There is no controversy about global warming... until you look at actual data and the adjustments made to make the graphs appear menacing. As the
"skeptic" says, perhaps some adjustments are necessary (why would that be unless the data is improperly calibrated to start?) but even so, the signal to noise ratio involved makes the information contained suspect. The adjustments to data and the lack of prediction accuracy doesn't help the case for warming. Nor does the persistent lack of congruity between computer models, with each modeler denying the validity of other models. Nor does the insistent political drumbeat attached to the issue.
As the "skeptic" points out, all of the "warming" comes from adjustments to the graph; the original data actually shows a cooling trend.
At any rate the following graphs are interesting. The first graph is animated for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy
Here are some solar graphs for reference:
11 comments:
Climate Scientists: *getting trained in climatology* *collecting data* *analyzing data* *researching* *doing field work*
Stan: *clicks on a few graphs* "Nope. All of you are wrong."
You'd make an excellent case study in the Dunning-Kruger effect, Stan.
Your analysis of my competence is of no consequence to me; if you have real data, not an appeal to authority, let's see it.
Appeal to Authority is perfectly reasonable and sometimes necessary IF the authority is relevant to the argument and the arguer himself knows very little about the field.
I am humble.
I recognize that I know very little, in fact nothing about climatology. I have no data to show you.
I let experts be experts and I trust their opinions on something they themselves have gone to college for years for and have been studying in the field. Could they be wrong? Of course, but you better have a damn good reason to assert that, and it better be more than "these graphs don't look right to me." Without being an expert in climate science, how do you know you are interpreting the graphs correctly? How do you know you aren't making some huge error in your interpretation of them? How do you know you aren't missing some enormously important bit of data that would be obvious to you if you were an expert in climate science? This is the essence of Dunning-Kruger. You (and me) will never know if we are being completely incompetent in examining this evidence, and to assert we are right and all climate scientists in the world are wrong takes almost a super-human (Godlike?) level of arrogance.
Do you tell the pilot he's flying the 737 wrong? Do you tell your dentist he's injecting your Novocaine wrong? No? Then why do you do it with these people?
Hmmm. Second time today that I've been told not to question authority. Odd. Very odd.
Whenever there is dubious data that is in use in order to force government action or to mold questionable worldviews, skepticism is warranted.
It is the duty of every intelligent human to demand integrity in those who hold influence; intellectual integrity is imperative, or false policies or false belief systems result in corruption on a wide scale.
Instructing anyone not to question authority is irrational.
But the real bottom line here is that those who wish not to be questioned are themselves skeptical, just not of themselves of course. Their position is that one can be skeptical of only the "right" things.
Sorry, I don't buy in.
But again, why don't you question your dentist when he's giving you a filling? Why do you trust his authority?
Should I question your authority to install an electrical system in my house that won't kill me, or should I trust your expertise?
You'll be happy to know that I would trust you. I would trust you not because I refuse to question authority, but because I recognize that I am not competent to properly work with electrical systems, and by all accounts you are. You COULD be incompetent despite your credentials, but until I have evidence to show otherwise, I'll assume your training has made you smarter than me in this field.
In many cases, you are operating on somebody else's turf and you lack the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision yourself. That "dubious data" may have a perfectly valid explanation that you and I are unaware of due to our ignorance of the subject.
Philippians 2:3
"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves."
Martin said,
"In many cases, you are operating on somebody else's turf and you lack the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision yourself. That "dubious data" may have a perfectly valid explanation that you and I are unaware of due to our ignorance of the subject."
There are very few instances where an intelligent outsider cannot comprehend the musings of insiders. As Feynman said, if a scientist can't explain his science in simple terms, then he doesn't understand it himself. Those insiders of intellect AND integrity will be able to explain it decently.
The elites are not immune to answering questions, especially where massive public funding and/or worldview manipulation is concerned.
Plus, Actually I am parroting the skepticism of others who actually are experts in the field. There are more of them than you might think, would you like links?
Sure, but here's the thing I consistently see: lots of skeptics, VERY few skeptics who are climate scientists. I don't give two hooeys whether a veterinarian thinks climate change is happening or not and you shouldn't either.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that credentials automatically mean a person is right. That veterinarian may be a brilliant hobby climate scientist who is soon to take down the entire paradigm. Albert Einstein as a patent clerk. I think this is rare, though.
But, I don't see how you can logically get around this:
I know nothing about X
95% of experts in X think X2
An unknown quantity of experts in A think X3
Conclusion: X2 is more likely to be accurate than X3
So since I don't know anything about X, or in this case climate science, then having nothing else to go on I can logically only accept the opinions of climate scientists.
Martin,
Since it is dependence on authority we are discussing, then this list should be of interest. It can be found on the US Senate Minority Report on Climatology, at this link:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
This list contains the names and positions of 650 dissident scientists that are related to climatology at least as well as the 58 UN IPCC scientists who started the AGW scare.
However, for complete rigor of analysis, perhaps one should count the papers published as a metric. Or the number of NOBEL prizes awarded to each group. (Note that some of the dissidents are ex-IPCC scientists).
Weighing the expertise of each group against the other is not possible in any meaningful, accurate fashion, imo. However, the AGW dissenters outnumber the IPCC AGW advocates by roughly 12:1.
So one must look at as much of the argument as possible for himself. Relying on experts who are attached to political entities (especially as disreputable as the UN), or are attached to promoting a worldview, is not a good way to pursue actual conditions on the ground. There is always a backstory under these conditions.
I didn't just jump into this blindly, I've been observing it for quite a while.
"Trouble is, when people started sifting through the names, they found that many experts on the list were actually weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science."
"...started contacting some of the actual climate scientists listed, many of them expressed first shock, then horror...since they didn't disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all."
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/12/15/inhofe-s-650-quot-dissenters-quot-make-that-649-648.aspx
Now, we can go back and forth on this all day, and who is right? What is left for us, the poor laymen? Who do we believe?
"Relying on experts who are attached to political entities..."
But the same goes for the skeptical side. Some would say that the oil industry is financing a disinformation campaign. After all, don't they have one of the world's largest businesses at stake? I'm not saying they are, but I don't see how the skeptical side cannot be suspect as well.
I'm not sure where you're getting the 12:1 ratio of dissenters to advocates.
"...perhaps one should count the papers published as a metric."
Good idea. What about Naomi Oreskes counting of 928 papers on climate change, and didn't find a single one that disagreed with the general IPCC conclusion?
"Now, we can go back and forth on this all day, and who is right? What is left for us, the poor laymen? Who do we believe?"
Precisely why don't believe any of them, and choose to view the data (such as there is) myself. So we are back where we started: why should I give over my own mental acuity when I don't have to?
Plus, if I am forced to pick a political side, I will be most skeptical of the one which wants my money and my autonomy.
"...perhaps one should count the papers published as a metric."
This was a joke, of course. Sheer weight of papers published is meaningless, as your example shows. If Oreske writes one paper per week, 52 weeks per year, that amounts to 17 years, 10+ months required to publish 928 papers. A case where no research could ever be done, and no credibility assigned to even one paper.
Actually I've never heard of her, but am going on your numbers.
At any rate there seems to be no reason to abdicate one's own abilities in the face of an onslaught of evidence.
100 years ago the experts all defended eugenics as a solution to the "Black Problem". I hope that I would have been able to make up my own mind on their hotly fought campaign.
I forgot to address this (unannotated) accusation:
"Trouble is, when people started sifting through the names, they found that many experts on the list were actually weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science."
"...started contacting some of the actual climate scientists listed, many of them expressed first shock, then horror...since they didn't disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all."
This is an accusation that is detail-free (what list, who did they contact, when, etc). When I first saw it my impression was two-fold: a)it is unfounded, b)it is an internet fraud. Even if it has a kernel of validity, how can it be believed without documentation? It cannot be given credibility in this form.
There are several lists; the Congressional list has credentials listed, and may be verified.
There is another list of 32,000 dissenting scientists and engineers that does indeed contain the names of non-climate scientists, but who claim to have analyzed the data and found it both deceptive and lacking. This list is subject to your criticism of not being climatologists (appeal to authority), but not to any claim of incompetence in analyzing data.
Post a Comment