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).
Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake
41–50 of 67 posts
Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Buoyancy and displacement are irrelevant if the glaciers are not already floating. If the arctic ice sheet melts, nothing happens. If the antarctic or Himalayan glaciers melt, that will cause rising sea levels.
(Fortunately for us, the antarctic ice sheet is thickening.)
Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
While it's true that you can't do science by consensus, it is legitimate to look at a range of studies and see where they agree. Those parts that most studies agree on can justifiably be called the "consensus among the scientific community". Your last paragraph simply isn't justified. Do you think any action or conclusion lives up to that standard? In particular, why do you think those that argue that AGW is not happ…
Global Warming (CO2 traps heat, causing the earth to be warmer than otherwise) is the conclusion of simple physics.
Simple physics can not prove that the current warming trend is caused mostly by humans, which is what AGW claims. To do that, you need very complicated physics to prove that CO2 (and nothing else) caused the warming trend.
Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake
#44Earlier 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…
AGW is the claim that human emission of CO2 (rather than other causes) has caused most of the warming trend that the earth has seen since the industrial revolution. Please explain how to derive this conclusion from accepted physics.
Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake
#45Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real answer is: Yes
I guess anyone who hasn't checked the FOIA docs. Otherwise, I can't see how any intellectually honest person can. Just briefly skim README.txt in the documents folder if you are skeptical. It's the programmer's journal detailing all the atrocities he ran across as he reengineered the datasets and climate models.
I have read the README.txt and I am not particularly surprised, nor should it shake anyone's belief in the consensus opinion. I guess if you're relatively uninformed and haven't been keeping up and you think in terms of "one line of evidence" then you might get a net negative opinion.
But the boring truth is that there are numerous lines of evidence. If a few turn up sour or turn out to be poorly supported, the scientific process is to discard them (and this happens all the time in every branch of science, it's why things move slowly in research) and move on with the remaining lines of evidence. This is the model that most types scientific research follow: gather data, extrapolate, gather data and discard data, extrapolate, refine.
Consider this: a bunch of aggressively anti-climate-change folks, like yourself, are constantly digging at the IPCC. To the point of engaging in international data theft to try and dig up dirt. They've been at this for a few years now. At the same time, scientists have been checking and double checking results, throwing out bad data and challenging AGW models at every turn. What do you have so far?
1. An overhyped case of data smoothing and normalizing for a specific set of data. All of the original data is recoverable (claims it was "lost" were misinterpretations, big shock), all the operations are now public and seem relatively benign.
2. Some occasional errors in source validation (which evidence so far has only produced a few isolated cases of). This is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. It means that people _are_ fact checking their sources.
3. A consensus that climate is going to get weirder before it gets warmer. This is the inevitable conclusion for any changing complex system: "It's complicated."
Given the extreme paucity of data for some kind of climate conspiracy, I really don't see how someone can rationally arrive at the conclusion that the IPCC is corrupt in this regard. Who is paying them? The people with all the money are explicitly not happy about their findings. What's their agenda? Do you imagine them in a futuristic control center with C.H.A.O.S. uniforms, with Vega and M.Bison giving orders before they beat up married men and raise their children as assassins?
Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake
#47Earlier 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…
[deleted]
Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess anyone who hasn't checked the FOIA docs. Otherwise, I can't see how any intellectually honest person can. Just briefly skim README.txt in the documents folder if you are skeptical. It's the programmer's journal detailing all the atrocities he ran across as he reengineered the datasets and climate models.
I have read the README.txt and I am not particularly surprised, nor should it shake anyone's belief in the consensus opinion. I guess if you're relatively uninformed and haven't been keeping up and you think in terms of "one line of evidence" then you might get a net negative opinion. But the boring truth is that there are numerous lines of evidence. If a few turn up sour or turn out to be poorly supported, the scien…
> ...the consensus opinion... the boring truth is that there are numerous lines of evidence... a bunch of aggressively anti-climate-change folks, like yourself... engaging in international data theft to try and dig up dirt... extreme paucity of data for some kind of climate conspiracy... I really don't see how someone can rationally arrive at the conclusion that the IPCC is corrupt... Who is paying them? ... Do you imagine them in a futuristic control center with C.H.A.O.S. uniforms, with Vega and M.Bison giving orders before they beat up married men and raise their children as assassins?
Okay, see, this is it. People get completely and totally convinced and it becomes an identity issue.
I excerpted you from above - you state your conclusions as premises, and preemptively ridicule and strawman the other side. You don't need people with an agenda if there's true believers with their identity at stake - their identity as scientists or good people. The boring truth is what you happen to believe, the other side primarily consists of aggressive anti-climate people who also associate with international thieves, and how could the side you believe possibly be doing corrupt, despite clear evidence of scientific misconduct and numerous errors and fallacies pointed out? Ah, forget the misconduct, the whole thing is going to get get weirder before it gets warmer.
Also - I'm a conservationist, for the record. I just think the whole damn thing is shameful.
Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
AGW is the claim that human emission of CO2 (rather than other causes) has caused most of the warming trend that the earth has seen since the industrial revolution. Please explain how to derive this conclusion from accepted physics.
That is not an accurate assessment of AGW. The current thinking basically balances an increase in particulate emissions which over the short term reduce global temperature average with greenhouse gasses which increase global temperature (plus a host of other factors). The fact that CO2 is extremely stable means than it accumulates in the atmosphere so its effects accumulate over time. Several other greenhouse gasses are modeled including water and methane, but their long term impact is reduced with time.
Now the long term stability of CO2 vs. methane is based on simple chemistry, and water rains. As to why CO2 would increase the greenhouse effect see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum and its overall concentration in the atmosphere.
PS: Looking back in history the accumulation effect of CO2 works in reverse so other man made impacts could have easily dominated it.
Re: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have read the README.txt and I am not particularly surprised, nor should it shake anyone's belief in the consensus opinion. I guess if you're relatively uninformed and haven't been keeping up and you think in terms of "one line of evidence" then you might get a net negative opinion. But the boring truth is that there are numerous lines of evidence. If a few turn up sour or turn out to be poorly supported, the scien…
> ...the consensus opinion... the boring truth is that there are numerous lines of evidence... a bunch of aggressively anti-climate-change folks, like yourself... engaging in international data theft to try and dig up dirt... extreme paucity of data for some kind of climate conspiracy... I really don't see how someone can rationally arrive at the conclusion that the IPCC is corrupt... Who is paying them? ... Do you i…
> you state your conclusions as premises, and preemptively ridicule and strawman the other side.
While I might have been slightly sarcastic in my reply, I don't think I was attacking a straw man with the core of my argument. If you are drawing the conclusion that there isn't evidence for AGW you are either denying evidence or ignorant of it. The amount of invalidated evidence is dwarfed by the remainder.
This is the same kind of phenomenon in human cognition that leads people to believe that plane travel is less safe than car travel. We learn to fear memorable stories (SCANDAL IN THE IPCC! FOX NEWS SPECIAL TONIGHT! likened unto PLANE HIJACKED WITH FLAMING DILDOS! TSA TO BAN FEMALE ORGASM IN AIRPORTS!) more than we fear the statistically backed realities.
> despite clear evidence of scientific misconduct and numerous errors and fallacies pointed out?
"Numerous" being "a handful" and "scientific misconduct" being "data smoothing" and "nasty emails." This is _all you have_. After years of digging, this is the sum total. And it's unsurprising that a few cases of this exist. I mean, even particle physics has its scandals and you wouldn't think those people were likely to go there.
> Also - I'm a conservationist
Classic political/conversational trick. "Btw I am actually a member of group _____, so I can say with authority." It's bullshit, of course. No one cares if you are a conservationist, and it doesn't affect your correctness in any way. It's just a misleading kind of "argumentum ad populum" where centrism must be right because it appeals to the most people in a bar.