The Murdoch Media

[Giardiasis]

Sorry but what crap. "The pause" is not science. Please point me to the great weight of actual scientific enquiry, data, and publication in "Science", "Nature" or other established peer-reviewed literature that stands in opposition to the vast bulk of science. It does not exist.

The scientific method according the Richard Reynman:
"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

It is “undeniable” that the models that have been claimed to be able to forecast long term weather outcomes have failed to match observed results. Hence the models are wrong, i.e. the theory is wrong. The science community has now invested so much in the AGW theory that to come out now and suggest they might need to re-think their guess would do them enormous damage. That’s why we have seen multiple theories to explain the pause, but still keep the underlying physics alive.

For you to suggest it doesn’t exist, well I’d suggest you need to expand your reading.

Sure, politicians can be greedy, ideological, power hungry narcissists. And? How would you describe most CEO's? If you know that empiricism is the way to test AGW why do you insist on quoting denier nonsense that has not come from empirical sources? I am not engaging in politics when I use that label. I am refusing to allow you to mislabel a denial of the empirical science as "skepticism". Science is driven by skepticism. It is consumed by attempts to falsify results, as this is how theories are made robust or changed as a result of new data.

Real world observations aren’t denier nonsense. I think empiricism will demonstrate AGW theory to be wrong because the models are wrong. It has already proven it wrong.
What you described is how science should work, not how it currently works. Have a read of Feynman on his cargo cult science lecture.

Again that is political reporting, fine. But the science does not need to be reported in the same manner.

Science is not reported in the manner you wish it to. All we have is political reporting.

This time you missed the point. You cannot run a double-blind experiment on humans to test how smoking affects their health. It is not ethical. That hasn't stopped science from being able to model the problem. And while science found the links yes government acted on them. Left to their own devices the tobacco companies would not have made decisions that are for the best public good. The evidence is clear.

Smoking was deemed bad for human health based on the evidence collected. Smokers tended to die of cancer. Smoking was not deemed bad for human health through modelling the problem. I’m surprised that I have to point out that the Earth’s climate is a far more complicated system than the human respiratory system. It is a nonsense comparison.

Now we get to where your heart lies. Economics is much closer to philosophy than science. Would that it were not so. The economists did this to themselves, not evil government.

The scientific method of economics is not empiricism it is praxeology, so if you only consider science to derive from positivism, than sure it isn’t science. I consider it a science because to me science is about discovering how things work. Oh no doubt the economics profession is equally to blame for allowing themselves to become a tool of government, similar to the physics profession today.

 

[Giardiasis]

Enjoying the debate folks, I must admit this pause in warming is one of the great misnomers in this debate, the graph shows a clear upward trend and we are breaking records left, right and centre. This year is on track to be one of the hottest on record, in fact most of our hottest years have occurred this century. This is what happens when the sceptics pick an outlier in the statistical data and use it as 'proof' temperatures have paused. They haven't, we simply encountered an exceptionally hot year in 1998. Temperatures have increased by 0.85C degrees in the past 130 years and they will continue to rise, to suggest otherwise is head in the sand stuff.

Sort of like claiming that the hottest year on record is significant, yet it only includes data from the 1800s to today. The fact is that the models have failed to match observed results. This is what is meant by the "pause".

Which people are suggesting temperatures haven't increased over the last 130 years? The key tenant of the sceptical argument is the rejection of AGW theory, i.e. human induced CO2 emissions caused the increase, and if left unchecked will lead to catastrophic environmental damage.

 

[Giardiasis]

 

[Giardiasis]

Hell no.

Global warming is an environmental phenomenon. Best explained and measured by science.

I want my ABC coverage reflecting overwhelming scientific opinion, not some crackpot uninformed bias.

With all due respect, your "prescription" is absurd.

My presciption recognises the reality that all reporting is political reporting. My ultimate presciption is to allow "your" ABC to do whatever it likes, except not receiving funding through coercive government funding.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The scientific method according the Richard Reynman:
"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

I wouldn't argue with anything there.

It is “undeniable” that the models that have been claimed to be able to forecast long term weather outcomes have failed to match observed results. Hence the models are wrong, i.e. the theory is wrong. The science community has now invested so much in the AGW theory that to come out now and suggest they might need to re-think their guess would do them enormous damage. That’s why we have seen multiple theories to explain the pause, but still keep the underlying physics alive.

For you to suggest it doesn’t exist, well I’d suggest you need to expand your reading.
Real world observations aren’t denier nonsense. I think empiricism will demonstrate AGW theory to be wrong because the models are wrong. It has already proven it wrong.

So can we conclude that your failure to provide anything other than a hand-wringing argument is an admission that there is no credible science to back your constantly repeated claim? Where is all the published peer-reviewed literature? The truth is that there is no effort to save face amongst the scientists doing the work. They just continue in their endeavour to add data to the models. There is no great shame in a theory that fails. It is the spur that keeps the field alive. There are scientists today testing and poking and proding at Einstein's amazing work trying not to bolster it, but to break it. That is where new science is done. "Real world observations" aren't necessarily science either. Stand in a doorway and catch a beam of sunlight and you will see tiny particles of dust appear to defy gravity. Should we burn Newtons Laws? No we just need a better understanding and a different perspective.

What you described is how science should work, not how it currently works. Have a read of Feynman on his cargo cult science lecture.

I shall, but try to avoid appeals to authority and re-read your first point. Who said it is immaterial to science.

Science is not reported in the manner you wish it to. All we have is political reporting.

That is your contention. I do not agree. Science gives us a method that dryly extracts results from data. It is possible to report these without bias. Most journalism tries to create a narrative in order to keep the attention of its audience and often the science gets lost or mishandled. But I don't accept that a political bias is driving this process at the ABC.

Smoking was deemed bad for human health based on the evidence collected. Smokers tended to die of cancer. Smoking was not deemed bad for human health through modelling the problem. I’m surprised that I have to point out that the Earth’s climate is a far more complicated system than the human respiratory system. It is a nonsense comparison.

Again, missing some of the nuance here. You advocate for less (or no) government interference. I suggest that leads to oil spills and public health nightmares. Companies serve there own interests at the expense of almost everything else. And while you may not like the analogy it simply points out that science is capable of dealing with phenomena that cannot be experimented on directly. This does not diminish the results nor the method.

The scientific method of economics is not empiricism it is praxeology, so if you only consider science to derive from positivism, than sure it isn’t science. I consider it a science because to me science is about discovering how things work. Oh no doubt the economics profession is equally to blame for allowing themselves to become a tool of government, similar to the physics profession today.

The scientific method is what it is. If it does not apply to your field, then it does not apply. It is disengenuous in my opinion to re-define the scientific method in order to shoe horn economics into its purview.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Can you add some context here? What are we looking at and what do you think it demonstrates?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, fluff, fluff, fluff, sport, sport, sport.

Or for English and Irish audiences:

Terror, terror, boobs, terror, terror, fluff, boobs, fluff, fluff, sport, sport, sport.

 

[Giardiasis]

So can we conclude that your failure to provide anything other than a hand-wringing argument is an admission that there is no credible science to back your constantly repeated claim? Where is all the published peer-reviewed literature? The truth is that there is no effort to save face amongst the scientists doing the work. They just continue in their endeavour to add data to the models.

I didn’t think I had to provide evidence, I thought you’d know that the models have failed to reflect actual real life observations. I haven’t seen any “science” to back up your assertions?
Here’s two though: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309
http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming

There is no great shame in a theory that fails. It is the spur that keeps the field alive. There are scientists today testing and poking and proding at Einstein's amazing work trying not to bolster it, but to break it. That is where new science is done. "Real world observations" aren't necessarily science either. Stand in a doorway and catch a beam of sunlight and you will see tiny particles of dust appear to defy gravity. Should we burn Newtons Laws? No we just need a better understanding and a different perspective.

I wouldn’t argue with most things there, except to point out that all real world observations belong to science, it’s just that if the data doesn’t fit the theory, then either the physics is wrong, or the data is incorrect.

In your example the physics was wrong because it wasn’t taking into account the other forces acting on the dust. So instead of lying dormant on the ground as the theory suggested, it floats in the air. This is a good analogy for AGW theory, as while CO2 does act to increase atmospheric temperatures, there are other forces in play that are not accounted for that work to act the other way. That's why the models are wrong.

I shall, but try to avoid appeals to authority and re-read your first point. Who said it is immaterial to science.

I’m not appealing to authority, that’s what everyone else does by allowing the “consensus”, the ABC or the IPCC to decide for them whether they believe that AGW theory is true or false.
Pointing to Feynman’s lecture is evidence that there are definitely some problems with the scientific community, which dispels the myth that the science community is unfailing in their approach to the scientific method.

That is your contention. I do not agree. Science gives us a method that dryly extracts results from data. It is possible to report these without bias. Most journalism tries to create a narrative in order to keep the attention of its audience and often the science gets lost or mishandled. But I don't accept that a political bias is driving this process at the ABC.

Fair enough, agree to disagree. It sucks that in the meantime I’m forced against my will to pay for the ABC.

And while you may not like the analogy it simply points out that science is capable of dealing with phenomena that cannot be experimented on directly. This does not diminish the results nor the method.

I’m rejecting your assertion that it was via a similar process to climate science that the negative affects of smoking on human health were made apparent. I assert that it was via the evidence compiled which showed a strong correlation between cancer rates and smoking habits.

The scientific method is what it is. If it does not apply to your field, then it does not apply. It is disengenuous in my opinion to re-define the scientific method in order to shoe horn economics into its purview.

I’m not shoe horning anything, empiricism belongs to the natural sciences were physical laws can be derived through guessing and observing. Praxeology belongs to economic science where only through deductive reasoning from a priori axioms can knowledge of human action be educed. Both empiricism and praxeology are just different epistemological methodologies for deriving understanding of the world.

 

[Giardiasis]

Can you add some context here? What are we looking at and what do you think it demonstrates?

The point I was making was that it is the failure of the models to predict actual observations that is the key argument of sceptics. If the models predicted the current plateu of warming, then that would be different.

 

[Baloo]

What plateau?

 

[Giardiasis]

What plateau?

 

[Baloo]

18 years is hardly representative of anything when it comes to climate change. You know that, surely.

Here's a more balanced view.

 

[Carter]

Eighteen years is a very poor sample size for climate related phenomena.

If that's the basis for your preference for "balanced" ABC reportage then I'm glad this *smile* doesn't get a run.

 

[Giardiasis]

18 years is hardly representative of anything when it comes to climate change. You know that, surely.

Here's a more balanced view.

134 years is hardly representative of anything when it comes to climate change. You know that surely.

Here's a more balanced view.

 

[Giardiasis]

Eighteen years is a very poor sample size for climate related phenomena.

If that's the basis for your preference for "balanced" ABC reportage then I'm glad this sh!t doesn't get a run.

Actually it was shown in those studies I provided links to that it is statistically significant. What is of most significance is not really the plateu in warming, but the fact that the climate models were wrong.

 

[Baloo]

134 years is hardly representative of anything when it comes to climate change. You know that surely.

Here's a more balanced view.

No where near enough syllables for a Giardiasis post. Go back and try harder.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The point I was making was that it is the failure of the models to predict actual observations that is the key argument of sceptics. If the models predicted the current plateu of warming, then that would be different.

I understand your point I just think it is flawed. If I accelerate from Melbourne to Geelong and I'm caught speeding can I say to the traffic camera office, 'well I "paused" at Lara?'. The fact that all the observed data is trending along a very similar path that is constantly up suggests that the modelling is accurate. In a system as complex as this with almost infinite data points you will not get a predictive model of the type you are suggesting. And the idea that you think this is a fillip to your denial is highly unscientific.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

In your example the physics was wrong because it wasn’t taking into account the other forces acting on the dust. So instead of lying dormant on the ground as the theory suggested, it floats in the air. This is a good analogy for AGW theory, as while CO2 does act to increase atmospheric temperatures, there are other forces in play that are not accounted for that work to act the other way. That's why the models are wrong.

Again you present scientific ideas as though you have an established scientific basis. Somehow you think you know better than the scientists who do the actual work and have studied and researched. This is common to denialist rhetoric. Big scence is covering up the truth. It is bolderdash. Leave the science to the scientists and argue public policy. You do not know more that the hardest working climatologists. The reason the analogy works is because phyicists who understand their field better than you or I kept working and adding data to their models which improved our understanding of the natural world. They have no goal other than to continue their field and improve their models. Not towards some ideal or outcome but wherever the data leads.

 

[Ian4]

134 years is hardly representative of anything when it comes to climate change. You know that surely.

actually 134 years is a pretty good sample if you're trying to argue man made climate change in the industrial era

 

[tigersnake]

Actually it was shown in those studies I provided links to that it is statistically significant. What is of most significance is not really the plateu in warming, but the fact that the climate models were wrong.

there is no current plateau of warming. Denialists grab at it (they'll grab at a cold day), but its not even a side issue