Is there anything at all we can do to change the minds of such entrenched folks? Or do we just write them off and move on?
That would be a good start.
In which way the data is not transparent?
> Stop making adjustments that are questionable and coincidentally result in increased warming.
Please, any example of questionable adjustements?
> Stop blacklisting scientists who disagree with the consensus.
Any example of scientist blacklisted?
Stop getting hacked and releasing emails showing people discussing how to "hide the decline".
I think you didn't read what the emails were about, becuse your claim is wrong.
> Stop gaming peer review by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree.
Are you accusing of fraud? Any example, please?
Stop making hyperbolic predictions about the future which are completely falsifiable and indeed end up to be false.
> Stop insisting that the models are completely accurate even though they have been completely inaccurate thus far.
Apart that nobody say that models are completely accurate, please, any source of your claim that "all of them have been copletely innacurate"?
> Stop accusing people who have questions about mitigation strategies as "climate deniers".
You don't have questions. You're plainly accusing everyone of fraud, deception and cheating.
> Are you accusing of fraud? Any example, please?
Your response to this sentence is what feeds the problem. It is completely fair to point out, in the context of this discussion, flaws in the process that produces some of this research. The parent was pointing out, in the sentence, one problem with the process which produces scientific papers. This is certainly a discussion that needs to be had, and responding in this way which is dismissive is exactly what the parent was saying. Science needs to be scientific about the publishing process. And yes, literally complete gibberish has been published before:
https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-12...
The academic peer review process is far from perfect, and the incentives of the humans involved does not necessarily align with producing the most accurate science.
Will you say that peer review papers about quantum mechanics are rigged because they are reviewed by a group of people who all agree that eveolution is real?
Will you say that peer review papers about Evolution are rigged because they are reviewed by a group of people who all agree that eveolution is real?
> The academic peer review process is far from perfect, and the incentives of the humans involved does not necessarily align with producing the most accurate science
And this is another subtle accusation of fraud. Do you have any proof of climate science papers are rigged?
> This is certainly a discussion that needs to be had, and responding in this way which is dismissive is exactly what the parent was saying
No, the parent was saying that climate papers are wrong beacuse the papers are only reviewed by people that think that climate change is real.
The system will never be perfect, if you take take a small number of instances of academic dishonesty and use that to debase something as enormous and researched as climate science, how could we ever hope to make decisions about anything?
If you applied this type of thinking to everything else how could you make any decision at all?
No, not necessarily. I think that what the original poster was saying was that when a person questions climate change, they are met with the same type of response as when a person's religion is insulted. And for most people who believe in scientific truths, to them it is a religion in the sense that they personally cannot prove it. They are picking a group for its general beliefs, social acceptance, camaraderie, etc, but to not know any more about the science they believe in than most religious people know about the religion they profess to believe in.
> The system will never be perfect, if you take take a small number of instances of academic dishonesty and use that to debase something as enormous and researched as climate science, how could we ever hope to make decisions about anything?
Can I paraphrase? Say we were talking about the religion, and someone points out that there are cases where religious people abuse their power to hurt others. The response is often,
"The church will never be perfect, if you take a small number of instances of abuse of religious authority and use that to debase something as enormous and researched as god the almighty and the 10 commandments, how could we ever hope to make decisions about anything?"
Assuming that you are not religious, how would you respond to a religious person who made that argument?
No, that's not what the original poster was saying.
The original poster was insinuating that all climate researchers are fraudsters, the original poster was insinuating that all climate research is wrong.
He is the one being religious
Stop attributing data that doesn't match your assumptions to conspiracy.
You're talking about a political base that is currently thriving almost entirely on spite and a total absence of fact. They don't give a shit how accurate your x-axis is labeled, they're at the point where in some circles they discredit science as a concept.
Because the left has politicized science. Science should be apolitical. Many on the left do not fail to provide those on the right justifications for dismissing science outright. This will not be fixed until those on the left with a high respect for the impartiality of science start to condemn those on the left that abuse that science to further their message.
The right discrediting science as a concept is the effect, not the cause.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-state-hiding-c...
No. The fact the Right has moved so far past the center that they can't find facts to support their positions has resulted in the Right politicizing science and when that fails they ban information from being used and/or removing them from advisory boards.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/florida-has-seen-...
> North Carolina, whose barrier islands are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, was widely mocked in 2012 when the General Assembly passed a law barring communities from using a report containing 100-year projections of sea level rise—up to 39 inches—in their planning. Three years later a compromise was reached; legislators found a new report with a 30-year time horizon less alarming, and agreed that was permissible.
> In the interim, though, coastal planning lagged. Under then-Governor Pat McCrory (R), climate change information disappeared from the state’s Department of Environmental Quality Web site. The legislature altered the makeup of the Coastal Resources Commission, which overseas coastal planning, to remove some scientists and conservation group representatives and replaced them with more business-friendly members.
As easy examples, 1) a lot of underwater research was driven by the US military who wanted better ways to detect Soviet subs, 2) much of computer science in the 1960s was funded by the military through ARPA, 3) the Tuskegee Syphilis study existed because the people running the study thought it was better to let black people suffer in order to get scientific data - a decision solidly rooted in the race politics of the time, 4) much of Near Eastern archaeology is driven by politics related to the Abrahamic religions, far beyond what 'impartial science' might do, 5) the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funds so much education research (and journalists, think tanks, lobbying organizations and governments) that it can overwhelm opposition, including objections to the quality of the science.
(Eg, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulle... for how $200 million, which combined research and advocacy, helped convince many states to switch to the Common Core, even though there were no pilot studies or other solid evidence that it was worthwhile.)
Nor are scientists impartial. When Rowland and Molina published their findings about CFCs and the ozone layer, "they also made an effort to announce their findings outside of the scientific community, informing policy makers and the news media of their work." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_J._Molina .)
They didn't decide to be impartial and apolitical.
Curiously, like creationism, the only part of the world were climate change is a problem is in some sectors of USA.
In the rest of the world, even the right parties agree that climate change is happening and it is a real problem.
Don't blame the left for politicing something when almost ALL of the world, left or right agree and some right groups in USA are the ones making the noise.
You're basically just saying that everybody else agrees, so you need to get in line.
No, what I'm saying is that everybody excep a little group abides to scientific facts.
Like in the case of Creationism, the little group disregards any scientific fact and proof because ideology.
I know a lot of over-zealous liberals who have definitely misrepresented facts, but honestly I don't think I've seen anyone ever do anything that made me think "oh ok, science must be fake"
It's just willful ignorance.
Speaking of wrongthink :) - the reason IPCC models run hot is because the scientists in charge are acting un-scientifically by discarding the data that doesn't agree with the "impending anthropogenic global warming doom" narrative and over-concentrating on CO2 as the culprit behind the "climate change".
So again, goes both ways, except I haven't heard of any falsifications at the hands the non-alarmist camp to prove their position this way - https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-sc...
Any source for this claim?
> So again, goes both ways, except I haven't heard of any falsifications at the hands the non-alarmist camp to prove their position this way
There was no falsification, you have to research better and not read what Lamar Smith says.
By the way, even Dr. Bates says that the data is accurate
> “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,”
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noa...
So, any proof of data falsification?
Who has said models are completely accurate? They're just estimates. (They can be under-estimates as well)
From what you say, it sounds like you don't think temperature is increasing. Is that correct?
Then, we have scientists who make models which should be falsifiable, but instead of declaring that the models don't work when they fail to match reality, they make adjustments to "fit the curve". Anyone who has dealt with models before knows that you can make any number of adjustments to fit any curve you want. After the adjustments, the models continue to be inaccurate. Sometimes, suspiciously, the models become more accurate in the near term but still predict the same huge temperature rise in the future.
Then, the activists on the left take the current claims made by science and extend them as far as possible. This is then stated as fact. See: Al Gore. Said activists use "97% consensus" to defend their hyperbolic claims, mostly knowing that the 97% consensus doesn't apply to their exaggerations.
These "facts" are then used as justifications for massive government involvement in the economy, which just so happens to line up with the political wishes of the left.
Any example of those pressures?
> Then, we have scientists who make models which should be falsifiable, but instead of declaring that the models don't work when they fail to match reality, they make adjustments to "fit the curve".
Any example of those fittings?
A lot of talking of "the left" like demons but none of you can't give just one example of those falsifications. Perhaps because there is none and "some right" is just inventing them?
There's a paper out there where two completely separate groups of scientists disagree with each other on what the adjustments to the data should be. These are not alarmist versus deniers, these are both alarmist scientists who think it's a big problem.
They both can't be correct. Someone is making incorrect adjustments.
As to the models, when the models failed to predict reality, they should have been thrown out. But they keep turning out revision after revision of the models, which continue to fail to predict the future.
You cannot claim that models are predictive of anything until they have successfully predicted actual reality, but what these scientists are doing are saying "well, the models didn't predict well, but we made adjustments and now they predict better), which means nothing. For all we know, the adjustments could've made the predictions worse.
The other side defends by stating that the models are the best we have, but I would argue that they are worse than nothing. They have gone from being wildly inaccurate, to just somewhat inaccurate.
Of course I don't have any proof, because the internal deliberations are not public, the code for the models is not public, and the revisions to the data and models are not public.
Frankly, I'd be very happy if they would release the source code for the models so we could see what a clusterfuck they are.
What models have failed to predict reality?, all the models have failed?
> Of course I don't have any proof, because the internal deliberations are not public, the code for the models is not public, and the revisions to the data and models are not public.
Really?
> Frankly, I'd be very happy if they would release the source code for the models so we could see what a clusterfuck they are.
So, you don't have any proof, you don't know that the IPCC models have been aligned with reality but you claim that they are a clusterfuck.
I think that you didn't look very deeply, or perhaps, you deep only on some sites that are not very scientifics.
A five minute Google search will show you that the vast majority of the models have ranged from being somewhat inaccurate to wildly inaccurate all in the direction of predicting more global warming.
Furthermore, I'm not aware of any other models with publicly released source code. In my opinion, that's ridiculous, since people want us to literally re-organize the economy around these predictions.
Do you want to defend the idea of keeping the source code for the models private?
For example, the man who empirically determined the normal human body temperature was, as best we can tell, using a thermometer that read too warm. (http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/08/the_average_bod...)
Even with the same nominal weather station recording over the years:
Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.
-- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
So, in summary, it's virtually impossible to combine a bazillion datapoints recorded over hundreds of years and not need adjustments.
When doctors tell you normal body temperature is 98 degrees they are dumbing it down for you, instead of relying on bad sampling from the past.
Not that medical science is that great either.
Suppose a station uses a mercury thermometer for the first 80 years then switches to a thermocouple, with an overlap of 10 years were both thermometers are run side-by-side. Suppose also that it shows that the old thermometer consistently reads 0.25° warmer than the digital one, and that calibration tests show that the new thermometer is accurate.
Do all of the old data points get thrown out of the window? What's wrong with adjusting the old temperatures by 0.25°?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroug...
Every data from every experiment in every field has to be adjusted, raw data is meaningless
There's whole disciplines in engineering that deal with getting good data from imperfect sensors. Have you heard of sensor fusion? Whole field that uses multiple sensors to mutually correct error. Have you ever wondered why digital barometers come with a thermometer? No, it's not because it's convenient, it's because a raw digital barometers reading fluctuates with temperature, so the temperature sensor is used to correct the raw output.
Victim blaming much?
Also, the infamous "hide the decline" is not what you believe it is. The point has been explained thoroughly by so many people, I don't feel the need to repeat it here.
That's like someone taking a phrase from Linus's mail saying "this nice trick allows us to hide the latency in module XXX", and then running to the press saying "Linux is hiding its latency issues! Linus himself said that!" Of course, what's unbelievable is that some people are willing to fall for that.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
> Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
When you have 97% agreement on a subject its difficult to guarantee the 3% is represented in every peer review. That isn't "gaming" the system. That is just the reality of how Science works across the board.
You aren't going to magically find a small, vocal minority has the bandwidth and numbers to be represented 50% of the time like you find in politics.
1. The observed climate data is valid and complete.
2. The predictive models are reliable and sufficiently comprehensive and objective.
3. Specific problems are clearly articulated.
4. Proposed policies will solve the clearly articulated problems.
5. The proposed solution is realistic to implement worldwide, wont' have any unexpected side-effects, and won't cause worse problems than the problems it's solving. Negative side-effects should be acknowledged and addressed as best as possible.
While I have seen arguments that at least touch on most of those points, it's very difficult to arrive at level 5 and not have ANY room for mistakes or legitimate differences of opinion and perspective. So while it's nice to bitch and moan about the wild conspiracy theorists challenging the facts established at the lowest level, the opposition is just as justified bitching and moaning about all the political actors who have already decided what solution they want, and are just doing whatever they can to make sure that solution becomes policy, no matter the consequences.
It's unfortunately my prior at this point. The people with uninformed objections at 1 are a much larger group than people who agree with 1:n-1 and can have a nuanced discussion of n.
Some 10% of the population is avowedly irrational and that's not going to change. I view this as psychic/psychiatric distress in the face of an overwhelming existential problem (part climate, part economic) and think the best thing is to just get on with trying to alleviate the stressors and hope those people gradually come back to reality.