What Climate Wars Did To Science

[carpediem4300]

11 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

 

 

9 hours ago, Lihu said:

 

 

4 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

 

 

I've deleted your comments from the multi-quotes as I'm not replying specifically to anything you wrote, but merely the fact you wrote it in the first place. Thank you for the down to earth, non-biased comments

[boogielicious]

7 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

I didn't have a beer just a couple bottles of Nickel and Nickel Cabernet.  

Instead of natural, my question to all is; what is a normal Climate, is it temperature based only, is that the only metric? Is it the same everywhere?  

When I was doing my graduate degree, i used to think this problem was such a simple mass balance equation, but once I started to look at it, It's just not that simple. And then on top of that, most or the error I noticed in models was as much or more than the supposed warming, which means GIGO.   

 

Modeling is hard, especially for weather and climate. It requires rigorous methods and tons of data. Tools for modeling are improving along with computing power. Do you propose that everyone just stop because it is hard? There would be zero progress in science if we didn't explore how to model the natural world.

Everyone knows pollution is bad except for maybe those who think smoking doesn't hurt you. Those deniers are beyond reach. But if you are just going to shrug your shoulders and say the math is too hard, then there will be no progress. We'll continue to pollute our world with trash and emissions and eventually everyone's neighborhood will be affected.

 

[jsgolfer]

Just now, boogielicious said:

Modeling is hard, especially for weather and climate. It requires rigorous methods and tons of data. Tools for modeling are improving along with computing power. Do you propose that everyone just stop because it is hard? There would be zero progress in science if we didn't explore how to model the natural world.

Everyone knows pollution is bad except for maybe those who think smoking doesn't hurt you. Those deniers are beyond reach. But if you are just going to shrug your shoulders and say the math is too hard, then there will be no progress. We'll continue to pollute our world with trash and emissions and eventually everyone's neighborhood will be affected.

 

I'm not sure I said that anywhere.  I don't want them to stop modeling at all either.   But they need to let the public know their limitations.  Protecting the environment and polluting less is always a good thing, hence why I've been working in the environmental field for most of my working life.  Unfortunately there will always be some in a progressing world.   

 

2 hours ago, carpediem4300 said:

 

 

 

ok

[carpediem4300]

37 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

 

welcome 

[Lihu]

5 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Modeling is hard, especially for weather and climate. It requires rigorous methods and tons of data. Tools for modeling are improving along with computing power. Do you propose that everyone just stop because it is hard? There would be zero progress in science if we didn't explore how to model the natural world.

Everyone knows pollution is bad except for maybe those who think smoking doesn't hurt you. Those deniers are beyond reach. But if you are just going to shrug your shoulders and say the math is too hard, then there will be no progress. We'll continue to pollute our world with trash and emissions and eventually everyone's neighborhood will be affected.

 

Exactly the opposite. We should be working even harder. However, it's the "reporting and conclusion part" that I would amend given the difficulty to getting accurate models. . .

 

BTW, all modeling and simulation is difficult.

[DaveP043]

14 minutes ago, Lihu said:

However, it's the "reporting and conclusion part" that I would amend given the difficulty to getting accurate models. . .

This is probably the biggest part of the problem.  Most reporting I see presents the results of the newest and best climate models as if its fact, not a "scientific guestimate" of relatively unknown accuracy.  Maybe we should require any TV news article to include the kinds of disclaimers that the ads for medications have.  You know, the disclaimers that last far longer than the actual advertising part of the ad does?

[boogielicious]

11 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

This is probably the biggest part of the problem.  Most reporting I see presents the results of the newest and best climate models as if its fact, not a "scientific guestimate" of relatively unknown accuracy.  Maybe we should require any TV news article to include the kinds of disclaimers that the ads for medications have.  You know, the disclaimers that last far longer than the actual advertising part of the ad does?

Most media, politicians, etc., don't know how to read a scientific report. Well written reports discuss data and model fit and don't necessarily come to a conclusion as an absolute, but more a probability about the hypothesis. That is how stats work as I assume you well know as do the other engineers/scientists/mathematicians on this site.

[DaveP043]

Just now, boogielicious said:

Most media, politicians, etc., don't know how to read a scientific report. Well written reports discuss data and model fit and don't necessarily come to a conclusion as an absolute, but more a probability about the hypothesis. That is how stats work as I assume you well know as do the other engineers/scientists/mathematicians on this site.

I do understand.  Sadly, I understand as well that most news has suffered from the USA Today style of reporting.  No more than a couple of sentences are used for any one topic, way to little to appropriately convey the limitations or uncertainties of the climate modelling studies.  Its so much easier to sell papers/ads/clicks when you say "the sky is definitely falling"  than it is when you try to explain things accurately.

[iacas]

This thread would be useful in a study of confirmation bias.

[Lihu]

16 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I do understand.  Sadly, I understand as well that most news has suffered from the USA Today style of reporting.  No more than a couple of sentences are used for any one topic, way to little to appropriately convey the limitations or uncertainties of the climate modelling studies.  Its so much easier to sell papers/ads/clicks when you say "the sky is definitely falling"  than it is when you try to explain things accurately.

Yeah, my 15 year old daughter and I were discussing news and editorials.

She basically stated that reporting facts doesn't sell the news, and cited 15 or more examples as she drove us home. So, a reasonably well educated 15 year old already knows when "news" doesn't make sense. She's a liberal leaning moderate and really doesn't like how the media fails to report things objectively, even though she agrees with the political direction of the articles. To boot, she's one of the editors in her school media.

[phillyk]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Yeah, my 15 year old daughter and I were discussing news and editorials.

She basically stated that reporting facts doesn't sell the news, and cited 15 or more examples as she drove us home. So, a reasonably well educated 15 year old already knows when "news" doesn't make sense. She's a liberal leaning moderate and really doesn't like how the media fails to report things objectively, even though she agrees with the political direction of the articles. To boot, she's one of the editors in her school media.

Yeah I don't listen to news talking about science in general.  This study said this, this study said that.  Most of those "studies" are not actual peer reviewed scientific research and if it is, they are taking what they choose even if that's not what the study says.  Especially when it comes to climate change, go for the actual research.  No breitbart, no nbc, etc... Go to the journals and read it for yourself.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, phillyk said:

Yeah I don't listen to news talking about science in general.  This study said this, this study said that.  Most of those "studies" are not actual peer reviewed scientific research and if it is, they are taking what they choose even if that's not what the study says.  Especially when it comes to climate change, go for the actual research.  No breitbart, no nbc, etc... Go to the journals and read it for yourself.

Yes, this seems to be the only way to read about any scientific research without any politically motivated verbosity attached.

 

[boogielicious]

15 hours ago, Lihu said:

Yes, this seems to be the only way to read about any scientific research without any politically motivated verbosity attached.

 

It's not always 'political' Lihu, but I agree with @phillyk. Sometimes it is just partial reporting by a lazy journalist.

[Lihu]

On 12/10/2016 at 5:54 AM, boogielicious said:

It's not always 'political' Lihu, but I agree with @phillyk. Sometimes it is just partial reporting by a lazy journalist.

Laziness is not exactly what he stated. . . It might be the way you interpreted what he wrote, though. . .

 

On 12/9/2016 at 11:55 AM, phillyk said:

Yeah I don't listen to news talking about science in general.  This study said this, this study said that.  Most of those "studies" are not actual peer reviewed scientific research and if it is, they are taking what they choose even if that's not what the study says.  Especially when it comes to climate change, go for the actual research.  No breitbart, no nbc, etc... Go to the journals and read it for yourself.

Both the sides of the political spectrum are equally bent on pushing their views on the rest of us masses. The great part about science and engineering is that you can always find the truth to prove or disprove any political (or religious) hypotheses.

Not so with political crap. . .For instance, the latest crap coming out regarding election manipulation by Russians while only a month ago the same pundits were arguing why Trump doesn't trust the election system? How do we prove that the Russian government didn't have a hand in the elections? Truthfully, we can't. Is it likely? No, but we can't prove it like we can science.

Eventually, we will be able to determine if our climate models are accurate or not. There is absolutely no denying that mankind has had some effect on the environment, but what is completely unclear is if this effect is reversible? The two reasons I stated are simply that the system is unpredictable since it's not a simple spring mass system. The other is our effect might only be a secondary effect. The release of CO2 might also be caused by other much bigger things coincident to our polluting. We'll probably not have an answer as to why before we need to react to the changes. That's why I think that "why" is not as important as "what should we do now?" Further, the answer to "what" is very likely not to simply reduce consumption. That's just not possible, and very likely ineffective.

[JonMA1]

On 12/9/2016 at 2:55 PM, phillyk said:

Yeah I don't listen to news talking about science in general.  This study said this, this study said that.  Most of those "studies" are not actual peer reviewed scientific research and if it is, they are taking what they choose even if that's not what the study says.  Especially when it comes to climate change, go for the actual research.  No breitbart, no nbc, etc... Go to the journals and read it for yourself.

Now this is something both sides of the issue should be able to agree upon.

[Phil McGleno]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/08/signal-of-anthropogenic-climate-change-is-written-in-the-ice/

Oh sorry my kid sent that to me-But I thought it was new but it is from 2014.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 12/8/2016 at 0:24 AM, iacas said:

:sigh:

Seriously! That's the best you have?!

On 12/8/2016 at 7:28 AM, boogielicious said:

No one has ever said that. That is a total fabrication on your part. Many of us have been around the world and pollution is a global problem. Please stop and think about what you post.

We have a global pollution problem. Denying it or saying, "Oh it really has not affect", is just a head-in-the-sand approach. The US has led efforts over the last few decades and it shows. But there is a long way to go.

Not sure how old you are, but the USA is far cleaner than it was when I was a kid in the 1960s. Other countries joined in and some, because of their size and resources have made great improvements. But others, because of their size and lack of resources, demographics, economy, will struggle. But to say, "well India and China aren't doing anything, so why should we?" is a fatalist mentality.

FYI, I am 64 years old! When people ask me how I can be so cynical, I tell them that I've been alive on this planet for 64 years, and I've seen enough that I think I've earned it!

And you're right in that the U.S. is far cleaner than it was back in the 60's. Show me a socialist or communist country that has made the same progress! You can't! Why? We are, or are supposed to be, a capitalist society, and we can raise the money to clean up our messes!

And you're going to try to pass off India and China as lacking in resources, demographics, and economies? you have to be kidding me!

[Lihu]

On 12/9/2016 at 10:02 AM, iacas said:

This thread would be useful in a study of confirmation bias.

What's also interesting and kind of embarrassing for me is that I appear to be the youngest person taking on the "conservative view".