tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post4494570860219780283..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: History of AGW Consensus by MasheyMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-14754737338383243402008-12-02T11:39:00.000-08:002008-12-02T11:39:00.000-08:00As a mindless speck of protoplasm, I know my place...As a mindless speck of protoplasm, I know my place in the scheme of things. <BR/><BR/>I respect and admire John Mashey, Michael Tobis, EliRabett, Tim Lambert, Naomi Oreskes and the guys on RC, as well as not forgetting the sterling work of all the scientists whose discoveries enable the technologists and engineers make the things that we all rely upon. <BR/><BR/>I detest those who peddle lies for the fossil-fuel industry.<BR/><BR/>As for the pompous Barry, I suspect he could do worse than learn some humility, read some real science [the proper peer-reviewed stuff that has been published in ISI Journals, not the pseudoscience from the Oregon Institute of Lies and Mendacity or published in OpEds in the WaPo etc.] so that he understands a microscopic fragment of a tiny part of what he is writing about. <BR/>Indeed, I suspect that it is Barry who isn't 'quite as smart he likes to assume'.<BR/>Barry might consider studying the Dunning-Kruger Effect. After that, I believe that if he has any shame, that he will remain silent, because he surely has much to be silent about.amoebahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15783694650121687459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-71077117065399789912008-06-24T15:22:00.000-07:002008-06-24T15:22:00.000-07:00Re: the old "consensus" boogeyman:It is interestin...Re: the old "consensus" boogeyman:<BR/><BR/>It is interesting that your examples all constitute scientific consensus themselves. Indeed science proceeds by consensus.<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/03/about-consensus-thing.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, and if that isn't clear enough, see <A HREF="http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2008/02/global-warming-skeptics-claim-patriots.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>If that doesn't convince you, you may have noticed that there is a purported scientific consensus about gravity, one that has in many respects changed very little since the idea was first proposed.<BR/><BR/>Suspicious, no? That shows this conspiratorial thinking runs far deeper within science than you might have thought. Please consult the flat earth literature for more details.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56087213390694827712007-12-12T12:14:00.000-08:002007-12-12T12:14:00.000-08:00I don't care how great of a scientist you think yo...I don't care how great of a scientist you think you are, consensus means absolutely nothing in the realm of real science. How many times do "scientists" have to be proven wrong before they realize they aren't quite as smart as they like to assume. Oh wait don't answer, they never will because they always assume that somehow this generation is so much better and smarter than the generation before. <BR/><BR/>Now we think it ridiculous that anybody could believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Yet, for centuries it was enforced by consensus. So many times, those in the consensus have been proven wrong in the past, that anybody claiming victory by consensus should be thoroughly laughed at. <BR/><BR/>How long did those in the the consensus sneer at the idea of plate tectonics before the evidence proved the consensus wrong.<BR/><BR/>When I was a child I always misplaced items and then blamed my parents for taking or moving my stuff. As I grew up and realized that it was my fault most of the time I stopped blaming others for my mistakes. <BR/><BR/>Why can't those in the science community put childish behavior in the past along with the childish things we once believed about the earth. You all need to learn from your mistakes and stop committing the same ones over and over again.<BR/>Stop committing the mistake of creating consensuses. They do not help us to understand the science and instead often lead us away from the truth.Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05677378361968328023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-73499974631301491402007-10-29T17:27:00.000-07:002007-10-29T17:27:00.000-07:00The old order Amish cheat. They ride in taxis, th...The old order Amish cheat. They ride in taxis, they use pay telephones at the end of their driveways. In short, they are practical folkEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-12305882071446160222007-10-14T18:56:00.000-07:002007-10-14T18:56:00.000-07:00The computational models aren't very good at tippi...The computational models aren't very good at tipping points, as well as other high-impact low-probability phenomena for a couple of known reasons that are hard to summarize and possibly some unknown reasons as well. <BR/><BR/>That doesn't mean we don't believe in them at all. On the contrary it is a major topic, as are other sorts of nonlinear dynamics.<BR/><BR/>If you want to know what the physical science consensus says, <A HREF="http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf" REL="nofollow">read it</A>. It's not a secret.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-77225422078017500232007-10-14T18:28:00.000-07:002007-10-14T18:28:00.000-07:00OK, Sorry, I'll back off.But I still don't underst...OK, Sorry, I'll back off.<BR/><BR/>But I still don't understand why the consensus opinion is opposed to "tipping points". Did I mis-understand your statement?<BR/><BR/>Or is it political?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25001662845885661102007-10-14T18:20:00.000-07:002007-10-14T18:20:00.000-07:00Yes, of course you're being too harsh, AK. The ide...Yes, of course you're being too harsh, AK. <BR/><BR/>The idea that we are unaware that the climate system is nonlinear is just ridiculous. Let's start with the advective term in the Navier Stokes equations, shall we? That would bring us neatly back to, um, 1822.<BR/><BR/>You also might want to look up Ed Lorenz's role in the history of nonlinear dynamics.<BR/><BR/>As long as you're hanging around with scientific professionals, you really should be asking questions and not making sweeping generalizations.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-58875244622421267132007-10-14T17:59:00.000-07:002007-10-14T17:59:00.000-07:00Some subjects - and global warming is certainly on...<I>Some subjects - and global warming is certainly one of them - are so complex and unknowable that it is absurd to take a position. There is simply too much data and too many arguments about it.</I><BR/><BR/>Many subjects are complex, and until there is a way to organize the data it's almost impossible not to get overwhelmed by it.<BR/><BR/>Once you have a set of organizing principles, the data can be evaluated against their predictions and only the outliers need to be considered individually. Computers make this much easier than it was, say, 60 years ago.<BR/><BR/>Climate science remains very complex, however, and many of its practitioners (not including Michael), and their proffesional organizations, act more like a bunch of priests of a mystery religion than researchers whose work is open to examination and question.<BR/><BR/><I>In climate change, most of the basic mechanisms are very well understood from physics and chemistry, and you don't even need much statistics to get the basics.</I><BR/><BR/>Not true, IMO. Certain organizing principles regarding complexity itself are still being studied. The climate <A HREF="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/15771/ABSTRACT" REL="nofollow">appears</A> to be a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory" REL="nofollow">chaotic system,</A> and this puts severe limits on its predictability.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, the "concensus opinion" regarding CO2 and climate change was formed in the 80's and <A HREF="http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442%281993%29006%3C0393%3ACDACTI%3E2.0.CO%3B2" REL="nofollow">early 90's,</A> evidently prior to general knowledge (among scientists) of the still-developing principles of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinearity" REL="nofollow">non-linear dynamic systems.</A><BR/><BR/>The result, AFAIK, is that the concensus theories appear to completely ignore the fact that they are modeling a non-linear system. At least they lack, <A HREF="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/10/fallibility-of-consensus-revisited.html" REL="nofollow">per Michael,</A> one of what I consider the key markers of a complex non-linear system.<BR/><BR/>I am doubtful that it would be possible to model a complex non-linear system with a linear model, but if it is, it would certainly require the modelers to believe in "tipping points" and design their models to simulate the processes that could produce them.<BR/><BR/>IMO the only opinion worth forming at this point is that the "concensus" modelers don't understand their field. Am I being too harsh, Michael?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-68714504035947871342007-10-14T10:13:00.001-07:002007-10-14T10:13:00.001-07:00Anon:I understand that you feel threatened by scie...Anon:<BR/>I understand that you feel threatened by science, for whatever reason. Do you apply this same reasoning to everything else?<BR/><BR/>Do you have an opinion on smoking? The statistical evidence for the increase of disease from smoking is overpowering ...<BR/><BR/>but it is difficult or impossible to predict whether or when a specific person will get ill from it, and the exact chemical/biological mechanisms that link cigarette smoke to the diseases is still not understood for many of the 4000 chemical compounds there.<BR/><BR/>In climate change, most of the basic mechanisms are very well understood from physics and chemistry, and you don't even need much statistics to get the basics.<BR/><BR/>If you *really* believe what you said, you should stop using anything that you don't understand. The Old Order Amish have a reasonable lifestyle, eschewing complex things like tractors and electricity. You might find that more comfortable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-82062641995134789892007-10-14T06:11:00.000-07:002007-10-14T06:11:00.000-07:00Some subjects - and global warming is certainly on...Some subjects - and global warming is certainly one of them - are so complex and unknowable that it is absurd to take a position. There is simply too much data and too many arguments about it. <BR/><BR/>To then move on to arguing about how many of the thousands of scientific opinionators are in consensus about the hundreds of questions swirling in this unknowable subject is piling absurdity on top of absurdity.<BR/><BR/>Next no doubt will be the question of how many fools, journalists (do I repeat myself?) and pundits are in agreement on how many and what type of scientists are in agreement about which climate questions are significant.<BR/><BR/>Having an opinion about global warming is proof of foolishness. Claiming that there is a consensus (other than among journalists seeking attention through scariness) is proof of dishonesty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-57660978716914378652007-10-13T13:08:00.000-07:002007-10-13T13:08:00.000-07:00Yes, good point ... why I never worry too much abo...Yes, good point ... why I never worry too much about exact numbers. I didn't use the exact quote because I found a bunch of the titles varied, in particular a lot shortened the headline to<BR/>"less than half of published..." omittign the all.<BR/><BR/>Mostly, the educational thing is to type queries and look at a couple paes worth of hits to get a feel, since numbers alone don't tell much except the gross interest level.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for featuring the post!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-36339258138169660782007-10-13T07:55:00.000-07:002007-10-13T07:55:00.000-07:00John, thank you!Regarding the Google search item y...John, thank you!<BR/><BR/>Regarding the Google search item you have to put it in quotes; else you get more hits for <BR/><BR/>more than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory<BR/><BR/>than <BR/><BR/>less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless there are 9930 hits in the echo chamber for the thing properly submitted to Google, hits which are discouraging to say the least.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.com