Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Climate wars revisited: Finally, does evidence matter in science?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend asks us to notice again science writer Matt Ridley’s complaint about the Climate Wars’ Damage to Science, quoting:

The great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses tested — or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I see bad ideas can persist for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they become intolerant dogmas.

Previous notice here.

To some of us, the biggest problem was the wholesale manipulation of data, as in Climategate and data fudging.

We were used to this with Darwinism, etc., but then some people began doing it with stuff your nephew or your granny should care about.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Comments
"“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”“ http://m.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.htmlhttp://m.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html And perhaps it is NOT a fluke. Based on sunspot activity, the Sun has been heating up since Earth's Industrial Revolution. Coincidence? Certainly. http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/hiatt/Images/Sun_activity_correlation.gifppolish
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
asauber: Scientific measurements are based on calibrated instruments (or counting units). That's what they used to measure the Antarctic ice mass, calibrated instruments, including laser altimeter, radar interferometer, and gravimeter. asauber: Estimates are done when calibrated instruments aren’t available or the object to be measured is unavailable for adequate comparison to the instrument. At least you made an attempt, but you still haven't explained how a measurement, being limited in accuracy and precision, is not a type of estimate.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
"Claim: Every measurement is an estimate. Argument: Because every measurement is limited in accuracy and precision." Scientific measurements are based on calibrated instruments (or counting units). Estimates are done when calibrated instruments aren't available or the object to be measured is unavailable for adequate comparison to the instrument. I'll say it again. Only in your word games. Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
History has shown that humans prosper in warmer climates. What does Zachriel have against humans?Virgil Cain
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
asauber: Only in your word games. That's not addressing the point, but avoiding it. Claim: Every measurement is an estimate. Argument: Because every measurement is limited in accuracy and precision.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
"failed to address the point" Inaccurate. I addressed the point. I'll address it again: Only in your word games. Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Every measurement is an estimate because every measurement is limited in accuracy and precision. You might want to actually address the point. asauber: Only in your word games. You truncated the sentence, waved your hands vigorously, and consequently failed to address the point again.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
"Every measurement is an estimate" Only in your word games. "the evidence concerning the great age of the Earth from evidence in geology, biology, physics, and astronomy" Evidence for is not measurement of. If you were going to measure the age of the earth, you would need a calibrated device to do so. As it is, you can only estimate the age of the earth. Are you saying the age of the earth has been measured or estimated? Of course. Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
asauber: I don’t trust measurements by people who think estimates are measurements. Every measurement is an estimate because every measurement is limited in accuracy and precision. You might want to actually address the point. asauber: it’s a false analogy to compare the results of one measuring device with a measuring device of a different type. One doesn’t ensure the accuracy of the other. Using different methodologies to measure the same phenomenon is the strongest form of verification; for instance, the evidence concerning the great age of the Earth from evidence in geology, biology, physics, and astronomy. It's the overlapping of fields of inquiry that lends confidence to scientific findings.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
"you are basically saying you don’t trust any measurements in any field" Not at all. I don't trust measurements by people who think estimates are measurements. Anyway, it's a false analogy to compare the results of one measuring device with a measuring device of a different type. One doesn't ensure the accuracy of the other. Of course. Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
asauber: So when I hear a Warmer say ‘measurement’ I’ll take it with a grain of salt because of the acknowledged limitations. As all measurements have limitations, you are basically saying you don't trust any measurements in any field. That seems rather extraordinary. If you have specific objections to the study, then we would be happy to entertain them. Otherwise, you're just handwaving. asauber: You mean multiple estimates.
Master Carpenter: Measure that plank. Carpenter's Apprentice: 2.36 meters, plus or minus a bit. Master Carpenter: Now, measure it again, from the other direction. Carpenter's Apprentice: 2.36 meters, just a hair more. Master Carpenter: Remember, always measure twice, cut once.
alter-sauber: That's just an estimate. You haven't verified anything.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
"All measurements have limited accuracy and precision" So when I hear a Warmer say 'measurement' I'll take it with a grain of salt because of the acknowledged limitations. Thank you. I already do that. Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
So CO2 causes glaciological shear heating?Virgil Cain
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Virgil: Geothermal is what is melting the ice from below. That much is obvious to anyone who understands volcanoes. Thanks for the link, actually the authors point out that glaciological shear heating is also a factor in melting the ice below.velikovskys
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
asauber: You mean multiple estimates. All measurements have limited accuracy and precision, so are estimates. alter-sauber: You don’t know how far away the Sun is. You haven’t verified anything.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
"about 92.9 million miles" Estimate, of course. "the estimated distance to the Sun is 90-95 million miles." Estimate. "multiple measures converge on the same result" You mean multiple estimates. Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Scientific actions caused AGW. Cause and effect. Thank you Science for internal combustion engine. Thank you Science for coal mining. Ok Science, how about fixing the problem you are responsible for. Um, soon ok?ppolish
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
asauber: there is a distinction between verifying and estimating. All scientific measurements have uncertainty, that is, they are estimates. When multiple measures converge on the same result, we call that scientific verification.
Scientist One: Based on orbital characteristics, adjusting for the Earth's elliptical orbit, the distance to the Sun is about 92.9 million miles. Scientist Two: Based on the modeled travel time of particles emitted by the Sun, the estimated distance to the Sun is 90-95 million miles. Scientist Three: Based on the calculated ratio of the Sun-Moon distance, and laser measurements of the distance to the Moon, the distance to the Sun is about 93.0 million miles away.
alter-sauber: You don't know how far away the Sun is. You haven't verified anything.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Zach(!): "Where did you get that idea?" Andrew: Zach: "Verified by multiple measures." Zach: "All scientific measurements have uncertainty" Andrew: Yes, but there is a distinction between verifying and estimating. That's why there are unique words to describe them. I would say that a person (you) who is trying to blur the line between the two ideas is being unscientific. But then again, unscientific is not unheard of for you, from your comments that I've read. Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
asauber: It says they estimated. Estimates that agree with each other is not scientific verification. Where did you get that idea? All scientific measurements have uncertainty, and they provided the error bars.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
"They combined many different measures, all of which give comparable results. That’s called scientific verification." It says they estimated. Estimates that agree with each other is not scientific verification. Of course. Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
asauber: Of course they did. That's right. So what was your point? asauber: Of course, what they didn’t do is verify. They combined many different measures, all of which give comparable results. That's called scientific verification.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
"Of course they made glacial isostatic adjustments!" Of course they did. Of course, what they didn't do is verify. And of course, you don't have to yell. I think you are too emotionally worked up to look at this information objectively, of course. Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
asauber: “adjustment to estimate” Of course they made glacial isostatic adjustments!Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
"You could have at least read the abstract." "adjustment to estimate" OK. I just did and it remains unverified. Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
asauber: I would take that to mean unverified. You could have at least read the abstract.
We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty.
Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
"A Reconciled Estimate" I would take that to mean unverified. How about you? Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
asauber: Supported. How about verified? Verified by multiple measures. See Shepherd et al., A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance, Science 2012.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
"However, both measurements are supported by significant scientific research." Supported. How about verified? Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Geothermal is what is melting the ice from below. That much is obvious to anyone who understands volcanoes.Virgil Cain
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply