Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Judith Curry and the REAL Issue Surrounding Climate "Science"

Violating the norms and ethos of science
When critical comments are deleted, you know there's a problem and what it is.

21 comments:

Robert Coble said...

Highly recommended:

Climate Change: The Facts

My introductory textbook on statistics in college:

How to Lie with Statistics

Why include a reference to an old statistics textbook? Because one of the misleading statistical techniques is explicitly used by the Global Climate Warblers.

In the first cited book, on pp 265-266 are two graphs. The first graph is "Figure 1: NASA GISS Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index plotted as annual average temperature on an absolute scale similar to a liquid in a glass alcohol thermometer". The Y-axis is a range of temperatures from -40˚F to 120˚F. The X-axis is a range from 1987 to 2013. Visually, the appearance is a FLAT LINE on the X-axis.

The second graph is "Figure 2: Global mean land-ocean temperature change (anomaly) [emphasis added] from 1880-2013, relative to the 1951-1980 average temperature". The Y-axis is a range of temperature anomalies from -0.4˚C to 0.6˚C. THAT'S RIGHT: THE RANGE OF ANOMALIES IS EXACTLY 1˚C!! The X-axis is a range from 1880 to 2013. The graph shows a dramatic "spike" on the right side. Uh OH! That means climate catastrophe!!

I showed the two graphs to my wife, who is math-phobic and NOT scientifically minded in any sense. One glance was all it took for her to grasp that there has been no significant change in global temperature. Yet we have credentialed academics who not only swallow this codswallop by the gallon but regurgitate it endlessly as "consensus," "the science is settled," along with the apocalyptic mutterings of the Prophet Al Gore (PBUH) from on high (well, as high as his private jet can fly).

There is something obviously broken in the climate "science" academy, if not also in the larger scientific community. Those halcyon days when scientists could be reasonably expected to follow "the norms and ethos of science" are long gone in these days of political advocacy primarily funded by governments desiring to obtain greater control over their already enslaved populations.

In short, we the "sheeple" are being fleeced by our own governments and those ever so "objective" scientists who are passionately serving humanity by tirelessly and self-sacrificially searching for TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the TRUTH.

Yeah, buddy! Sign me up for a carbon tax immediately!

Stan said...

For a glaring example of all this, go back just a short time to this, and read the comments:

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/01/magical-evolution.html

Xellos said...

I found this brilliant picture some time ago.

Robert Coble said...

@Stan:

I went back to the "discussion" (if you can call it that) on "magical evolution." I am amazed that you continue to try to use dialectic with Hugo, who uses only rhetoric. As I have begun to learn from Vox Day, it is virtually useless to attempt to reason someone out of a religious conviction that is supported only rhetorically. I believe Steven Satak has made this point several times: reason didn't get Hugo into his religious belief in evolution; reason won't get him out of it.

Thank you for your continued efforts. It is definitely educational, in more than one realm!

Hugo Pelland said...

I love the irony of religious people telling me that I have a religious position regarding a scientific issue; a position which you are not able to debate and thus label as 'rhetoric' because, well, YOU have nothing but rhetoric, misunderstandings, strawmen and denial to offer... What you don't realize for instance is that I learned about evolution, because yes it's actually learning not believing, way before I ever realized I did not believe in God anymore. I was still a Catholic just like everyone around me...

Regarding climate change, it's actually very similar. You buy into the rhetoric of groups you more associate with; those who like to blame the 'Left', the non-religious, the evil conspiring scientists who want to tax us all. Forget the fact that humans have been putting CO2 in the air at a rate faster than any natural cause ever came close to in recent history. That does not matter; it cannot possible have any impact, because Al Gore is a false prophet...

By the way, I love Xellos' picture because I also think that it's silly to overreact. I am going to make that same statement I have made on that blog, twice already I think: I do believe in climate change, I do think we need to be careful and figure out what the next steps should be, but that does not mean that we should suddenly freak out and change our lifestyle completely. I am not embarrassed 1 minute by the fact that I got a brand new non-eco friendly car last year...

Hugo Pelland said...

1 more thing; I received a link to this dossier prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos?autologin=true#.Vr5rIvkrJaQ

I could not help but be reminded of Stan's usage of the expression "useful idiots" a few weeks ago, in a very different context. It seems to me that it applies here to climate change deniers; they are the "useful idiots" of a corporate agenda that has been polluting (pun intended) the science research relating to climate change for decades...

Stan said...

”I love the irony of religious people telling me that I have a religious position regarding a scientific issue; a position which you are not able to debate and thus label as 'rhetoric' because, well, YOU have nothing but rhetoric, misunderstandings, strawmen and denial to offer...”

I’m going to start calling this what it actually is: lies.

Here’s what has been presented to Hugo, which he purposefully omits from his mind:

1. Omitted: Addressing the underlying premises of evolution, detailed for Hugo: they are false. He ignored that completely... very likely because he can't discuss it without betraying the fallacy of his belief system.

2. Omitted: The need to rectify the complete lack of replicable demonstration of any of the “principles”, which are called Truths which “must” be accepted before a “meaningful” conversation on the evolutionary speculations and opinions can be had. He ignored that completely.

3. The inability to EVER validate a single claim of evolutionists regarding either (1) Evolution of First Life; (2) existence of a common ancestor (again First Life); (3) evolution outside a species by the action of Deep Time (for which he changed the definition of species to cover for that logical defect); (4) common ancestor for the Cambrian Explosion when all phyla were produced in a geologic flash-bang. When pressed hard for data, he began to make counter accusations similar to the ones he makes above, presumably to change the conversation from the demand for evidence-before-belief to what he thought might produce a flustered flurry of self-defense, thereby derailing his need to respond to actual analysis which is deadly to his ideology.

Hugo is lying about the rhetoric (demanding evidence is not a rhetorical device).

Hugo is lying about strawmen (he has not pointed out a single one, he just makes the claim without evidence – a common problem with Hugo).

Hugo’s complaint of “denial to offer…” is incomprehensible.

Hugo’s history in the Catholic church has no logical bearing on his belief-with-no-possibility-of-evidence, which is precisely a religious belief in an ideology which is a necessary creation story for Atheism. He apparently has substituted one belief-without-evidence for another one for which he apparently denied any evidence given him.

Hugo’s assessment of the same complaint about Climate “Science” as rhetoric is killed dead by the standard reference to principled empirical science: no proof of concept is possible until we’re all dead.

Stan said...

What Hugo has demonstrated is the ideological necessity for producing only avoidance or obstreperous denialism of the requisites for reliable, if contingent, knowledge of physical existence: empirical demonstration and replication without falsification. Instead he claims not to know what is required of him. This denialism is necessary when an unprovable ideology is threatened with analysis using logical processes to analyze the premises of the ideology. This type of irrational bluster is not a product of the possession of a group of facts which qualify as knowledge; actual knowledge stands on its own (or falls). Protectionism of this type is not required for non-ideological empirical scientific procedures. Unfortunately, ever since Darwin told his stories in Origin of the Species, science has been ethically compromised by the story-tellers who have built ideologies which they deem unquestionable “science”. Real science is never unquestionable. To claim otherwise is flat out irrational.

Hugo’s parting shot is to refer to the ultra-Leftist activist group which calls itself “Concerned Scientists”, yet is populated (at last inspection) by almost no scientists at all. Rather is full of leftist political activists and Messiah-type class war mongers. Once again, the Appeal to Authority Fallacy fails. And his attempt to smear the analysts without presenting any actual data proving that climate change hysteria is warranted is interesting, considering that the single source of data is corrupted immediately by faulty measuring locations, and then modified to provide the single, non-replicable results which are desired by those who immediately profit from keeping the hysteria alive and active. If government and Leftist zillionaire funding were to be removed from these Chicken Littles, they would leave this suddenly unprofitable scam in search of other fraudulent pursuits which are similar unprovable hysteria-generators.

Hugo Pelland said...

So basically, name calling after name calling, self-promotion, claims of superiority, labelling of anything Stan thinks is evil as uber-left or irrational or atheistic... got it!

Stan said...

Union of Concerned Scientists:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/08/22/gmos-double-standards-union-concerned-scientists/#.Vr6jNXCR4tQ

https://reason.com/archives/2012/06/05/follow-the-pennies

http://leftexposed.org/2015/12/union-of-concerned-scientists/

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/jeff_wall.htm

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/145-union-of-concerned-scientists/



Hugo Pelland said...

Also, not sure why my comment was called a 'parting' note, should I read into that? No problem if you're tired of me... it's just interesting discussions for me but I admit that insults are getting boring.

Hugo Pelland said...

5 links to prove how leftist the Union of Concerned Scientists is, but 0 to support your position on evolution, or maybe 1 if I count Kimura's stuff, after days and days of debate... you're cracking me up Stan, lol

Robert Coble said...

SJWAL:

The Three Laws of SJWs:

(1) SJWs always lie.

(2) SJWs always double down.

(3) SJWs always project.

Using dialectic to counter rhetoric is simply wasting time and energy. . .



Hugo Pelland said...

I agree Robert. Did you think I associated with SJW? I am genuinely asking you btw...

Hugo Pelland said...

Regarding the UCS, even though I thought it was funny to give 5 links so quickly, without any discussions around them, I wanted to take a look because I actually give them money and would hate to support some dishonest organization. However, even though they are not perfect, just like any other lobby, what I get from the links is that they are leaning left, as I would expect, and have some positions I don't full agree with, which is also expected. So, my opinion did not really change, though I will certainly be more cautious of certain claims. And it certainly did not, in any way, changed the value of the report on climate change they produce; just some details of it as explained in the details below:

Link 1:
Good points on GMO, and I am personally in favor of using them, with proper oversight, and science doesn't support views against them. The UCS appears to think so too, generally, but also raised questions regarding unknowns. For some reason, the author of the article puts this as the UCS spreading misinformation. They just seem to be cautious in the issue; a position which is far from that of extreme anti-GMO groups we sometimes hear about. From the links in the article :
. "there is a lot we don't know about the long-term and epidemiological risks of GE—which is no reason for panic, but a good reason for caution, particularly in view of alternatives that are more effective and economical"
. "We understand the potential benefits of the technology, and support continued advances in molecular biology, the underlying science. But we are critics of the business models and regulatory systems that have characterized early deployment of these technologies. GE has proved valuable in some areas (as in the contained use of engineered bacteria in pharmaceutical development), and some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role in food production."

Link 2: The author successfully raised concerned regarding 'some' of the data included in the UCS' report. Kudos to him, but also to the UCS for fixing their report, as he mentioned. He also hinted at what Link #1 mentions. So, it seems that the rest of the report is accurate. The author did not press further but I wanted to know more, so researched him quickly. Here are a few quotes regarding Bailey:
"In August 2005, Bailey renounced his climate skepticism because, he says, of the publication of studies in Science that brought satellite data patterns more into line with surface temperature data.
...
And a year later, in a humorous piece — “Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore” and subtitled “Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else.” — he documented his path from global warming skepticism to data-driven acceptance of human-induced climate change"

Hugo Pelland said...

Link 3: First of all, going to a site hosted at 'leftexposed.org' is kind of problematic to start with, as it's clear that this will be about generalization of what the 'left' is. But anyway, here's what we find there. First, a lot of facts on who they are and their funding; no problem. Next, some background and history, with commentary from the author who disagrees with some of the UCS' objectives and priorities, which is expected from a right-wing side and fair game, but he also mentions that they actually have a good reputation. We then move on to exactly the same as link #2, but without the corrections being mentioned, deliberately or not. Finally, the author repeats the position of the UCS, as a strong advocate for actions regarding climate change. In short, just a summary of what the UCS is and what they stand for. That's basically like writing a piece on the NRA and concluding that they lean more ringth and pro-gun; how insightful.

Link 4: Starts with 'The UCS is not a science organization, but a left-wing lobbying group.' They don't claim to be a 'science' organization but an advocacy group. Yes, my understanding is that they do lean 'left' under the American definition of the left-right political debate because it happens to be the Left that supports actions related to climate change while the Right includes both people who support action and those who dont, including the hardcore deniers who don't even believe the basic facts regarding AGW. So, it seems that the UCS is a left-wing group because of the scientific issues they want to defend are supported by left-wing groups. Now, reading more from this link does not tell us much about why the UCS is wrong, about anything. It's just the opinion of Lewis Loflin, who I could not find anything about, and apparently likes to quote himself and his own site, which is amateurish. He could be right, he could be wrong, but in any case it's just a bunch of links about what he thinks. We can find hundreds of blogs like that, on any side of any issue. I actually ran into a site similar to Loflin's, but that address Loflin. The article appears to be run by a Christian who does not have kind words for Loflin: http://fathersmanifesto.net/lewisloflin.htm

Link 5: That link looks quite legit, and gives not only a good overview of what the UCS stands for, but also a relevant warning as to the sources they use. I don't agree with their opinion that the UCS maliciously manipulate data to come up with support for their position. The article lists a lot of examples of things the UCS did wrong. They might be right and I think it's good to remind ourselves that any type of lobby is biased, by definition. I just don't buy the rethoric of the article, but appreciate the opinions.

Stan said...

This seems to encompass a whitewashing opinion:

"They might be right and I think it's good to remind ourselves that any type of lobby is biased, by definition. I just don't buy the rethoric of the article, but appreciate the opinions. "

I.e., "it's really OK because they ALL behave badly; but saying so is rhetoric. But actually that's OK too, just opinion. It's all good. Nothing to see here.

Stan said...

"5 links to prove how leftist the Union of Concerned Scientists is, but 0 to support your position on evolution, or maybe 1 if I count Kimura's stuff, after days and days of debate... you're cracking me up Stan, lol"

There are plenty of links in the articles in the right hand column, which you still haven't read or presented arguments against, just like the arguments against which have been presented here, and which you pretend do not exist. You have no cause to laugh; your intransigence is well noted.

Hugo Pelland said...

Don't you agree that lobbies are biased, by definition? They fight for a cause that they think is worth fighting for and will thus try to find as much points in favor of their position as possible. If they get caught misrepresenting information, great, because some mistakes were fixed. I just don't see how the UCS is worse than any other lobby; the examples raised in the 5 links certainly do not support the idea that they purposely lie, or harass people, or try to fake information, or anything else that would be cause for condemnation. The only thing we see are opinions of people who disagree with the UCS' conclusions.

Regarding evolution, I had read the 3 links Evolution Part I-II-III, and read them again recently, and they have very little to do with what we were discussing on the other thread, because it's just a monologue basically. It's your presenting your opinion and why you think it's right. As you conclude in the first one: "Evolution is not an empirical science, it is an exercise in story telling based on changing fossil records". This means nothing because you want empirical observations of things we cannot observe, such as replicating the Cambrian explosion.

What you did not present are specific sources supporting the claims you make, such as ancestry does not work. You have still not explain that; I have repeated more or less the same question several times: where do you draw the line? Still just silence, or comments on other topics. Same thing with empirical evidence; just silence or complain that it's not what you are looking for, but you won't say what you are looking for to 'prove' evolution, this version of 'actual evolution' you won't talk about. I raised the following, why are you ignoring these observations?

- Retroviruses And Pseudogenes (The entire playlist on the Facts of Evolution / Natural Selection is worth watching.)
- Universality of the genetic code, including exceptions
- Empircal tests to confirm phylogenic inference (a lot more empirical studies are referenced on talkorigins.org)
- The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates and how it propagated, as support for evolutionary theory
- Prediction and findings surrounding humans' chromosome 2 as evidence of mutation and common ancestry with other apes
( Links on the other thread:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/01/magical-evolution.html?showComment=1455326467245&m=1#c906302534183366384 )

They do not 'prove' evolution directly; they are specifics observations we make. The question is thus: do you accept these as empirical observations or do you think they are fake, or something else? Then, if you do accept them, the next question is: why is the theory of evolution not a good explanation?

Stan said...

Don't you agree that lobbies are biased, by definition? They fight for a cause that they think is worth fighting for and will thus try to find as much points in favor of their position as possible. If they get caught misrepresenting information, great, because some mistakes were fixed.

The major misrepresentation is their false front name; the next misrepresentation is their acceptance of dogs as “scientists”.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/17/kenji-gets-mail-union-of-concerned-scientists-wants-a-one-sided-senate-hearing-panel-asks-for-money/

Their very name, their public face, is a lie.

Regarding evolution, I had read the 3 links Evolution Part I-II-III, and read them again recently, and they have very little to do with what we were discussing on the other thread, because it's just a monologue basically. It's your presenting your opinion and why you think it's right.

That is a Bullshit lie. I gave references to sources, and I gave an analysis which you do not provide a refutation or falsification for, you merely dismiss as “opinion” without having the GUTS to refute, point-by-point. That is a substitution of the rhetoric of intellectual poverty for the disciplined analysis required by intellectual integrity.

”As you conclude in the first one: "Evolution is not an empirical science, it is an exercise in story telling based on changing fossil records". This means nothing because you want empirical observations of things we cannot observe, such as replicating the Cambrian explosion.

That’s the entire point. There is only ONE material path to CONTINGENT physical factoids – never facts: empiricism. Anything else is not science, it is purely opinion and does not rise to the level of science, or acceptable knowledge, much less the truth which you have demanded for “Principles”.

When you refute the published paper of Kimura and my comments relevant to it, let me know. Otherwise I shall assume that you cannot and will not, and therefore have agreed by default.

”What you did not present are specific sources supporting the claims you make, such as ancestry does not work. You have still not explain that; I have repeated more or less the same question several times: where do you draw the line? Still just silence, or comments on other topics.”

This is the type of absolute Bullshit lying that should explain to you why I will not respond to you anymore. I gave several definitions of species – directly from the Oxford dictionary for example. Now you falsely claim “silence”. The only silence here is your missing refutation of a) the analysis of the premises of evolutionary claims; b) my analysis and restatement of the claims of Kimura in his published paper;

Stan said...

”Same thing with empirical evidence; just silence or complain that it's not what you are looking for, but you won't say what you are looking for to 'prove' evolution, this version of 'actual evolution' you won't talk about. I raised the following, why are you ignoring these observations?”

Again, absolute lying Bullshit. You CANNOT provide disciplined empirical evidence for the immutable facts of historical evolution. You even admit this below. My position has been plain and consistent: Acceptable knowledge of physical claims under Materialism/physicalism and Determinism is provided ONLY by disciplined empirical science. I have defined what that means. And I have asked repeatedly for your empirical "PROOF" of your claims, and you merely scoffed and remained silent, otherwise. Now this. Not a single one of these is empirical evidence OF evolution. They all are observations of current life, accompanied by extrapolations of opinions which are placed onto that which CANNOT BE OBSERVED: actual historical evolution.

”- Retroviruses And Pseudogenes (The entire playlist on the Facts of Evolution / Natural Selection is worth watching.)
- Universality of the genetic code, including exceptions
- Empircal tests to confirm phylogenic inference (a lot more empirical studies are referenced on talkorigins.org)
- The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates and how it propagated, as support for evolutionary theory
- Prediction and findings surrounding humans' chromosome 2 as evidence of mutation and common ancestry with other apes
( Links on the other thread:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/01/magical-evolution.html?showComment=1455326467245&m=1#c906302534183366384 )


And finally an honest admission of the truth of the “science” of evolution:

”They do not 'prove' evolution directly…”

They do not prove evolution at all. They have to be extrapolated by inference and opinion and then THAT is applied to a pre-existing dogma. And they fail to consider the faulty premises underlying evolution in the first place.

”…they are specifics observations we make.”

Observations regarding ONLY current life forms, and nothing more. Period. They are NOT observations of evolution.

”The question is thus: do you accept these as empirical observations or do you think they are fake, or something else? Then, if you do accept them, the next question is: why is the theory of evolution not a good explanation?”

Current empirically observations are never more than contingently acceptable, pending possible future falsification due to either subsequent testing, advances in understanding, and/or advances in technology of observation. That is a major premise of empirical science. I accept some of them, but only on that basis: contingent factoids regarding only current life, current understanding, using current technology. – never, ever, ever Truth.

The reason that every possible finding supports evolution is that the mutation/selection theory is totally non-specific and any extrapolation story whatsoever can be made to fit it. That is why it is an intellectual fraud: it satisfies every possible story which can be told about it, because it has no possible disqualifiers, no falsification possibilities.

Its intellectual premises show the falsity of the entire enterprise, and understandably, you refuse to even acknowledge them, much less discuss them. When the premises are false, then the hypothesis built upon those premises cannot be either FACT or TRUTH.

When you decide to reverse course and to discuss the entire rational, intellectual underlying basis for evolution, let me know.