Consensus Science 43

[zdas04]

We hear a lot right now that "97% of climate scientist agree that climate change is human caused". Always 97%. Ten different "independent" studies all find 97% of the climate scientists agree. I've done experiments with a far narrower band of uncertainty than a poll of scientists and gotten a range of answers that mostly fell within the error band of the instrument being used. Polls of people tend to have an error band upwards of +/-5%, but these studies keep finding 97%. An independent study in Michigan looked at 1200 peer-reviewed papers and contacted the authors and found that 97% agreed. In East Anglica an independent evaluation found the same thing. In Pittsburgh, still 97%. And on. And on.

If we go back into history we find that in the 1500's approximately 97% of the scientists vilified Johannes Kepler for applying the tools of physics (a branch of "natural philosophy") to astronomy (a branch of mathematics within liberal arts). This work was widely reviled and the giants of the time like Tycho Brahe (who had been his mentor) refused to even consider his heresy when first published. 97% of the scientists accepted Astrology as science and rejected astronomy. Consensus is simply not proof of anything.

Tycho Brahe published extensively on "Geocentrism". 97% of the contemporary scientists agreed. Copernicus and Kepler were reviled for the concept of heliocentrism at the time. Today's consensus is that the sun doesn't really revolve around the earth. Bet those 97% would be embarrassed that today's consensus is that the sun is moving in space and that the earth is revolving around it. Galileo was forced to spend much of his life under house arrest after the Inquisition found him "vehemently suspect of heresy" for supporting this theory. The consensus was against him.

97% of the worlds "intellectuals" once embraced the horror of eugenics. To the point where scholarly texts were cited in support of the morality of the Nazi death camps.

These are vivid examples of possible errors in "consensus science". There are many others. Today 97% of physicists find cold fusion to be a hoax. The best of them say that because it thus far has not been presented in a repeatable, verifiable protocol--fair assessment. The worst of them say it is "impossible" and turn their backs. I have a great deal of confidence that one day, an individual will develop that "repeatable, verifiable" protocol and the world will have control of fusion in some form, maybe even cold fusion. This proof will come from the mind of an individual, not from some stinking "consensus". Consensus is stagnation. Consensus is generating a representation of pi to a few thousand more decimal places.

That leads me back to "Climate Science". I could say that the "peers" who do "peer review" reject any paper with a thesis outside of the consensus, so interviewing "published climate scientists" is kind of a study in masturbation. I could say that the "proof" of AGW is bundled in self-fulfilling prophesies that are very reminiscent of the children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes" where everyone complemented the Emperor on his garments while he was parading naked until a child disagreed with the consensus and shouted that the Emperor was actually without clothing.

AGW us a theory based on an hypotheses. Nothing wrong with that. All scientific advances in the history of mankind have started with an hypotheses. Then they developed into theories that could be tested. Tests started out crude to show gross-level indications of the value of the theory. Over time the tests became more refined and allowed subtle evaluations and the new tests either supported (not proved) the theory or disproved it. We skipped a few of those steps with AGW. The hypotheses was postulated that certain gases seemed to be long-lived in the atmosphere and that these gases tended to insulate the heat on the earth from radiating into space. Very crude small scale experiments were designed that did not disprove the hypotheses. The next step should have been to larger scale, more subtle experiments, but instead we jumped to computational fluid dynamics to build climate models. Of course, without any physical controls, the models supported the hypotheses (it couldn't do anything else, a model can't be anything more than a reflection of the mind of its author). Things like urban heating (the so-called "heat island effect") and ocean currents couldn't be reconciled in the models so they became fudge factors that could be tweaked to force the models into compliance with the theory. By this time the media had latched onto this sound-byte theory and were stirring up fear and superstition among the masses. That led to government funding of climate science at unprecedented levels. After a few years of this ocean of funding going exclusively to people who showed results that seemed to be in support of the consensus hypotheses, people who's work did not support the hypotheses didn't get published anymore. They failed to get tenure. They found other ways to make a living. They left the 97%.

The only thing that I find less capable of predicting the future than computer models is polls of human beings. The only thing that I'm certain of is that some distant future historian (say in the year 2513) will look at this period in human history and write a footnote that one side or the other in this discussion was so obviously wrong headed that it is amazing that the race survived. One side says that the earth is warming and that actions by mankind both caused the warming and can reverse it via their actions. The other side says the climate is changing, the climate has always changed, and the climate will always change and the causes and effects have not been proven, nor are those causes and effects particularly relevant (because if the change is not one thing then it must be some other thing, i.e., if mankind isn't causing the change then it might be cosmic rays, sunspots, or volcanism).

My Engineering mentor once told me that a bit of work that I had done was very much like "lacquering a turd, you've made it all pretty and shiny, gotten rid of the worst of the odor, but it is still a piece of shit". I contend that the vast majority of work in climate science is exactly the same category of effort. There are no circumstances where I will accept a computer model as "proof" of anything. I use computer models to help me predict the outcome of experiments, not in lieu of experimentation.





David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[cranky108]

Put your money where your mouth is. What are you willing to pay to make the perceved problem go away?

I say perceved, because we seem to see the problem differently. But what's it worth? That is what the goverment is dictating to us, what we need to pay to fix it.

We each should quntify the problem, and estimate the value to fix it, then decide if it is worth that much to fix.

Why argue over the measurments, if the value is small or large. However, because there is an arguement over the measurments, the value must be neather small or large, so the point must be to quntify the value.

Conclusion: Climite change is not huge as argued, and is not zero as argued. So stop discussing those two extreams, because they are not relistic.

 

[2dye4]

Interesting article on the consensus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...g-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics

 

[zdas04]

I nearly stopped reading at

97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism
The robust climate consensus faces resistance from conspiracy theories, cherry picking, and misrepresentations

But I did read on. What a load of garbage. It is going to take days for my blood pressure to go down. And no, I am not going to refute the article point by point, so please don't ask. Calling AGW a "fact" over and over is just an example of the article trying to shout down the opposition. No one that is skeptical (and as defined by the article as engaging in "false science") will be convinced by this diatribe. Everyone who belongs to this religion will nod and smile. The audience is the congregation not the unbelievers.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[cvg]

"the researchers made good efforts to correct for known errors"

garbage in, garbage out. you just cant make good data out of bad, no matter how "well" you adjust it. Without adequate data, no computer model will be worth a load of crap.

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - you do understand that the author of the grauniad article is one of the co-authors of the original Cook et al (2013) study? Not very independent, right?

How about this article - Here? How many data points does it take to invalidate this study?

 

[josephv]

A Vast Machine
Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming
Paul N. Edwards

http://books.google.ca/books?id=K9_LsJBCqWMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

From the Introduction
"Unless you have been in a coma since 1988, you have certainly heard or
read a story that goes something like this: Global warming is a myth. It ’ s
all model predictions, nothing but simulations. Before you believe it, wait
for real data. “ The climate-studies people always tend to overestimate their
models, ” the physicist Freeman Dyson told an interviewer in April 2009.
“ They forget they are only models. ” 1 In the countless political controversies
over climate change, the debate often shakes out into a contest: models
versus data.
This supposed contest is at best an illusion, at worst a deliberate deception
— because without models, there are no data . I ’ m not talking about the
difference between “ raw ” and “ cooked ” data. I mean this literally. Today,
no collection of signals or observations — even from satellites, which can
“ see ” the whole planet — becomes global in time and space without first
passing through a series of data models."

 

[2dye4]

[
Conclusion: The Cook et al. (2013) study is obviously littered with falsely classified papers making its conclusions baseless and its promotion by those in the media misleading.
]

9/1200 are misclassified.

I see nothing about random sampling of the papers to scrutinize.

Without knowing how the individuals were selected or even if all the selections had
their results posted and not just the ones that were found in disagreement
there is no way to draw any conclusion about the results.

So the claim that Cook et al. is 'littered' with falsely classified papers is not supported.
Statistics and sampling is basic engineering coursework.

Next !!

 

[beej67]

I don't know why we're even arguing about consensus, when the facts are in, and all 12 IPCC climate models were wrong about the last decade.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[zdas04]

We're having this discussion because people are making laws based on the wrong models (as though there were a "right" model) and the "settled science" (what an offensive term).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

The claim was not that 9 of 1200 were misclassified, it was that (an admittedly cherry-picked) sampling of that 1200 found 9 that were misclassified. Very different case. That in and of itself may not invalidate the entire paper, but it raises sufficient questions about the quality of the work, no?

 

[zdas04]

At this point I'm not sure what is worse for the future of mankind--that the 97% number is wrong or that 97% of scientists agree and are not looking for alternative explanations.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[cranky108]

What a waste of time, both sides seem to be blovating, and no one lisening. I am offended that anyone would call this a debate. This looks more like a debate of religous zellots, where nothing will ever be accomplished.

 

[zdas04]

I haven't seen anyone calling any thread on any forum a "debate". Nothing to be offended about. Places like this are here to let people talk at each other to satisfy our need to express our opinions. No one ever convinces anyone that their opinion was wrong or silly or ill informed. We would have to do the internet equivalent of "listening" for that to happen. Don't hold your breath.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

cranky108 - that's probably because each side thinks that the other side holds onto their opinions like religious beliefs.

However, the battle is not for those firmly entrenched in their positions, but for those who are undecided - especially those who may not chime in and post to these threads. These silent majority are watching and listening.

On that note, having had tonnes of experience debating (where, in many cases you are required to vigorously debate both sides of an argument), I have to laugh. In many cases, I think that I could argue the "other side" better than those on the other side - when the audience is the undecided. They do an absolutely fantastic job of preaching to the choir/committed, but don't see that they're losing the rest.

[shrugs shoulders]

 

[2dye4]

I think the burden is on the climate change skeptics.
The guardian article that i linked made zdas so mad he claimed he would need several days to recover.
I find the article accurate in that climate skeptics usually employ many illogical arguments, just view this post history.

The simple fact is that climate change skeptics frequently base their opinion on feelings and their
gut instinct which serves them well in most engineering situations..

Lets consider this quote

[3. The strength of the wind around the bucket, based on climatological data but with allowances for sheltering by the ship’s structure and for an assumed mean ship’s speed of 4 m s-1, assuming random ships’ headings relative to the wind;
]

Now i suspect that that most engineers would be highly suspicious of this statement.
After all anybody who has been on a ship at sea or large inland lake knows the wind blows wildly.

I think engineers see something like this and say "how can the results be accurate if the wind has to be blowing 4 m/sec."

But the accuracy does not depend on a constant wind speed. Simply put the average wind speed is the most important and the wind effect could be nullified entirely in the final result by an accurate average wind speed.

To sum it up, I have great respect for my fellow engineers but really if they are going to claim to be scientific evaluators of climate change theory then they have to step up a bit and understand the big picture which is complex,statistical, multivariate, and mathematically sophisticated.

At the very least some understanding of principle component analysis is required.

 

[rb1957]

"this isn't an argument, it's a contradiction"
"no it isn't"

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[hokie66]

Interesting discussion, but I wonder if Mr. Cook (et al) even understands the meaning of 'consensus'. The 33% agreed that AGW is real, but 66% had not opinion. That doesn't fit my definition of consensus.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."”
― Michael Crichton

Not to be unkind to zdaso4, TGS4, et al, but Mr Crichton did have a way with words.

 

[zdas04]

He did indeed. I wish the sorry SOB hadn't up and died, I always looked forward to his next book and the last one he wrote was such a disappointment.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[crerus75]

If you're talking about Micro, he didn't really write it himself. He had some of it penned and a co-author finished it up. I didn't care for it either, but I think this had more to do with it being written piecemeal by two different people than by the basic premise (which had potential).

If you're talking about Pirate Latitudes (his last "real" work), I enjoyed it, though nowhere near as much as Jurassic Park or Andromeda Strain. Of course, State of Fear was also particularly good, and also germane to the topic at hand. I'm sure that it pissed off a lot of people.

 

[zdas04]

I also liked Pirate Latitudes a lot. Micro was the mess that I didn't enjoy. It was an interesting premise, but failed so miserably. In the mood of "preaching to the converted", I re-read State of Fear every year or so, about as often as I re-read Atlas Shrugged, both pieces of fiction have a lot to say about the state of governance today. One line from Atlas Shrugged that is particularly germane to this discussion is "'Government Science'? That is a contradiction in terms".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"