Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

[Raz]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

You have never ever contradicted in detail anything that C1ue has said over the past 3 or 4 years. He has provided a tremendous amount of data that shows that we really have no idea what is going on. You believe what you believe because you want to, not because of any facts you have presented.

+1.

[sunjeep]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

First post here, been lurking for awhile. I can't believe I'm wading into this thread first... probably a mistake...

C1ue stated that he agrees the earth is warming. That seems to be a point of confusion in this thread.

As a concerned citizen (and research chemist by training), I have followed the CO2 debate as a spectator through the years, attending talks whenever time allows ect... I offer my limited perspective here, if for no other reason then to get my first post...

(1) It is a very difficult topic and I certainly dont have the answers.
(2) The evidence is quite strong the earth is warming, the trillion+ dollar question of why is more difficult, and the answer is likely a combination of MANY factors.
(3) We are running an experiment on the planet with unknown consequences (and i'm not just talking about CO2, I'm talking about the activities of 6+billion humans). That is scary to me.
(4) Even if we did everything the environmentalists want us to do (for example try to stabilize at 350ppm, see 350.org), I'm not convinced that CO2 is the lions share of the contribution to warming. That's alot of energy to spend with unclear benefit.

(5) I in no way want to be misconstrued as saying "Burn baby burn" and its all ok. But I think the more radical sides of this debate (i.e. CO2 is the devil, and CO2 doesn't matter) have sadly diverted us from building a more sustainable planet. And the word "sustainable" here means the package deal, not a "CO2 free" world.

Lastly, in defense of the true scientists on both sides of this, our sound bite world often distorts their nuanced prose. There are always offenders out there, but for the most part those of us in the research community do our best to present a snapshot, however limited, of our current understanding, which is always evolving.

As a post script, I viewed "Pandora's Box" in the theatres a few weeks ago, and it was interesting and saddening all at the same time. The ability of people to focus on one issue, instead of the complex interplay of forces at work leads too many of us (Im sure myself included) to adopt positions that make no sense, and defend them even in light of real evidence (welcome to being human).

[shiny!]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

Welcome, sunjeep! I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your first post and look forward to many more.

[c1ue]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

sunjeep - welcome to the iTulip community!

(1) It is a very difficult topic and I certainly dont have the answers.

Your view is one I share; the problem is that there are a number of people who don't feel the same way.

(2) The evidence is quite strong the earth is warming, the trillion+ dollar question of why is more difficult, and the answer is likely a combination of MANY factors.

Again, no disagreement here.

(3) We are running an experiment on the planet with unknown consequences (and i'm not just talking about CO2, I'm talking about the activities of 6+billion humans). That is scary to me.

Yes and no. CO2 levels have been very high before - much higher than they are now. Runaway climate scenarios did not occur then, thus assertions that they might occur now are, for me, of low credibility.

Equally there have been all manner of global-scale environmental changes - these also did not result in permanent changes to climate. The eruption of the Siberian Traps would be one prime example.

That said, I have no objection to finding better ways to reduce human impact on the environment.

My objection is primarily to ill-considered, uninformed, and profiteering ways which are presently being presented as TINA policy.

(4) Even if we did everything the environmentalists want us to do (for example try to stabilize at 350ppm, see 350.org), I'm not convinced that CO2 is the lions share of the contribution to warming. That's alot of energy to spend with unclear benefit.

350 isn't going to happen until the PCO, PCC, and PCNG occur. In other threads, I've posted profiles of world energy consumption by region as well as overall. The reality is that the 2nd and 3rd world is more than compensating for the leveling off of 1st world fossil fuel consumption. If truly the objective is to reduce CO2 emissions, the one and only path to that is the creation of alternative energy sources which are cheaper than fossil fuel driven sources. Subsidizing expensive and fundamentally uncompetitive existing alternative energy might work in the 1st world, but it will have zero impact on world fossil fuel consumption.

(5) I in no way want to be misconstrued as saying "Burn baby burn" and its all ok. But I think the more radical sides of this debate (i.e. CO2 is the devil, and CO2 doesn't matter) have sadly diverted us from building a more sustainable planet. And the word "sustainable" here means the package deal, not a "CO2 free" world.

The debate is in many respects politicized, but ultimately the real problem is the unwillingness - primarily on one side - to consider the position of the other.

A prime example of what should be happening can be seen here:

http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf

In this publication from 2009, a controversial assertion was made that nuclear decay rates were varying in proportion to the Sun's distance from Earth. Both sides present their case - and both sides have evidence. In 2009, the primary counter-argument was that similar results were not seen in other experiments.

Fast forward to now - the original assertion has since been corroborated by multiple sources.

In contrast, the ongoing climate model debacle is marked primarily by the consensus digging in and hunting for all manner of reasons why said models aren't working in any sense of the word.

Perhaps this is because all manner of public policies are being pursued towards this end, but shouldn't scientific integrity ultimately be paramount over defense of well intentioned but possibly misguided policy?

Unfortunately it seems more a case of policy driving science.

Lastly, in defense of the true scientists on both sides of this, our sound bite world often distorts their nuanced prose. There are always offenders out there, but for the most part those of us in the research community do our best to present a snapshot, however limited, of our current understanding, which is always evolving.

I think that this is true in some cases, but in the climate world - it applies far less.

If you care to peruse the Climate Change archives, you might see that a number of prominent climate scientists are very much personally involved in political maneuvers.

I'd also note that the behavior of supposedly science oriented web sites, staffed by so-called objective scientists, such as Real Climate - have all of the openness and transparency of a East German Central Committee meeting.

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

Michael Mann is an idiot...

Thanks for making my earlier point. Possibly you'd consider debating the "idiot", or other published and respected climate scientists. I think you're just a propagandist screeching in a dark little corner of the climate debate. I have found Dr. Mann very approachable and open. Possibly you could start with an apology. Just a suggestion if you'd like to learn something. If not, keep following your buddy Monckton. Do you have to call him Lord or is there a simple hand shake the followers all know?

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

+1.

Another intellectual for climate change denial. It's hard to argue with this position.

[BadJuju]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

You have never ever contradicted in detail anything that C1ue has said over the past 3 or 4 years. He has provided a tremendous amount of data that shows that we really have no idea what is going on. You believe what you believe because you want to, not because of any facts you have presented.

No one on the climate change side cares enough. If someone wants to deny climate change, let them. It is like trying to talk sense into a religious person.

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

First post here, been lurking for awhile. I can't believe I'm wading into this thread first... probably a mistake...

We might go after each other but no one here is going to blow up a polite first post. Welcome.

C1ue stated that he agrees the earth is warming. That seems to be a point of confusion in this thread.

As a concerned citizen (and research chemist by training), I have followed the CO2 debate as a spectator through the years, attending talks whenever time allows ect... I offer my limited perspective here, if for no other reason then to get my first post...

You're not a physicist but as a chemist, you certainly understand the properties of CO2.

(1) It is a very difficult topic and I certainly dont have the answers.

This is a topic well understood by scientists working in the field and the support for AGW is nearly unanimous. Only crackpots are still lighting their hair on fire and looking for conspiracies. We have one here...I'm sure you'll hear from him again soon.

(2) The evidence is quite strong the earth is warming, the trillion+ dollar question of why is more difficult, and the answer is likely a combination of MANY factors.

7B humans? Is that enough factors. By the time we get to 9B it should be clear.

(3) We are running an experiment on the planet with unknown consequences (and i'm not just talking about CO2, I'm talking about the activities of 6+billion humans). That is scary to me.

Yeah, this isn't good. c1ue loves to point out that years in several orders of magnitude before humans the earth had CO2 levels above 400 so our scenario is OK. As he has before, the propagandist goes dinosaur on us. Maybe we should be worried about TRex attacks as well.

(4) Even if we did everything the environmentalists want us to do (for example try to stabilize at 350ppm, see 350.org), I'm not convinced that CO2 is the lions share of the contribution to warming. That's alot of energy to spend with unclear benefit.

You're a scientist. Do you really believe that? Climate scientists know it's a major contributor to warming.

(5) I in no way want to be misconstrued as saying "Burn baby burn" and its all ok. But I think the more radical sides of this debate (i.e. CO2 is the devil, and CO2 doesn't matter) have sadly diverted us from building a more sustainable planet. And the word "sustainable" here means the package deal, not a "CO2 free" world.

CO2 is not the devil. As you know, it's a chemical compound. As more of it enters the atmosphere, the world will continue to warm. As it does, propagandists will head for darker corners and other fake debates as they did in the made-up cigarette smoking debate.

Lastly, in defense of the true scientists on both sides of this, our sound bite world often distorts their nuanced prose. There are always offenders out there, but for the most part those of us in the research community do our best to present a snapshot, however limited, of our current understanding, which is always evolving.

There are not true scientists on both sides. In fact, there are not two sides. There are scientists and there are carnies.

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

I'd also note that the behavior of supposedly science oriented web sites, staffed by so-called objective scientists, such as Real Climate - have all of the openness and transparency of a East German Central Committee meeting.

That's funny. I suppose we won't see c1ue posting on Real Climate anytime soon. Since you won't post your nonsense on a site devoted to climate science, it must be 'East German Central Committee' level control. Not to characterize the site of course. They must be actual East Germans...accept there is no East Germany any longer...oops, could c1ue be living in the past?

[Raz]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

Another intellectual for climate change denial. It's hard to argue with this position.

Take a break, santafe. You don't have to be an arrogant, condescending asshole every day of your life.

[shiny!]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

This is a topic well understood by scientists working in the field and the support for AGW is nearly unanimous. Only crackpots are still lighting their hair on fire and looking for conspiracies. We have one here...I'm sure you'll hear from him again soon.

...

There are not true scientists on both sides. In fact, there are not two sides. There are scientists and there are carnies.

Pot, meet Kettle.

santafe, how can you criticize people for being poor debaters because they make comments like "+1", then you try to shut down arguments by making unabashedly disparaging comments like this? Can't you see the hypocracy of your behavior?

The fact that a reported majority of scientists are reportedly in consensus about global warming is irrelevant. History is replete with examples of majorities being flat-out wrong. There was a time when scientific consensus knew without a doubt that the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, that disease was caused by sin, and later by "night vapors". In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that studies linking cholesterol to heart disease were flawed, there's still overwhelming consensus among doctors that cholesterol causes heart disease. In all these cases, lone dissenters to conventional wisdom were met with disbelief, hostility, professional ostracism and persecution, sometimes even imprisonment and death. I see history repeating in the AGW believers' response to "climate change deniers".

And FWIW (next to nothing), I haven't chosen a side or formed an opinion on this matter. But I do recognize attempts to shut down dissenting arguments when I see them.

[c1ue]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

Thanks for making my earlier point. Possibly you'd consider debating the "idiot", or other published and respected climate scientists. I think you're just a propagandist screeching in a dark little corner of the climate debate. I have found Dr. Mann very approachable and open. Possibly you could start with an apology. Just a suggestion if you'd like to learn something. If not, keep following your buddy Monckton. Do you have to call him Lord or is there a simple hand shake the followers all know?

As usual, you fail to provide any backing for your assertions.

Unlike his compatriot Ken Briffa, Mann keeps trying to justify his failures. Rather than acknowledge the validity of criticisms leveled against him - that his use and understanding of statistics was flat out wrong - he continues to try and pretend that there's nothing to see there.

Thank you, however, for outing yourself as being a part of that community. In fact, around 2006 when first looking into Global Warming - now morphed to Climate Change - I had first gone to Real Climate thinking that its 'real' scientists could provide some information as to a number of inconsistencies in the consensus.

The experience I went through then showed quite clearly that Mann and others like him are nothing but shills for their own agenda - they use their supposed expertise to try and overawe others rather than explain why their ideas are correct. Some like you swallow this hook, line and sinker.

The contrast between Real Climate and sites like ClimateAudit and Climate Etc could not be more stark, much as the behavior of skeptics vs. the true believers is also equally dramatic.

Be that as it may, your own words speak for themselves.

That's funny. I suppose we won't see c1ue posting on Real Climate anytime soon. Since you won't post your nonsense on a site devoted to climate science, it must be 'East German Central Committee' level control. Not to characterize the site of course. They must be actual East Germans...accept there is no East Germany any longer...oops, could c1ue be living in the past?

I'd happily post there, but Real Climate has a moderation system which does not permit any dissenting commentary - a statement which has been proven over and over again:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/1...orehole-logic/

Realclimate censorship by Ecotretas

Realclimate.org is notoriously known for censoring comments. Examples are everywhere on the Internet, and in a couple of minutes you get a handful of them: ^{(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)}. I knew this when I went there today, for the “Is Sea-Level Rise Accelerating?” post.
I bet they know that the sea level rise rate is going down, and fast. But that’s not what you get when you read the article. And they don’t want their readers to know. So I kept the printscreen, because I was pretty certain I would be censored. I was. But as can be seen below, the message is of no harm, except for the Global Warming religious priests, and one more clear example of “hiding the decline”:

Now, what is more surprising is that you can track the amount of comment rejection at RC. My comment has id 210412; when I did this post, these were the ids available in the top right, in the Recent Comments section:

• 210407
• 210411
• 210414
• 210415
• 210417
• 210418
• 210421
• 210422
• 210423
• 210424

I was not alone in the rejection! Almost half of the comments are censored! But hey, I did manage to get to the bore hole, where not all of the censored comments are allowed to go!

Only those who faithfully bow to the Anthropogenic-CO2-Catastrophe gods are allowed to genuflect at that altar.

All others are suppressed by the RealClimate Ministers of Truth.

[reggie]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

You have never ever contradicted in detail anything that C1ue has said over the past 3 or 4 years. He has provided a tremendous amount of data that shows that we really have no idea what is going on. You believe what you believe because you want to, not because of any facts you have presented.

No, we believe what we believe due to a lifetime of neural shaping. Internationally recognized brain researcher, Joseph Ladeux says that ''We are our synapses". Hence, it far more complicated of a science than merely "believing" what one "wants to" believe. This is why propaganda is a science, and why it is so critical to control of the social, and why it permeates every aspect of our lives, irrespective of the target individual's so-called intelligence level. Once again, we have a great example of how the frames develop differently in different individuals within this thread. The goal, however, is to rise up ABOVE the frames, and to see the debate for what it is, merely another container for synapse development in a target population.



http://www.amazon.com/dp/0142001783

This reminds me of an interesting article on how we make decisions.

8 things you don't know are affecting our decisions every day: The science of decision making.

She's talking about framing theory. Shutting down is not biological, nor does indecision have to be the case. Instead, this is the result of a lifetime of synaptic development where large barriers exist between neural network segments. A population that DOES NOT have strong centrally controlled propaganda development and dissemination would not result in such clear concise borders across neural networks, resulting in a much more diverse array of thought and argument.

When we get offered too many choices, the same thing happens—we shut down, unable to decide. Often, we end up simply choosing anything, just to get the process over and done with.

BOTH sides of this debate are stuck in a container designed by someone else. Try stepping outside the containers, which has nothing to do with ones so-called "intelligence" level, but is typically negatively correlated with one educational indoctrination.

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

santafe, how can you criticize people for being poor debaters because they make comments like "+1", then you try to shut down arguments by making unabashedly disparaging comments like this? Can't you see the hypocracy of your behavior?

shiny!, there is no climate warming debate so we can't have one here or anywhere else. Science has moved on. Science is working on solutions.

We will most likely have to wait until we have a Wigand moment for enough people to move on and begin working toward a solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs

Asking me to support this thread as a serious debate is similar to expecting a serious creationism vs. evolution debate on iTulip. It's not going to happen. There's a propagandist on iTulip. If he decides tomorrow that creationism is valid I suppose there will be a set of threads on that as well.

In the real world, there's plenty of debate regarding how/if we're going to mitigate this issue, but there is no serious debate as to how climate warming it's being caused and there is no debate about C02 as the primary cause. The debate has been over for more than a decade.

As for my comment with regard to the +1, that is a child's coloring book approach to commentary and that cheer leader level of thought is never acceptable when one is being critical. One should be a thinking person and offer their own thoughts, as you did by the way.

I tried to open a discussion and responded thoughtfully to Aaron at #39. So far no one has taken the time to work through these answers and have a discussion. jiimbergin took the time to criticize me for asking Aaron to understand some basic issues but like Raz, he has no ideas of his own. I suppose I should take some solace in the idea that he didn't call me an "arrogant, condescending asshole". Um...jiimbergin...+1?

"Can't you see the hypocrisy of your behavior?"

Completely disagree with your comments including the quote above but I do it with all respect shiny!, you've always done the same.

[shiny!]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

OK, santafe. We'll have to agree to disagree for now. Or, if not fully disagree, not fully agree, either. But thank you for being respectful.

I don't know what to believe, but in the meantime I've taken what steps I can to conserve. I drive the most affordable fuel-efficient car I could find, even though I prefer Crown Vics.

I've done a lot of things over the last few years to make my home more energy efficient. It paid off in a big way. My monthly summer electric bill is now less than half of what it was five years ago, and that's with rates that have gone up a lot. Details of what I did here if anyone's interested.