Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#31

Post by yters »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #11
gjm11 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those people were claiming that there were no mistakes anywhere in the high-profile AGW literature, then they should certainly be apologizing. (But then, anyone claiming that should have been apologizing anyway; everything has mistakes, near enough.) If they were merely saying: there's a huge body of scientific work supporting AGW, and claims to the contrary are consistently found to be the result of error or dish…

Much of the trumpeting over AGW has been about "consensus among the scientific community", as if scientists get to vote to decide what's true. We are now discovering that if there is, indeed, such a consensus, then it's partly due to derailing the literature (see Hadley) or selling to us media sources as if they were scientists doing real research. I think they've got a lot to apologize for, and they now have a lot o…

Plus, most of the original concerns don't even make sense, even if you take them at face value.

100 years to rise a foot? Millions and millions of people dead? Sure....

All glaciers melting is going to cause sea level rise? I see someone's missed the lesson on buoyancy and displacement.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#32

Post by lutorm »

jpwagner wrote: post #22
lutorm wrote: post #6

The IPCC reports are thousands of pages, so it's not surprising that there are errors. You can find errors in a large fraction of scientific papers if you look hard enough. The relevant question is whether there are more errors in the papers that support the idea of global warming than those that don't. Just judging from what I've seen, the complete crackpot papers (like this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4 ) a…

Sorry, I accidentally upvoted. Your assertion that papers with less errors are more scientific, is not at all true. Plus you are missing the point if you think counting errors has anything to do with this. Someone has successfully convinced the IPCC that it is RIDICULOUS to claim Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 25 years, and this is a victory for the scientific community.

I didn't mean they are more "scientific" (whatever that means), I just meant that when you make errors you can come to an erroneous conclusion. If enough studies are incorrect, it will impact the accuracy of the overall conclusion, otherwise you'd hope that most studies are correct.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#33

Post by CWuestefeld »

lutorm wrote: post #26
CWuestefeld wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory being put forth, it's the logical consequence of physical principles that are well established. It's not at all like Einstein proposing General Relativity. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is just plain wrong, and shows a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. First, do you think that Einstein was just making stuff up from whole cloth? No, he was working from w…

Sorry, but if you think that AGW and General Relativity are statements of similar stature, you need to learn more physics. General Relativity could not be derived from the prevailing paradigm at the time (Newtonian physics). It was a completely new framework proposed to explain certain observations that could not be explained in Newtonian physics. In contrast, AGW was not proposed to explain any observation. It was d…

You can never prove a scientific theory, you can only disprove it. You can confirm a theory a million times but that does not imply that it will work the next time. It does however give us some amount of confidence that it will.

Your definition of "prove" is too narrow. From my online WordWeb dictionary:

Verb: prove (proved,proven) 1. Be shown or be found to be 2. Establish the validity of something, as by an example, explanation or experiment 3. Provide evidence for 4. Prove formally; demonstrate by a mathematical, formal proof 5. Put to the test, as for its quality, or give experimental use to ...etc...

Many senses of this word relate to subjecting something to a test, rather than proof in the mathematical sense.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#34

Post by LargeWu »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #10
lutorm wrote: post #6

The IPCC reports are thousands of pages, so it's not surprising that there are errors. You can find errors in a large fraction of scientific papers if you look hard enough. The relevant question is whether there are more errors in the papers that support the idea of global warming than those that don't. Just judging from what I've seen, the complete crackpot papers (like this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4 ) a…

Perhaps. But the IPCC is sold (and mostly accepted) as a sort of bible of climate change science. The article you linked appears to me not to claim such broad authority, but to advocate skepticism. It seems to me like items in the first category need to be held to a higher standard. Indeed, the scientific method itself tells us that those putting forward a theory (such as AGW) bear the burden of proof.

Telling that you use the word bible, as the Holy Bible, to which this is a simile, is usually accepted by its believers based on faith, regardless of how outlandish its claims of truth might be.

I'm not saying global climate change isn't real and isn't a threat, but I think there's a lot more religion and faith behind the idea then there ought to be from the scientific community, and especially the media.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#35

Post by jpwagner »

lutorm wrote: post #32
jpwagner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I accidentally upvoted. Your assertion that papers with less errors are more scientific, is not at all true. Plus you are missing the point if you think counting errors has anything to do with this. Someone has successfully convinced the IPCC that it is RIDICULOUS to claim Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 25 years, and this is a victory for the scientific community.

I didn't mean they are more "scientific" (whatever that means), I just meant that when you make errors you can come to an erroneous conclusion. If enough studies are incorrect, it will impact the accuracy of the overall conclusion, otherwise you'd hope that most studies are correct.

yes, incorrect studies are inaccurate, which is bad. :P

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#36

Post by gaius »

teilo wrote: post #7

The real question here is: Does anyone still believe that the IPCC is a legitimate scientific panel? They are a political action committee with an agenda. Whether or not their agenda is legitimate is not the point. Good on them, however, for admitting the problem.

OK, this wasn't a "mistake". It was citing pop science as peer-reviewed research because it happened to support their preconceived position. I'd expect that from Wikipedia, not from self-proclaimed "real" scientists.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#37

Post by viggity »

teilo wrote: post #7

The real question here is: Does anyone still believe that the IPCC is a legitimate scientific panel? They are a political action committee with an agenda. Whether or not their agenda is legitimate is not the point. Good on them, however, for admitting the problem.

this is the third or fourth time I've heard the phrase "good on them" on HN. I would typically expect someone to say "good for them". I'm not trying to bash your language skills or anything and I don't think it sounds wrong, just different :)

If you don't mind me asking where are you from? (I'm from Iowa).

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#38

Post by jpwagner »

gaius wrote: post #36
teilo wrote: post #7

The real question here is: Does anyone still believe that the IPCC is a legitimate scientific panel? They are a political action committee with an agenda. Whether or not their agenda is legitimate is not the point. Good on them, however, for admitting the problem.

OK, this wasn't a "mistake". It was citing pop science as peer-reviewed research because it happened to support their preconceived position. I'd expect that from Wikipedia, not from self-proclaimed "real" scientists.

I call that a mistake.

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#39

Post by gaius »

jpwagner wrote: post #38
gaius wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, this wasn't a "mistake". It was citing pop science as peer-reviewed research because it happened to support their preconceived position. I'd expect that from Wikipedia, not from self-proclaimed "real" scientists.

I call that a mistake.

A professional scientist doesn't pick up a copy of New Scientist at the newsagent when he meant to get Nature...

Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

#40

Post by ajross »

anamax wrote: post #28
ajross wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Scandal leads. So we've got a war between "We're all going to drown!" and "AGW is a liberal conspiracy!". The demographic for "Maybe we should look seriously at cheap options for energy efficiency and carbon mitigation." is practically zero.

> The demographic for "Maybe we should look seriously at cheap options for energy efficiency and carbon mitigation." is practically zero. Actually, that demographic is huge. Folks would love cheaper energy. What they're being offered is more expensive energy and carbon mitigation.

Hah. I wish. We can barely get even the most pathetically meaningless measures through our governments. Tighter car efficiency standards are almost free. Better transit options are available for a tiny fraction of what we spend on highways. Aluminum recyling more than pays for itself in energy costs, etc... All of these ideas get fought tooth and nail by people who claim to be in the "center" of the debate. It's all a sad joke.
Post reply on HN