[Osx-nutters] Denial

[David Cake]

At 2:48 PM +0100 16/8/07, Stefano Mori wrote:
>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".

	Sure. And a better understanding of how clouds formation 
works will tweak the models significantly, some issues are still in 
doubt, it but is unlikely to make any significant difference to the 
AWG theory itself. Right?
	Again - scientific debate continues on details, actual 
scientific consensus on big question unlikely to chance.

>
>
>>	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.

	Well, I think they agree its worth collecting as much more 
data and refining models they have etc.
	But that IS doing more work on the AWG theory.


>  > 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".

	Yes. And you are misunderstanding. Every time you say 'they 
should spend more time investigating other theories' you are 
essentially saying 'they should add more flaky features'. Doing more 
basic research to support the theories they have, to make their 
models more complex, yes, good  idea.  No one is saying because there 
is a scientific consensus that you stop doing research on the topic.

	You seem to hate the computer modellers - but surely if there 
is an issue, the answer is to make them better?

>
>
>
>>	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.

	Which again, comes down to you simply saying that you will 
recognise a scientific consensus only a long time after it occurs. 
Well, if you want, but it doesn't seem rational in any way not to act 
on what we have now.

>
>>>  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?

	It means further investigation will assume the same basic hypothesis.


>
>
>
>>  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**.

	I'm at the point where 'predictions' is just a big flag 
saying 'Stefano has very odd ideas about the scientific method'. Yes, 
confidence leads to predictions. No one but you thinks this is in any 
way even slightly odd as far as I can tell.

>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".

first, my next sentence addresses that anyway
>  Only the confidence interval is higher than 65%.

	Scientists PR is self-defence. In things like IPCC, or Manns 
stuff, you'll get confidence intervals of different predictions. If 
you insist on getting your ideas of what scientists say only from 
blogs or op-ed columns, you'll get a skewed idea of what scientists 
say, but that isn't their fault.

>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.

	No, I think there are no opposing theories that explain the 
facts as well.

>  >> 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.

	Fair enough, your view of science has lapsed into clear 
conspiracy theory here.
	You are saying not only does the climate science world 
rigidly suppress dissent, but they actually rigidly suppress being 
doing science if they think it might disagree with them?

>  As you said, they may 
>believe some avenues of research are not profitable so they won't 
>pursue them.

	Sure, but that surely doesn't include 'collecting basic data'.
	And science isn't a single collective. If individual 
scientists see a paper worth of interesting stuff in a neglected 
area, they'll take a look.

>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.

	Well, when an economist tells you that your climate science 
is wrong because he doesn't like the economic implications, he has a 
pretty big burden of proof. When a statistician tells you your stats 
are wrong, thats a different story. You listen, and move on.
	(But really, Stefano, the time for sharpening knives for Mann 
has past. Let it go, let it go. He was one guy, it amounted to 
virtually no difference to the overall theory, condemning all climate 
science because Mann was naughty years ago just goes down the road to 
crankdom. People make mistakes - McKitrick himself has made FAR worse 
ones in published papers.)

>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.

	Academic background isn't the issue - its involvement with 
the field. Plenty of people outside the field of climate science have 
made contributions of value (McKitrick on occasion, Tim Lambert 
catching out McKitrick on other occasions...). But they've 
demonstrated reading the actual research, and written papers.
	I think having academic qualifications outside the field 
makes your opinion worth only marginally more than people in the 
field. If someone has a PhD in economics, or geology, then their 
opinion signing a document, or in an op-ed page, is worth only 
marginally more than anyone elses. If they've read papers and made 
specific criticisms based on their professional expertise, then thats 
a different story.
	I think actually reading and criticising the science on its 
details can present some challenges for those outside the field, but 
have some advantages too.


>
>
>>	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 think arguments about statistics or computational fluid 
dynamics should take place on TV news or in newspaper op-ed columns?

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

	Well, I certainly think newspaper proprieters are going to 
think so when they consider putting arguments about statistically 
analysis in the newspaper.
	And at this stage, scientists who want to challenge 
scientific consensus have a fair burden of proof. A single 
interesting result from a scientist won't change the theory all on 
its own by now, so taking it to the new media is very premature.

>So the climatologists close ranks for fear of the public hearing that
>scientific discussion is still going on,

	No, the climatologists aren't afraid of discussion, they'd 
just like to have that discussion with other scientists. That way 
they can talk stats and model responsiveness and other stuff that 
interests them, instead of having to argue interminably about what 
the scientific method is and whether Mann was a naughty boy in the 
1990s. And maybe presenting their detailed findings to people 
interested in working out what to do about them, rather than just 
taking potshots.

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

	No, its mostly something that interested members of the 
public like myself started saying because we were sick of actual 
propaganda designed to deceive the public actually showing up in 
major newspapers.
	The scientists mostly just said "IPCC is over there. Thats 
what we think."
	Cheers
		David