[Osx-nutters] Denial

[Stefano Mori]

On 2007-Aug-16, at 08:00, David Cake wrote:

>>> 	But if they said the debate wasn't over, you'd doubt it too
>>>  (I mean, you'd be nuts to say otherwise).
>>
>> I looked at this earlier. If they said, "we're actively pursuing
>> several lines of research and we welcome knowledge from other
>> disciplines, and here are the results so far", (words and evidence to
>> that effect) then I would trust them much more.
>
> 	It seems to me that this is clearly going on - just all the
> lines of research have more or less the same starting point - that
> there is significant evidence to say GW is significantly outside the
> normal cyclical mechanisms, and non-anthrogenic theories have so far
> proven unsatisfactory.


Cloud formation is rated by the IPCC as an area over which there is  
great uncertainty. Clouds have the ability to both cool and warm the  
planet in complex ways. The results of the CERN CLOUD experiment  
won't be in until 2010 or something, and yet, "THE DEBATE IS OVER".



> 	Going back to the philosophy of science argument, what is
> going on is not that the orthodoxy has stamped out dissent, what is
> going on is that non-anthrogenic theories have proven so far to be
> unproductive. They don't lead to cool new insights, they just lead to
> failed hypotheses. Are you really saying that you think science would
> be better if it spent more time pursuing avenues of enquiry that had
> been found to be unproductive?


Given the magnitude of the danger affecting billions of people, they  
should be going over everything with a fine tooth-comb.

They recently discovered an effect regarding methane. Nobody had ever  
paid much attention to that effect because the standard textbooks had  
said that it was negligible. It turns out to be much bigger. Had the  
textbooks not said that, they think this would have been noticed 20  
years ago. That in itself is a class of error that could be happening  
all over the place. I've mentioned this before, it's one way that  
cultural bias can be present, even without any ideology.



> Of course, with the resulting resource
> allocation meaning it spent less time investigating avenues of
> research known to be more productive?

Let's say you're writing software on a limited budget. Do you divide  
your money so that you can write 100 flaky features quickly? Or do  
you spend it writing 5 features that are rock solid?

Lots of flaky research with tenuous methods does not make it  
"productive".



> 	You have this idea that when science stops debating an idea,
> its because the last dissenters have been bullied out of the debate
> or similar. The reality is that when science stops debating an issue,
> its because the debate has become one sided and boring, and people
> run out of interesting new data to present (interesting in terms of
> surprising) and new things to say. The dissenters have been reduced
> to making the same few arguments no one finds convincing over and
> over again, new avenues of enquiry aren't coming up with interesting
> results, and people move on to doing something more interesting and
> useful.


That may be but it's not safe to claim it's over until all the dust  
has settled and we can see clearly. History will tell whether they  
were right, years ago, to claim the debate is over. For one, consider  
the CLOUD experiment.



>> It's like, if I go to a doctor who says, "I completely understand
>> your condition, we'll sort you out no worries", that would make me be
>> worried due to his apparent overconfidence.
>
> 	No one is saying we completely understand what is going on.

Then what does "the debate is over" mean?



> They are saying they have on theory that so far fits the facts well.
> 	I think you have the idea of what is going on somewhat confused.
> 	The current scientific consensus is that GW is observed, and
> there is a high likelihood that is


Even if the debate, over what is observed, is over, that confidence  
is being used as justification for **predictions**.

Google: warming debate over must act




>> If I go to a doctor who says, "it looks like you have this, these are
>> the indicators and the counter-indicators, we have this treatment, we
>> don't honestly know why it works, but it's all we've got, it's a bit
>> tentative but so far 65% of people respond fairly well", then I would
>> trust him much more. I trust him because he is being honest, I mean,
>> I can Google the 65% figure to check.
>
> 	Well, that seems to be pretty much the exact situation we
> have?


No because the scientists' PR is to claim they are effectively  
certain. I don't hear any admission from climatologists that, "it's a  
bit tentative".



> Only the confidence interval is higher than 65%.
> 	Its as if a doctor said 'look, your temperature is going up.
> Thats bad. We think its due to this virus, we recommend treatment
> with anti-virals. We aren't 100% sure that is responsible for all
> your symptoms, but we are 90% sure its part of the problem, and we
> have no real competing hypothesis, so that's the treatment we
> recommend. ' You seem be saying you'd be happier if the doctor came
> up to you and said 'well, your temperature looks to be going up to
> us. Though I think you should know, crazy bob at the blanket store
> says its going down and you need a blanket. Anyway, Its most likely a
> virus, pretty good chance. But we know a guy, not a doctor but, you
> know, a guy who likes to talk about medicine, this guy at the health
> food store, he says its something to do with your level of colloidal
> silver. Want some of that?  We think its crazy, just thought we'd
> mention it though. Anyway, an alternative explanation is that its
> bacterial. That hypothesis only fits some of the facts, and in some
> ways is contra-indicated, but stuff we don't understand goes on in
> your body all the time, so althought actually we are pretty sure its
> wrong, but we thought we'd offer you some anti-biotics.'


And this is the other problem. You think the only people who disagree  
with AGW or propose alternate mechanisms are selfish incompetent  
crazy people. No wonder you are so closed minded.

Well crazy bob and hundreds of drunken shitfaces over at CERN are,  
you know, looking to up their blanket sales.



>> You seem to think that we need to be told that it's settled,
>
> 	No, I'm saying if it actually IS settled, you won't possibly
> believe it. You have argued yourself into a position where you wont
> believe in scientific consensus until long after it has occurred.
> 	Which means you've argued yourself into a position where some
> of the time, you know you will be wrong. Surely that's not good.


The reason I don't accept it's settled is what I wrote in that post,  
namely, "big complex system forecast 100 years into the future".

Google: warming debate over must act




>>  Sometimes it's necessary to start in some direction, but as
>> you start sailing you keep checking along the way that the chosen
>> direction is still a good one.
>
> 	Sure. Do you think anyone is saying 'hey, AGW is settled now,
> lets stop measuring the climate and trying to understand it. And if
> any data that doesn't fit our models turns up, ignore it, right?'


It looks like that's what they are doing. As you said, they may  
believe some avenues of research are not profitable so they won't  
pursue them. Also, the general climate of attacking dissenting  
opinions from scientists in other fields is very very troubling. This  
has to do with the "big complex system" part. The stupid stupid  
stupid rebuttal that so and so is "not a climatologist". Well, he's a  
statistician, and you climatologists are using statistics, so it's  
inter-disciplinary. If anything the statistician should be the  
authoritative voice on matters of statistics. Or if an engineer who's  
got real world experience of designing hulls of nuclear submarines,  
characterises, from experience, computational fluid dynamics models  
as "coulourful" fluid dynamics, because he knows that once you build  
the hull and sail it, tiny chaotic flows compound to invalidate the  
whole design, then that is an opinion that needs listening to, as  
GCMs are pretty much about fluid flows. The list goes on. But, your  
own opinion on this has pretty much always been, "they're not in the  
field". Even though I recall you once bemoaning that the AI people  
wouldn't bother to walk across campus to ask the people in the  
linguistics department, or some example to that effect. It's a big  
complex system that involves many many fields. The accusation, "not a  
climatologist", is point blank stupid.



> 	No, people are just saying lets all admit that AGW is the
> best hypothesis we have right now, and lets stop filling our
> newspaper columns and blogs with arguments from paid oil industry
> liars saying otherwise[1].

> Arguments from opposing climate scientists
> are welcome, but should probably take place somewhere other than the
> op-ed columns.

> Lets continue our debate about what to do from the
> basis that AGW is the best hypothesis we have right now, and is more
> likely to represent the truth than any other hypothesis, including
> the 'nothing unusual is going on' hypothesis.


Opposing arguments, even from climatologists, should not appear in  
the news?

You really believe the public is not competent to receive this stuff?

So the climatologists close ranks for fear of the public hearing that  
scientific discussion is still going on, and then you wonder why I  
feel that there is cultural bias at work.

Holy freakin' Batman.

This is why I don't trust "the debate is over". It looks like  
propaganda designed to deceive the public.

Put it to you this way, if scientists in 10 years discover new  
mechanisms that show that warming will stop and cooling will take  
over, what will the public's perception of scientists be then?


Stefano