some entrepreneurs and organisations do take advantage by proclaiming certain things.  Throughout human history though, this has always happened.

 

I sometimes think though, that if AGW deniers are so passionate about transparency and corruption, surely there are a dozens of other issues out there, issues that actually cause real harm to humans, and their communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I never said such a thing. I said If AGW science was and is a conspiratorial plot to prop up western economies, and scientific research is somehow being twisted to accomodate it,  then the organic growth of environmental awareness in other fields ( everything as diverse from habitat protection, clean air and waterways, recycling materials, anti littering campaigns, pesticide use, etc ).. is an enormous productive and positive list of results that has come out of it. It has upskilled human beings understanding and respect for the health of the environment. I don't believe AGW is a world plot...but i certainly do appreciate that some entrepreneurs and organisations do take advantage by proclaiming certain things.  Throughout human history though, this has always happened.

 

I sometimes think though, that if AGW deniers are so passionate about transparency and corruption, surely there are a dozens of other issues out there, issues that actually cause real harm to humans, and their communities.

 

Pay close attention to this argument. My bet is that we're going to see a lot more of it.

 

The construction of this argument has the following form: if no harm arises from a (potential) deception or unethical practice, it, summarily, cannot be wrong. This is insipid and easily can invade one's normal rational thinking practice. It isn't too long before one ends up with the obviously irrational "the end justify the means": also known as the terrorism standard. This post is most of the way there. It's clear to see why the Green-Left easily are so tacitly persuaded by such dimwitted argument and end up beyond civil unrest and into eco-terrorism. The route to such criminal activity is quite clear, and it's seeds are sown in posts like above. One might even suggest that this is a recruiting sargeants mantra.

 

Of course, one must determine what is ethical or what we'd all like to agree is 'right' but that's a different argument altogether. I'd be delighted to debate it. I doubt there'd be many takers.

 

One thing's for sure: we shouldn't let such sentiments go unchallenged..

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay close attention to this argument. My bet is that we're going to see a lot more of it.

 

The construction of this argument has the following form: if no harm arises from a (potential) deception or unethical practice, it, summarily, cannot be wrong. This is insipid and easily can invade one's normal rational thinking practice. It isn't too long before one ends up with the obviously irrational "the end justify the means": also known as the terrorism standard. This post is most of the way there. It's clear to see why the Green-Left easily are so tacitly persuaded by such dimwitted argument and end up beyond civil unrest and into eco-terrorism. The route to such criminal activity is quite clear, and it's seeds are sown in posts like above. One might even suggest that this is a recruiting sargeants mantra.

 

Of course, one must determine what is ethical or what we'd all like to agree is 'right' but that's a different argument altogether. I'd be delighted to debate it. I doubt there'd be many takers.

 

One thing's for sure: we shouldn't let such sentiments go unchallenged..

 

Ye I think this argument perfectly valid. In fact it arose recently when a certain Mr. Hain more or less admitted that certain actions taken during the Good Friday agreement were justified as the the result of them justified the means. A highly questionable action with which many, including myself, would vehemently disagree.

 

But reverting to the current context and the question of whether it's okay to subvert and distort science because collateral benefits may well result from this then the answer must obviously be no it isn't. But before addressing the ethical question one has to establish whether this is actually the case or not.

 

Which brings us to the similar question but worded slightly differently. Is it okay to subvert and distort science for some peculiar ideological reasons, or for financial gain, or by following the science humanity will be worse off in their opinion?

 

Which brings us back to the original quote.

 

 

Therein lies the problem and explanation of why the issue is contentious.

 

The issue is contentious fundamentally because scientists are accused of distorting and manipulating their findings by some without supplying a shred of proof and then proceeding to do what they are accusing others of. Very dubious ethics.

 

Anyway ethics is a bit of a moveable feast. One of the great thinkers of the last century wrote, "the progress of mankind depends upon the adoption of certain beliefs or institutions, which, through blindness or natural depravity, the other side will not regard as reasonable". It was about 'The Ethics of War' but what he wrote then is a shocking read today to put it mildly but his conclusion has a certain resonance.

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(This looks seriously in danger of becoming a grown up conversation - in a Climate thread!)

Yes, at the root of it all is ethics. Most people recognise this implicitly, of course, but it is worth wheeling it out once in a while. The question of ethics, with relation to climate, in my view has three threads

(i) Is the originating scientist ethical

(ii) Is the publishing (peer-review and resubmit etc) ethical

(iii) Is the end user using the research ethically

Explicitly, we do not have to assume that all three are in fact the case. I shall try to be brief, and not too outrageous.

We know that (i) and (ii) is not always the case. In the simplest form I can dream up: why is there study after study being done that concludes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and is warming the climate; for sure, it's often dressed up as a new re-analysis of the data using new methods concluding what we already know. Now that's fine in and of itself, and is always very interesting, but it is not science, it is a form of peer-clique-backslapping-aren't-we-all-clever-scientists love-in. Reproducibility is meant to confirm existing science and is not meant for publication.

Since the conclusion is already preordained (known) this fails the scientific hypothesis tests with Type I and Type II errors purely on that basis. And on that basis journals should reject the paper. They do not. They publish them. Would any journal publish an attempt at anyone to algebraicly show that 2+2=4 (incidentally, logically instead of algebraicly, this is a lot harder than it first appears)

That they are published as 'new' science regardless of the fact the hypothesis is already well known is not ethical behaviour. I suggest that scientists involved are after increasing their publication count (or similar) leading to self-aggrandisation and the journals involved are doing it for the money. Whilst understandable in a very competitive world, it isn't ethical.

Incidentally, good recent science is the plethora of papers discussing whether a pause/hiatus exists, and possible reasons for the existence. They are not all mutually exclusive, but at least they are (mostly) all original work from credible scientists.

(iii) is obviously not always the case. Read this thread and the 'other' one for countless examples of how ethics is discarded the minute ones confirmation bias is challenged.

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Sparkicle and yes this does make a nice change from the usual sniping and point scoring. Maybe this is a new start, "fingers triple crossed"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well okay accepting for the moment your suggestion that the question of ethics, with relation to climate,  has three basic threads. Are your conclusions valid or indeed ethical. In turn.

 

 

(i) Is the originating scientist ethical

 

You obviously think not and explain why but I think your explanation rather narrowly focused, so much so it fails to really cover many climate papers that are published. To be sure some may fit the scenario you have painted, probably in response to repeated bleatings from non scientists that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas which of course is completely unethical, but i submit the majority are not along those lines. It is of course accepted that COis a greenhouse gas but the implications of this regarding climate change are still, I would have thought, requiring ongoing research. I posted a couple of papers today which to my mind don't fit your definition of being ethically unsound.

 

 

(ii) Is the publishing (peer-review and resubmit etc) ethical

 

If one doesn't accept your first point, which I don't then of course it's impossible to accept this.

 

"Since the conclusion is already preordained (known) this fails the scientific hypothesis tests with Type I and Type II errors purely on that basis. And on that basis journals should reject the paper. They do not. They publish them. Would any journal publish an attempt at anyone to algebraicly show that 2+2=4 (incidentally, logically instead of algebraicly, this is a lot harder than it first appears)

That they are published as 'new' science regardless of the fact the hypothesis is already well known is not ethical behaviour. I suggest that scientists involved are after increasing their publication count (or similar) leading to self-aggrandisation and the journals involved are doing it for the money. Whilst understandable in a very competitive world, it isn't ethical".

 

So lets look to see how the peer review process works.

 

Usually, a scientific paper is presented in four parts:
 

1) A statement of the purpose of the study and how it fits into the body of knowledge of that scientific field

 

2) How the study was conducted: there must be enough detail for the study to be replicated by others if they so choose

 

3) What the study discovered, including all the results that have a bearing on the purpose, not just those that fit its hypothesis

 

4) What the authors think the results mean.

 

Every such manuscript submitted to a scientific journal undergoes peer review. Typically, there are at least two reviews by experts in the field who  are selected  by the journal  editor and who  are known  not  to be colleagues of the authors. Quite commonly a manuscript is subjected to more than two reviews, as well as the one by the editors of the journaL Reviewers tend to be particularly scrupulous about requiring appropri­ate and adequate descriptions of experiments, reference to relevant work bv others and that conclusions are based  on data presented  within  the manuscript.

 

This seems to indicate quite a few people involved in, shall we say, being unethical and it would appear only to apply to climate science as it does not occur in other disciplines.

 

Talking about being unethical. A number of 'scientific' papers appeared on the scene recently refuting entirely the role of CO2 in GW. It appears they were written by father and son and they were on open peer review. Quite bold.

 

 

(iii) Is the end user using the research ethically

.Now this is potentially more interesting. It isn't always the case that one abandons ethics the minute ones confirmation bias is challenged. It is quite often the case that someone else is challenged because they have abandoned ethics by confirming their bias by refuting irrefutable scientific evidence. Denier blogs being a good example and the acolytes who follow them and seem to believe every word without a shred of credible rebuttal.

 

But I suppose the crux of the ethical argument is how the science is interpreted and used by the media and in particular the mutinational companies and politicians. One could use the US, Canada and Australia as a good starting point but I haven't got time on my side,
 

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting point about sceptics querying there own paper arose today when ATTP discusses Shindell 2014.

 

Indeed very ethical!

 

 

Indeed, it should be without criticism. Arguing against the findings of a paper on which you are an author is an entirely reasonable thing to do, especially if your more recent work highlights an issue with the earlier work. In fact, the main issue I have with Nic Lewis is that he seems completely unwilling to consider issues with his own papers.

 

http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/shindell-2014/

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knocker: may I be so kind enough to draw you to this sentence "We know that (i) and (ii) is not always the case." This doesn't say that I think it is *never* the case of which, it appears to me, to be the predication of the entire post. Thus, whilst many valid points are made, the post must in the vast majority be rejected as an example of faulty reasoning/debating since the starting (faulty) assumption you make of my stance is incorrect. Also known as a straw-man argument.

 

Your sentence that sets up the straw-man is "but I think your explanation rather narrowly focused, so much so it fails to really cover many climate papers that are published." The rest follows quite reasonably, but by maintaining the assumption it means it is begun as a non-sequitor.

 

The point being that it is necessarily narrowly focused so it doesn't cover many (the vast majority of) climate papers, and particularly, so the point is properly made, only covers those papers where Type I and Type II hypothesis errors are made of which I gave a concrete example. Your opening paragraph says "To be sure some may fit the scenario you have painted, probably in response to repeated bleatings from non scientists that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas which of course is completely unethical" which in turn, seems to imply that you agree that some subset of science fit the criteria I set out, and therefore, given the limited sense of which I gave examples, you agree with it - so, of course, a straw-man argument is therefore entirely necessary as the predication of the post.

 

Incidentally some climate scientist terrible ethics existence are guarenteed by the Guassian distribution as are the existence of ethics par excellence.

 

Edited: tidied up some rather messy sentences!!

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Useful graphic.

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Useful graphic.

Posted Image

And another graph Greenland glacier melting were is the sea water rise? look at Iceland no sea level rise Posted ImagePosted Image

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global scientist change there opinion the American Physical who 50.000 members used to whip up hysteria about the dangers of CO2 but has reviewed there position now.http://t.co/dhXMYfFXqy

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coldest October -March in USA for 102yrs Great lakes 400% above normal breaking all known ice records  Posted ImagePosted Image

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The mountain’s upper slopes were barren save for two atmospheric research centers: the Mauna Loa Observatory, home to the carbon dioxide measurements that underlie the famous global warming hockey-stick chart, and the Mauna Loa Solar Observatory. Both centers were located along the volcano’s northern section, far from the active area. Their power source, which also served as a relay station bouncing television signals from Maui to Hilo, was not."

 

Just read this on Eruptions Blog.

 

 

On the side of an volcano that out gasses various gasses including....What?

Edited by Rustynailer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coldest October -March in USA for 102yrs Great lakes 400% above normal breaking all known ice records  Posted ImagePosted Image

 

That's called the weather

 

Of course should Russia have a warm summer that will be called climate change , go figure Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26746039

 

Here is an article from the BBC which shows everything wrong with the Climate change debate. Doesn't the reporter understand that there is a vast difference between an underwater volcano outlet pumping highly concentrated CO2 up through the sea than an atnosphere that see's CO2 concentration increase from 0.03 percent to say 0.035 percent and isn't forced through water. How can you come to the conclusions beats me but then clearly I'm not a scientist!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, the whole ocean acidification fuss seems like a distraction from lack of warming, and as usual far too much alarmist speculation combined with mysterious assumption that fossil fuel will be found and burnt for centuries before any discernible effect is caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's called the weather

 

Of course should Russia have a warm summer that will be called climate change , go figure Posted Image

Cannot figure out how you can get away with billions of USA dollars wasted on pushing GW ,you watch the GW name will change to climate extremist, Sad really when they pick the Arctic as they flag post as a sign of GW, and ignore the fact that when Arctic shrinks Antarctic grows it has happened since time an memorial,then the cycle will change were the Arctic will grow and the Antarctic will shrink,they then ignore the Facts that USA coldest winter for 105 yrs.And a number of them are praying for huge natural disasters to justify there religious beliefs ,thank God that ALL of there predictions have failed and failed miserably .The favorite prediction of mine was Grey Wolf prediction we were all going to starve because grain production worldwide would drop ,in fact worldwide grain production has risen by 5%.

Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NCDC alter temperature records again,and guess which way they go!Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannot figure out how you can get away with billions of USA dollars wasted on pushing GW ,you watch the GW name will change to climate extremist, Sad really when they pick the Arctic as they flag post as a sign of GW, and ignore the fact that when Arctic shrinks Antarctic grows it has happened since time an memorial,then the cycle will change were the Arctic will grow and the Antarctic will shrink,they then ignore the Facts that USA coldest winter for 105 yrs.And a number of them are praying for huge natural disasters to justify there religious beliefs ,thank God that ALL of there predictions have failed and failed miserably .The favorite prediction of mine was Grey Wolf prediction we were all going to starve because grain production worldwide would drop ,in fact worldwide grain production has risen by 5%.

The USA did not have its coldest winter for 105 years..not even sure it was the coldest winter in the last 5 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...