No announcement yet.

Oops, El Nino is back

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Oops, El Nino is back

    Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
    Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
    Thanks for the explanation. I don't have a short, clear way to explain this because we shouldn't make the assumption that everyone reading here has been exposed to the idea that light hitting a darker surface is absorbed and turned into thermal energy and/or that the short wave energy coming from the sun is not the problem. As you know, the problem is the additional thermal energy trapped by increasing CO2. But the great majority of people do not understand the physics underlying this issue. It has nothing to do with how intelligent someone is, they've just never been exposed to the least in the US. At it's core global atmospheric warming is no more complex than an average high school physics project but your other point about ocean acidification is a much more troubling and complex issue.

    Thank you for acknowleging that ones doesn't need to be a "respected climate scientist" to develop and informed view on AGW. Can we please dispense with any subsequent appeals to that ad populam fallacy (I prefer to call it ad ignoramum)

    Of course one doesn't need to be "a respected climate scientist" to have an informed view!

    But if one wants to demonstrate that all prior work on a subject is incorrect, it is advisable that one's arguments be at least consistent with (at minimum) a high-school physics level of understanding.

    The problem is that professional deniers' "science" almost never reaches even that incredibly low (high-school) bar. Instead one gets: Blatant statistical misrepresentations. Improperly defined thermodynamic systems. "Experiments" with non-comparable controls. Elementary misunderstanding of combustion efficiency and byproducts. Improperly scaled and calculated optical absorption. Ignorance of the concept of a chemical equilibrium.

    These are what you'd expect to find in (failing) high school science projects. And these are just a few of the errors I've seen in the work of deniers who have recently been linked here on iTulip. Seriously, a high school science teacher would have to grade these an F, based on methodology and rigor alone. Entirely independent of conclusions.

    And that's pretty much what gets re-posted here on iTulip opposing climate change.

    When one makes the mistake of endorsing this garbage as legitimate "science", one also necessarily demonstrates that one does not, oneself, have even that (high school-level) of understanding.

    Why do you think even long-time deniers in the Republican party are now falling back to the position "I'm not a scientist"?

    It's because they have found that publicly repeating denier's "science-based" arguments against climate change makes them look more ignorant than a bag of rocks. (Not that any politician needs much help in this.)

    Time and time again, they have been embarrassed on camera by making obviously incorrect statements, taken straight from denier's "papers".

    Miraculously, some voters DO remember just enough high school physics to recognize such errors.

    So, vinoveri, to finally answer your request: For my part, I will happily eschew any appeal to popularity or consensus at all, in perpetuity, if the climate-change-isn't real side will finally stop posting work so embarrasingly badly conducted that it can't even make it though a simple peer-review process.

    Seriously, it's REALLY not that hard to get published somewhere. All you need to do is to show that you've conducted the experiment or study properly. That's it. Lots of scientists, some smart, some decidedly not, do it all the time. And publishing a result doesn't represent an endorsement of the conclusion, either. It just means that the work itself has probably been conducted properly.

    It really IS based on the same kind of criteria of a high-school physics project: Did you show your work? Did you do the measurements correctly (calibrating the tools, using the right references, etc.)? Do your experiments adequately support whatever level of certainty you claim in your conclusion? Did you have a meaningful control group? Did you cite prior work properly, and explain how yours is similar or different? Things like that.

    I've published, and been a reviewer, in my field. I've NEVER ONCE seen a paper get rejected from all journals for reasons other than not meeting these kinds of basic requirements. If anything, far too much stuff gets published that doesn't quite fully meet them.

    So I think that's fair. I'll refrain from pointing out that respected scientists don't actually agree with the "anti" side at all, if others finally start posting only work that on its own merits has a chance of being worthy of respect (by being published in a peer-reviewed journal).

    To the best of my recollection, the climate-change-isn't-real side of this debate has yet to put a single post on iTulip that rises to even this meager level.

    It would be nice to see one that did.

    I should point out that I'd be happy to be wrong on this. If a study whose work is rigorous enough to have objectively earned respect has been posted here on the "anti" side, please link the post. I honestly don't recall seeing even a single one with a valid methodology since I've joined.
    Last edited by astonas; 11-09-14, 08:05 PM.


    • #62
      Re: Oops, El Nino is back

      Originally posted by astonas View Post
      The problem is that professional deniers' "science" almost never reaches even that incredibly low (high-school) bar.
      Understood. I've been there but I think I'm over it. We should all understand that there is a complete impasse. We may even enjoy our iTulip denier's posts on other subjects but when they write on this subject, all I hear is politically based nonsense. Of course, that's all they hear when they read our posts unless we stick completely to the science without an opinion either way. The physics is undeniable. As Feynman said, "Nature cannot be fooled.".

      I get the backlash to this issue from a political point of view. Every denier is at their core a small government, "drown it in a bathtub" soul. I don't completely disagree with that sentiment but I want to also be able to drown JPM, GS, C, etc. etc. and not worry about them either. AGW is a very problematic issue for small government, "fortress America", folks as it will take massive cooperation among governments around the world to begin to resolve this issue and the fraud inherent in the solution will be equally massive. Almost all denial arguments are really against big government intervention. It's just easier to say AGW isn't real, or it doesn't matter or the scientists are a fraud.

      I think we could better argue this issue if we all agreed that we fall into two camps. We either think the solution will be much worse than the problem or we think the problem is much worse than the solution. Neither side wants to harm humanity, we just have a very different idea of where the problem lies. If we can mostly agree to use this frame and get away from the denier vs. alarmist frame there may be something to discuss. Until then I'll be happy to occasionally point out the fallacies when deniers rape the science in their fever to kill off big, lefty government.