Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
The basic skills are simple to learn, however to become a competent performer takes dedicated training until movements become second nature and complex formations can be achieved – which rely not only on the skill of the individual member, but on concentration by the team as a whole to move in co-operation.
For some six or seven years or so now, I’ve had in my glossary two definitions of “science,” a classic one and a modern one. The classic definition places emphasis on the learning objectives and the method, and the newer definition places the emphasis on the institutions, the phony consensus, and the elitism; the choreography, the “Chinese dragon-dancing.” Sad to say, I think that’s still correct. The word is undergoing a change. It would be dishonest to insist that it means what it has always meant, when it is abused constantly.
Around the time of entering those glossary items, I wrote:
I keep on hearing that science is in danger of being destroyed by politics. I believe this has already taken place.
President Obama, early in His first term, showed how concerned He was about this too (hat tip to Goddard).
When President Obama lifts restrictions on funding for human embryonic stem cell research today, he will also issue a presidential memorandum aimed at insulating scientific decisions across the federal government from political influence, officials said.
“The president believes that it’s particularly important to sign this memorandum so that we can put science and technology back at the heart of pursuing a broad range of national goals,” said Melody Barnes, director of Obama’s Domestic Policy Council.
That was then, this is now.
President Obama angrily blasted climate change skeptics during his energy policy speech Tuesday at Georgetown University, saying he lacked “patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.”
“We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,” Obama said. “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.”
This is a perfect exercise of anti-science:
Anti-Science (n.)
Whereas real science is a disciplined accumulation of knowledge, toward a more useful and complete understanding of the world around us, this is the exact opposite. It starts at the opposite end and runs perfectly backwards. The conclusion comes first, and then as evidence arrives it is compared to this conclusion. If the evidence doesn’t support the desired conclusion, an elaborate anti-treatise will be prepared giving reasons why the evidence has to be discarded.
In anti-science, it’s all about the consensus; the consensus is the product. And, just as you get a sharper point to the pencil by whittling parts of it away, as opposed to fastening on something new, anti-science works according to a subtractive process. You get rid of whatever doesn’t belong. Anti-scientist Barack Obama did a great job of showing how.
When no one is left with any authority intact, save for those who can repeat back the catechism, then you have a good dancing-dragon and your choreography is complete. That’s a successful (anti) science-ing. Quoting myself yet once more:
I think we should just cut the crap and go straight to the point.
[Anti-] Science is not about learning the nature-of-nature. It is not about accumulating any kind of information at all. It’s about arriving at a consensus and making it so that “everyone” agrees. This is done by conversion or else by some sort of obliteration/defenestration, that part of it doesn’t matter too much, the important thing is that everybody arrives at the same conclusion.
This metastasizing is long and slow, I can tell, given that I was making notes about it that now have six years of dust on them, and it isn’t hard to find some more examples three or four times as old. Some of the influences driving this, I believe, have been around since the very beginning. Scientists are human. It’s in the job description to fight the demons within, to resist the human temptations.
Think about when a prison guard or sheriff’s deputy is accused of being a bully. There is a certain air of immediate legitimacy to such a charge; if you are a bully and have yet to settle on a lifetime vocation, well…these are good jobs for you to have. So it isn’t unreasonable to suppose, within the ranks of such employment, you might find some bullies. Well, for similar reasons, scientists can be “bullies” too. The labels “science” and “scientist” possess such a positive appeal for those who detest debate, just want to say what’s so and impose an obligation on everyone else, near & far, to believe. If it really is science, you have to, right? It’s science!
But this situation is more hazardous than the prison-guard thing. A prison guard who is a bully, can get the prison-guarding done. At least, at the end of the day, the prison is guarded.
Science suffers, though, when people who loathe dissent and discussion, just want things done their way with no questions asked, start to saturate the ranks of those who are authorized to call themselves “scientists.” They may say that’s what they are, they may have the proper credentials, they may do some of what has classically been called science. And, on a wholly separate topic of discussion when they drift away from the scientific method, and start Chinese Paper Dragon Dancing and repeating the conclusions of others without understanding any of it, like David Suzuki did, they can certainly still reach the correct conclusion; the authority on whom they were relying, may be properly exercising the scientific method and the “web of trust” system may work beautifully here and there.
The fact remains. Dragon-dancing is not science-ing.
Cross-posted at Rotten Chestnuts and Right Wing News.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Science is the systematic study of the natural world, characterized by the scientific method, e.g. experimentation. Consensus refers to a general agreement, e.g. there is a scientific consensus that the Earth moves. Appeal to authority is an inductive argument, e.g. seeking a medical opinion about an illness. Though there is overlap; scientists certainly might collaborate, or rely on experts outside their field of expertise; they are different things. Hence,
mkfreeberg: Science is not about learning the nature-of-nature. It is not about accumulating any kind of information at all. It’s about arriving at a consensus and making it so that “everyone” agrees. This is done by conversion or else by some sort of obliteration/defenestration, that part of it doesn’t matter too much, the important thing is that everybody arrives at the same conclusion.
This is contrary to the accept meaning of science, which is the systematic study of the natural world. However, scientific consensus can be important when determining policy. For instance, if there is a scientific consensus that smoking can cause lung disease, then it makes sense to let people know, even if there is some residual doubt. Meanwhile, someone who smokes might consider expert opinion, and try to quit, even though that smoker may have very little personal scientific knowledge, nor access to the data and methods scientists used to reach their conclusion.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2013 @ 10:49And yet, we have many things being called “science” that do not qualify for y’all’s definition.
This is how & why a re-definition becomes necessary. When things are labeled with the term that do not meet the existing definition, we can can call this incorrect, or we can change the definition. There is a third option available to us, to do nothing, but that would be intellectually dishonest.
If we’re not happy with what words mean and we want to change the meaning of those words so other things can qualify, the very least we should do is admit that we’re making the change.
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2013 @ 11:13mkfreeberg: And yet, we have many things being called “science” that do not qualify for y’all’s definition.
Did you have an example?
- Zachriel | 09/28/2013 @ 13:03Did you have an example?
Every time someone speaks about what the “science says,” without having used the scientific method, that’s a good example.
That includes anyone reporting on what (their understanding of) the “scientific consensus” is. In order for it to be real science, and this is according to y’all’s definition, not mine — someone, at some point, had to take challenges to the conclusion seriously. Someone had to be earnestly ready to pronounce the conclusion refuted/debunked, if the evidence persuaded toward such a refutation/debunking.
Nowadays, sad to say, that’s more the exception than the rule. And so we have the two choices: We can ‘fess up that, in such situations, the “science says” statement was wrong, due to an honest mistake or intent to deceive; and if we don’t want to do that, then we have to broaden the definition of “science” to make it fit.
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2013 @ 16:48mkfreeberg: Every time someone speaks about what the “science says,” without having used the scientific method, that’s a good example.
When people speak “science says”, they aren’t applying the scientific method, they are reporting it’s results. It’s not that complicated.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2013 @ 17:54Except that they aren’t using the “scientific method”, because, according to them, we can’t wait that long. Examples would be “Overpopulation”, “Climate Change”, and “Evolution”. The “Evolution” example is particularly telling, because we actually use the scientific method for Animal Husbandry, and most everything we have been told is true about “Evolution” is contradicted by the collected, existing, and ongoing evidence……
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 09/28/2013 @ 20:40Robert Mitchell Jr: xcept that they aren’t using the “scientific method”, because, according to them, we can’t wait that long.
Huh? Are you perhaps conflating logical certainty with scientific confidence?
Robert Mitchell Jr: most everything we have been told is true about “Evolution” is contradicted by the collected, existing, and ongoing evidence.
Evolutionary theory is strongly supported by the evidence. Nice illustration of denialism, though.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 06:25[…] House of Eratosthenes has the Chinese dragon dance of science […]
- Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove | 09/29/2013 @ 07:11It’s certainly possible to take note of “the evidence” without applying the scientific method. Rather commonplace, lately, in fact.
- mkfreeberg | 09/29/2013 @ 08:32mkfreeberg: It’s certainly possible to take note of “the evidence” without applying the scientific method.
Scientific evidence refers to empirical observations that support or undermine a hypothesis, a component of the scientific method.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 08:49mkfreeberg: It’s certainly possible to take note of “the evidence” without applying the scientific method.
On the other hand, you can certainly take note of the data without drawing a conclusion.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 08:55On the other hand, you can certainly take note of the data without drawing a conclusion.
Yeah…that’s probably what should be happening a whole lot more often. But, ya know, conclusions are fun. Everyone likes to yell, like Quincy ME back in the olden days, getting righteously indignant. Lives are at stake!!
- mkfreeberg | 09/29/2013 @ 09:13mkfreeberg: Yeah…that’s probably what should be happening a whole lot more often.
Those crazy scientists, always testing their hypotheses! What will they think of next?!
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 09:16Except when they don’t, like with “Climate Science”, and “Evolution”, alas. I, for one, am old enough to remember Bio-domes, which were supposed to be the testbeds for testing the Climate Science hypotheses, until they turned out to be beyond our ability to make, just now, at which point testing the hypotheses turned out to be unimportant. And there may be a lot of rocks which have been read to be evidence for Evolution, but the actual, testable evidence from Animal Husbandry shows a reversion to the mean in about three generations. It’s why we still have state fairs, and professional breeders. There has not been, at this point, a successful test of an Evolutionary hypotheses. Even the fruit flies revert, pretty much the moment the intelligence has been removed from the Design……..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 09/29/2013 @ 09:24Robert Mitchell Jr: I, for one, am old enough to remember Bio-domes, which were supposed to be the testbeds for testing the Climate Science hypotheses, until they turned out to be beyond our ability to make, just now, at which point testing the hypotheses turned out to be unimportant.
Closed ecological systems are not for testing climate hypotheses, but ecological ones.
Robert Mitchell Jr: And there may be a lot of rocks which have been read to be evidence for Evolution,
Geological, molecular, biological, embryonic data all support the theory of evolution.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 09:34“All.” How carelessly that word is thrown around.
Everybody get their dragon-undulating right…we’re “science”-ing here.
- mkfreeberg | 09/29/2013 @ 09:51mkfreeberg: “All.” How carelessly that word is thrown around.
All, in this case, referring to all four areas of data.
You’re not seriously arguing that the theory of evolution is in reasonable question?
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 12:06You’re not seriously arguing that the theory of evolution is in reasonable question?
What would it matter if he were? There’s a “consensus,” and the consensus Shall Not Be Challenged. Because “science.”
- Severian | 09/29/2013 @ 14:10Severian: What would it matter if he were? There’s a “consensus,” and the consensus Shall Not Be Challenged.
Of course the consensus can be challenged. Otherwise, knowledge would never advance. But it takes evidence.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 14:44Yes. And we’ve seen all we need to see of y’all’s attitude towards evidence.
- Severian | 09/29/2013 @ 14:49Severian: And we’ve seen all we need to see of y’all’s attitude towards evidence.
We’re more than happy to discuss the evidence. If Robert Mitchell Jr wishes to discuss the evidence for or against the theory of evolution, perhaps a new thread could be started.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 14:53“Chinese Paper Dragon Dancing and repeating the conclusions of others without understanding any of it.
Oooo…jurno-list? Affordable Medical payment plan-face with ..”Um, excuse me but…” suddenly evolves
with an illegally pronounced tax, by a branch with questionable “repute”
(IMHO, Ultimately Brilliant, but that’s another issue)
AGW , with “the science is settled.., now PAY me!” , faced with “Um, excuse the F%#K out of ME….”, was reexamined, the double-down presented by “committee” with an apparently unanimous “scientific” 95% surety.
I’m not sure there’s enough space to address (ie) Economics (and other amusing distractions) evolution into a credentialed “science”, worthy of demanding awesome academic tuition to “learn and master”, in order to demand bodacious gub’mint rent to further obfuscate.
I’ve seen some examples of ” 95% consensus of SCIENTIFIC FACT”.
- CaptDMO | 09/29/2013 @ 14:56It was a committee on Brawndo.
I understand there was great scientific consensus on Thalidomide, New Orleans levees, the proper laboratory handling of uranium, Viennese maternity ward procedure, aluminum electrical wiring, “New” Coke, 1,1,1, Trichloroethane (-ethelene? Geeze I miss that stuff), double flush toilets, “O.B.” tampons, Fire retardant pajamas “for the children…”, “sealed” environment building construction, and frontal lobotomy(althoooough…), as well.
We’re more than happy to discuss the evidence.
Uh huh. As we’ve so clearly seen. Careful y’all don’t pop a hernia trying to type while laughing.
- Severian | 09/29/2013 @ 15:00There is another problem here. Three assertions coming from that other side of the aisle:
1. mkfreeberg is WRONG. Science means exactly what it always has meant, it is the discovery and refinement of information about the-nature-of-nature, and “consensus” is a trivial concern at best (in spite of all the noise made about it)…the focus is, as it always has been, on learning new things using the scientific method he thinks we’ve abandoned.
2. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!! Overpopulation, climate change, evolution. The folks who insist there can be no reasonable disagreement about this stuff, are absolutely right.
3. There is great urgency in pouring vast reserves of energy into it all. More graduates. More funding, more classes, more research, more “raising-awareness” concerts, MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE!
The problem is this. You have to pick two out of these three, and abandon the one that remains. You can’t advocate for all three at the same time. Well I guess you can…but that would cease to be a rational argument. If this is really all about exploration/discovery, and it’s really all settled, the thing to do would be to move on to the next frontier. Which is not at all what we’re seeing happening.
- mkfreeberg | 09/29/2013 @ 16:17mkfreeberg: Science means exactly what it always has meant, it is the discovery and refinement of information about the-nature-of-nature
Yes.
mkfreeberg: “consensus” is a trivial concern at best
No. It’s important for people to understand scientific findings in order to make decisions, including the limitations of those findings.
mkfreeberg: There is great urgency in pouring vast reserves of energy into it all.
Not all areas of scientific research are of equal concern to humanity, but even pure research has been a powerful tool for human advancement.
mkfreeberg: If this is really all about exploration/discovery, and it’s really all settled, the thing to do would be to move on to the next frontier.
If you are referring to climate change, we don’t use the term settled. However, the science indicates that it is extremely likely humans are changing the climate. The scientific frontier is how much change, the particular effects of that change, and the effectiveness of various policies.
- Zachriel | 09/29/2013 @ 19:00If you are referring to climate change, we don’t use the term settled. However, the science indicates that it is extremely likely humans are changing the climate. The scientific frontier is how much change, the particular effects of that change, and the effectiveness of various policies.
But if y’all read the article I linked, there is nothing there to indicate these pupils are being educated in the STEM science of climate change so they can discover “how much change, the particular effects of that change, and the effectiveness of various policies.” They are being “educated” only in the sense that they are being “indoctrinated.” This is not research into climate change. It is the creation of ranks of new advocates.
And that seems to be where the confusion is. You have to do certain things to adhere to the scientific method; you have to do other things to engage in advocacy. The alwarmists we’ve been hearing & seeing & reading — here as well — have been doing things much more consistent with advocacy, not science.
Undulate the dragon…all together now…
- mkfreeberg | 09/29/2013 @ 19:42Alas, Zacheriel, that haven of Right Wing thought, Wikipedia, says that bio-domes were to be used to study Climate Change, just like I remembered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2. Also see, http://www.innovateus.net/climate/what-biodome. Nope, bio-domes were going to show us Climate Change in the Lab, you know, actual experimental evidence. The fact you got such basic history wrong bodes ill for your “educational project”. When you lie/are wrong at the beginning, people tend to screen you out.
I note that your “evidence” didn’t involve any actual scientific experimental evidence, just Just-So stories from Natural History. Evolution, if true, is a process, and certainly we cannot watch a process via “Geological, molecular, biological, embryonic data”. (And molecular data? Ah, wildly no. Evolution is a biological process. And Embryonic? Are you unaware that the “Embryonic” chart used to push Evolution turned out to be a fraud? See, again, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing. Note that Steven Jay Gould of Evolution teaching fame, has objected to it’s use!). The only way to actually collect scientific data and evidence is by watching the process, and currently, that’s the Science of Animal Husbandry, and, alas, the evidence has continued to point in the other direction. But keep telling us how SCIENCE! is done…….
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 09/29/2013 @ 19:59The alwarmists we’ve been hearing & seeing & reading — here as well — have been doing things much more consistent with advocacy, not science.
Note that the Zachriel absolutely refuse to own up to any kind of credential or relevant work experience, and in fact spend a lot of time “arguing” that the David Suzukis of the world — who aren’t climate science experts and have never claimed to be!!! — are nonetheless the voices we should all listen to and trust.
From this I conclude that they only do advocacy, because that’s all they can do. They’re happy to cut-n-paste fancy-sounding bibliographies, from which we’re supposed to conclude that they’re Sciencey McScience, PhD, with a degree in Scientifical Studies from Science State (home of the Fighting Bunsen Burners), when in reality they’re something rather different.
- Severian | 09/29/2013 @ 21:49mkfreeberg: They are being “educated” only in the sense that they are being “indoctrinated.”
That’s not what your link indicates. Rather, first and second year college students are provided a background in the current state of climate science to encourage their interest in STEM fields. You forget that anthropogenic climate change is now consensus science, and first and second year are primarily about reviewing the current state of knowledge. Only later, especially in post-graduate work, students will do independent research.
Robert Mitchell Jr: Wikipedia, says that bio-domes were to be used to study Climate Change
Sorry, we thought you were referring to hypotheses of anthropogenic global climate change. Bio-domes are certainly used to understand the carbon cycle, and the ecological effects of changes to the climatic environment.
Robert Mitchell Jr: Evolution, if true, is a process, and certainly we cannot watch a process via “Geological, molecular, biological, embryonic data”.
We can certainly observe molecular and biological evolution. Hypotheses of historical evolution can be tested by observation of geological and other data. We don’t want to broach that subject in this thread, though. Perhaps you could request a separate thread.
Robert Mitchell Jr: The only way to actually collect scientific data and evidence is by watching the process,
That’s false. For instance, we can surmise that non-avian dinosaurs once roamed the Earth, even though we don’t observe them doing so.
Severian: spend a lot of time “arguing” that the David Suzukis of the world — who aren’t climate science experts and have never claimed to be!!! — are nonetheless the voices we should all listen to and trust.
That’s not what we said.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 05:36You forget that anthropogenic climate change is now consensus science, and first and second year are primarily about reviewing the current state of knowledge. Only later, especially in post-graduate work, students will do independent research.
About what?
You forget that anthropogenic climate change is now consensus science…
Undulate! All together now…
- mkfreeberg | 09/30/2013 @ 06:22That’s false.
Weren’t y’all just going on in the other thread about how you don’t claim any authority? And yet here you are, lecturing folks about what is and isn’t science.
Is that what they teach at chiropractor school these days?
- Severian | 09/30/2013 @ 06:22mkfreeberg: About what?
The future is open to all sorts of possibilities. Some budding engineer might one day design an underwater city, or a nanobot that cures cancer, or a neutrino ray that probes the nature of time. In terms of climate science, they might show find a way to stabilize the Earth’s climate, or terraform Mars, or help humans adapt to changing conditions, perhaps even show that current fears of global warming are unwarranted.
Zachriel: You forget that anthropogenic climate change is now consensus science…
mkfreeberg: Undulate! All together now…
As if teaching the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution, or atomic theory, to new college students is nothing but a dance.
Severian: Weren’t y’all just going on in the other thread about how you don’t claim any authority?
It has nothing to do with our own authority.
The concept of a natural experiment is implicit in the definition of the scientific method. Natural experiment is a standard term, which you should have been able to find for yourself, if you had bothered. Oxford defines it as “An experiment in which the independent variable is not artificially manipulated, but rather changes naturally”. You can read more about it here:
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 07:12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment
The future is open to all sorts of possibilities. Some budding engineer might one day design an underwater city, or a nanobot…perhaps even show that current fears of global warming are unwarranted.
But…how can that be possible. It’s consensus. You forget that anthropogenic climate change is now consensus science…
As if teaching the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution, or atomic theory, to new college students is nothing but a dance.
Well gee. Y’all keep shifting back and forth about whether it’s a sure thing or not. You can hardly expect consistency from your opposition on this point, if y’all can’t show consistency on it yourselves.
- mkfreeberg | 09/30/2013 @ 07:15Consistency was an elective at Aromatherapy School.
- Severian | 09/30/2013 @ 07:23mkfreeberg: But…how can that be possible. It’s consensus.
Scientists live to overturn consensus.
mkfreeberg: You forget that anthropogenic climate change is now consensus science…
Sure, but all science is tentative. Scientists find that it is extremely likely humans are changing the climate, but it is not a certainty. At this point, the question is more about how much change, and how those changes will affect humans.
mkfreeberg: Y’all keep shifting back and forth about whether it’s a sure thing or not.
“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 07:37Zachriel: Scientists find that it is extremely likely humans are changing the climate, but it is not a certainty.
Due to the support from multiple lines of evidence, it’s unlikely the consensus over the basic facts of anthropogenic climate changes will be overturned. However, there are many unknowns within the context of climate change, and it will be a fruitful avenue for future research. Given what has already been discovered, it’s not merely an interesting topic, but one with great importance to humanity.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 07:49Given what has already been discovered, it’s not merely an interesting topic, but one with great importance to humanity.
Which might all be overblown, if it turns out there is no cataclysm approaching after all. Which, if it’s relevant where the ExtremelyOverwhelmingEvidenceIsPointing…right now, it points there. We’re not doomed after all. And the “scientific consensus,” for some reason, is that that’s just awful.
- mkfreeberg | 09/30/2013 @ 08:44mkfreeberg: Which might all be overblown, if it turns out there is no cataclysm approaching after all.
Perhaps, but that’s not what the available evidence indicates. Scientists continue to collect more data.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 08:59While we’re on the topic, actual Science! http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/urban_heat_island_could_it_account_for_most_warming_attributed_to_agw/
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 09/30/2013 @ 11:16Robert Mitchell Jr: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/urban_heat_island_could_it_account_for_most_warming_attributed_to_agw/
There are a number of ways of accounting for the heat island effect. One could attempt to quantify the effect. See Hausfather et al., Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 2013. Or one could simply ignore urban stations, and draw the trend without them. See Wickham et al., Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications, Geoinfor Geostat 2013.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 11:47Zachriel: You forget that anthropogenic climate change is now consensus science…
Zachriel: …[T]here are many unknowns within the context of climate change, and it will be a fruitful avenue for future research. Given what has already been discovered, it’s not merely an interesting topic, but one with great importance to humanity.
With great difficulty, those two statements can be rationalized as not quite contradicting each other. That’s always a possibility with any two contradictory statements…just a little bit of rationalization helps the medicine go down. Ultimately, though, the science is either in the process of discovering new things or else it isn’t. Alwarmists have painted themselves into an awkward corner by insisting: The science is now sufficiently static that we can safely dismiss from serious discourse anybody who doesn’t uncritically accept it, but at the same time, we’ve got to pour vast resources, finite in supply, down the rathole of “discovering” what is supposed to already be well-known. They’re in the position of asserting their special brand of telephone-game science, is both static and dynamic.
What they really want is: Not to be challenged, but at the same time, to command vast quantities of resources. Of course, that’s precisely what children aged two through ten want.
Adults, however, understand that if there is an “interesting topic” that is actually in motion, particularly one with “great importance to humanity,” the thing to do is to discuss it. Out in the open. And y’all might want to get word to y’all’s compatriots to throttle back on the whole “there’s no point to discussing this with someone who refuses to acknowledge [blank].” Because when the topic is consistently argued that way, that’s a tip-off that this is phony science, it has nothing to do with discovering anything, new or old, it is a monologue, a monotone, and it is advocacy and a big bundle of behavioral disabilities masquerading as science.
Undulate to the left, undulate to the right…listen to dance-instructor Suzuki…leap, sway, about-face, pirouette…
- mkfreeberg | 09/30/2013 @ 11:51mkfreeberg: With great difficulty, those two statements can be rationalized as not quite contradicting each other.
It’s not that difficult.We might know that stars form by gravitational collapse, but not know the details of the process. We might understand that storms are caused by uneven heating of the Earth, but still have many questions about how lightning forms. We might comprehend that humans evolved from more primitive apes, but still seek new details of the history of that transition.
That’s the amazing thing about science. We can make progress even with limited knowledge, even when most of the universe is shrouded in mystery.
mkfreeberg: Ultimately, though, the science is either in the process of discovering new things or else it isn’t.
Climate science is a very active field of study. New instruments are deployed, new methods developed, new observations made, new hypotheses proposed. There’s still a lot to learn!
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 12:04There’s still a lot to learn!
Then why don’t you? What are y’all, specifically, doing to advance our understanding of climate science? Instead of intoning mantras on blogs, why don’t y’all go hit the lab?
- Severian | 09/30/2013 @ 13:36Climate science is a very active field of study. New instruments are deployed, new methods developed, new observations made, new hypotheses proposed.
New insults and ad hominem arguments conjured up, to throw around on the Internets…
- mkfreeberg | 09/30/2013 @ 13:55Zachriel: Climate science is a very active field of study. New instruments are deployed, new methods developed, new observations made, new hypotheses proposed.
mkfreeberg: New insults and ad hominem arguments conjured up, to throw around on the Internets…
How the heck is our comment considered ad hominen?
- Zachriel | 09/30/2013 @ 14:55What, no cut’n’paste link to Wikipedia? Are y’all’s fingers cramping?
So much ctrl-F, so little time…..
- Severian | 09/30/2013 @ 15:22Too early in the circle of denial? Wikipedia was not helpful to him earlier in the thread, when he was denying that Bio-Domes were going to prove Climate Change.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 09/30/2013 @ 17:21Robert Mitchell Jr: Bio-Domes were going to prove Climate Change.
So you were conflating evidence for the effects of climate change on ecosystems with evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 05:01Yup, that’s what he was doing. We’re going to have to start calling the Cuttlefish “the Nailgun,” ’cause they’re just nailing it left and right. Hmmmm…. “Cuttlefish with a Nailgun.” I’m seeing the next big SyFy Channel made-for-tv spectacular!
- Severian | 10/01/2013 @ 05:32Severian: Yup, that’s what he was doing.
Yes, we see now that he was conflating evidence for the effects of climate change on ecosystems with evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 05:49And again they nail it! Two for two! Give ’em a big hand, everybody!!!
Except wait…. does repeating the exact same phrase count as two, or only one? I know that’s how they score debates at the Zachriel’s alma mater, but not everybody adheres to the same standards of excellence as Chesty LaRue’s Erotic Massage Academy. We need an independent ruling here. Quick, somebody call the national press club!
- Severian | 10/01/2013 @ 06:07Severian: Except wait…. does repeating the exact same phrase count as two, or only one?
Does ignoring the same response twice count as two, or only one?
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 06:21Okay, I’ll bite.
Ignoring it, as opposed to what? Did someone not undulate properly? Who was supposed to do something, and what were they supposed to do?
- mkfreeberg | 10/01/2013 @ 06:47@mkfreeberg,
I’m just burnin’, doin’the neutron dance. You know, just in case. The power of paste compels me!
- Severian | 10/01/2013 @ 06:58As this is a thread about meta-science, this seems to be the right place for this discussion.
mkfreeberg: Ignoring it, as opposed to what?
Severian just seems to be trolling. You, on the other hand, have attempted some valid responses, but then always seem to revert to nonsensical comments when pressed. For instance,
mkfreeberg: Ultimately, though, the science is either in the process of discovering new things or else it isn’t.
Zachriel: Climate science is a very active field of study. New instruments are deployed, new methods developed, new observations made, new hypotheses proposed.
mkfreeberg: New insults and ad hominem arguments conjured up, to throw around on the Internets…
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 07:06Severian just seems to be trolling.
Jeez, they’re some sharp cookies, ain’t they? No wonder “climate science” is the dance sensation that’s sweeping the nation. You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out, you hit ctrl-v six thousand times and then you shake it all about….
- Severian | 10/01/2013 @ 07:16…but then always seem to revert to nonsensical comments when pressed.
Perhaps the problem is in the pressing.
- mkfreeberg | 10/01/2013 @ 07:19mkfreeberg: Perhaps the problem is in the pressing.
We had made the assumption that when you publicly post your ideas, that you felt them worth defending. We apologize if we misunderstood.
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 07:35In other words, y’all aren’t open to the idea that the problem might be in the pressing.
Good to know. Not really surprising.
- mkfreeberg | 10/01/2013 @ 08:29mkfreeberg: In other words, y’all aren’t open to the idea that the problem might be in the pressing.
Not sure your point. Do you not think your ideas can’t stand to be tested?
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 08:34Not sure your point. Do you not think your ideas can’t stand to be tested?
As adjudicated by whom?
We know y’all don’t understand the concept of uncertainty. We know y’all have no problems letting the idiosyncrasies in y’all’s bad judgment drive y’all to absurd silly conclusions, like Lindzen is not qualified but Suzuki is, even though Suzuki, according to y’all, ain’t. So we know y’all live in a flexible pliable Gumby stretch-toy universe in which logic and reason don’t matter. We also know y’all use anti-science, reaching the desired conclusion first, and working backwards from there cherry-picking whatever facts might fit and discarding whatever might not. Then y’all call it “the evidence.”
So it depends on the forum. Nobody can pull a “Daniel Webster” if the Devil isn’t willing to listen to reason.
- mkfreeberg | 10/01/2013 @ 08:39mkfreeberg: As adjudicated by whom?
As a public forum, there is no adjudication except by the individual reader.
mkfreeberg: like Lindzen is not qualified but Suzuki is
That’s not what we said. Perhaps you could try a more accurate restatement. Or would you rather we repost our position?
- Zachriel | 10/01/2013 @ 11:26[…] forming an opinion about nature in order to test it and validate it against measurements, vs. forming an opinion just to get along with everybody else. I would expect them to differentiate between discovering new things, and achieving unanimity […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 03/22/2014 @ 10:08