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
Virgil Cain: Yes. Per the paper, "an oceanic trigger is thought to be responsible for current change at the grounding line of Thwaites Glacier." Geothermal just adds to the problem.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Any evidence of increased geothermal heat in Antarctica?
Yes.Virgil Cain
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
asauber: Still could be wrong, though. Sure. The measurements of sea ice extent could be wrong, too. However, both measurements are supported by significant scientific research. Sea ice has expanded, probably due to fresh water melt from the continent, along with changes in wind patterns. Meanwhile, the overall ice mass has decreased.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
"The graph is from the U.S. National Climate Assessment, reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, and based on peer reviewed scientific research." Still could be wrong, though. Right Zach? Oh, and Appeal to Authority much? You have alphabet soup goin' there. Andrewasauber
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
ppolish: Anyone can draw a bogus graph The graph is from the U.S. National Climate Assessment, reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, and based on peer reviewed scientific research. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-large/Figure-17-hi.jpg You are conflating sea ice extent with total Antarctic ice mass. Your claim was that ice in the region is not melting, which is false.Zachriel
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
ppolish Antarctic sea ice is growing – and growing thicker: http://m.livescience.com/48880.....apped.html From your link: The sea ice growth around Antarctica has averaged about 1.2 percent to 1.8 percent per decade between 1979 and 2012, according to the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report. The increases are concentrated primarily in the Ross Sea in western Antarctica. Sea ice in the nearby Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas has significantly decreased. Researchers suspect these regional differences could result from stronger winds or increased meltwater from the Antarctic ice sheet, or a combination of both factors. And that which is melting, is melting due to geothermal heat like Virgil pointed out. Not AGW FCOL. Any evidence of increased geothermal heat in Antarctica?velikovskys
July 15, 2015
July
07
Jul
15
15
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
It's not about the CO2. It's about increasing control through taxation, fake emergencies, and a flood of bureaucratic regulation over every aspect of our lives. The goal is to establish a * Paradise * modeled after Uganda, Cuba, or even (dare we dream?) North Korea! But the joke's on the movers behind all this.
He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves abundance with its income. This too is vanity. -Solomon, as he wrote in Ecclesiates 5:10 NASB
and also . . .
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure! Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you. -James, brother of Jesus, as he wrote in James 5:1-6 NASB
And . . .
Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you? - Jesus, as quoted in Luke 16:11 NASB
Something to think about. -QQuerius
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
That is a great idea Virgil. Planting trees a much better idea than a carbon tax that will impact the poorest folks. And fossil fuels are non renewable. Will soon run out (hopefully enough to keep folks warm through the coming mini ice age). But trees are renewable. Burn those suckers for fuel. Genetically enhance them for fast growth and efficient flamability boom.ppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Seems to me if we stopped deforestation and planted more trees, nature would take of the CO2 by way of photosynthesis.Virgil Cain
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Someone should poll the public as to the probability if the climate were turned over to the scientific community for direct and massive intervention, that life on earth would become extinct within a decade. But what's *really* important is that *they* were "in charge of the Titanic" when it went down, and that they can claim if it weren't for their heroic efforts, extinction certainly would have occurred sooner! Who's to argue. That's exactly how a portion of science seems to operate nowadays in close cooperation with the political and journalistic powers that control the country. Pathetically stupid and self-serving. -QQuerius
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Antarctic sea ice is growing - and growing thicker: http://m.livescience.com/48880-antarctica-sea-ice-thickness-mapped.html And that which is melting, is melting due to geothermal heat like Virgil pointed out. Not AGW FCOL.ppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
Anyone can draw a bogus graph, Zach. Trust NASA on this one; https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2015/03/Antarctic-Sea-Ice-Feb.png&w=480ppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Antarctica is melting from below. AND soot on ice and snow allow it to melt in below freezing temps. Melting is not an indication of ambient temperature.Virgil Cain
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
ppolish: Antarctic sea ice recently hit an all time high, belying the belief that ice in the region is melting at an alarming rate.” In the region? While Antarctic sea ice has increased in extent, the overall ice mass of Antarctica has decreased significantly. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-large/Figure-17-hi.jpgZachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
"More surprisingly still for those on the lookout for the impacts of climate change: Antarctic sea ice recently hit an all time high, belying the belief that ice in the region is melting at an alarming rate." http://m.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0713/Why-is-the-West-Antarctic-ice-sheet-melting-It-may-not-be-just-global-warming.-video Early signs of the coming mini ice age? We report, you decide.ppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
ppolish: Yes a seesaw is fine tuned. Both it’s proper operation and it’s design. Having ice cover much of the Earth is an odd notion of fine tuning. It seems that it wouldn't matter what the pattern might be, you would say it was fine tuned. In any case, the climatic seesaw is chaotic, not regular. ppolish: What is your #1 suggestion for stemming AGW Zachriel? Continued economic growth and technological advancement is essential. The simplest way is with a carbon tax. Then the markets will find solutions.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
NASA has the know how today to start building a gigantic orbiting "space awning" to shield the Earth. Take as long as flying to Pluto. Should be retractable though. Mini Ice Age is coming. Or how about making the North Pole whiter by pouring white dye in the water. Or lay out the NASA white awning sheets before you roll them up and launch them. Stop whining about AGW and do something about it. Whining increases one's carbon footprint. Whining on the electric grid even worse. Waaa.ppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Yes a seesaw is fine tuned. Both it's proper operation and it's design. And you believe AGW is screwing up the seesaw operation Zachriel. AGW is like a 300 lb kid on the playground. What is your #1 suggestion for stemming AGW Zachriel?ppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
ppolish: So you agree that it is fine tuned. Not sure if seesawing between ice ages and ice-free periods is "fine tuned". Andre: the moon does not rotate on its own axis hence no atmosphere The Moon does rotate on its axis and experiences day and night. Rotation is important because emissions vary according to the fourth power of temperature. Overall radiation received and radiation emitted must be equal if the body is in thermal equilibrium (about 304 W/m2), but on a slowly rotating body, the average temperature will be lower than the graybody temperature. ETA: Notably, Earth's surface temperature is higher than its graybody temperature. This is compensated by the lower radiative temperature in the stratosphere. Otherwise, the Earth would be emitting a lot more energy than it is absorbing.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
"The IPCC actually admits the possibility of lukewarming within its consensus, because it gives a range of possible future temperatures: it thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the “probability density functions” of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end." ... But the commentators ignore all these caveats and babble on about warming of “up to” four degrees (or even more), then castigate as a “denier” anybody who says, as I do, the lower end of the scale looks much more likely given the actual data. This is a deliberate tactic. Following what the psychologist Philip Tetlock called the “psychology of taboo”, there has been a systematic and thorough campaign to rule out the middle ground as heretical: not just wrong, but mistaken, immoral and beyond the pale. That’s what the word denier with its deliberate connotations of Holocaust denial is intended to do. For reasons I do not fully understand, journalists have been shamefully happy to go along with this fundamentally religious project." (bold mine) When somebody advertises or promotes a product or point of view and uses "up to", it's time to be skeptical and guard your wallet. Kudos to Matt Ridley for an excellent article.mike1962
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Zach the moon does not rotate on its own axis hence no atmosphere.... You can't compareAndre
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
So you agree that it is fine tuned. Good, Zachriel. Do you also agree it will take guided and purposeful fine tuning to defeat AGW?ppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
asauber: But it’s not a measured observation. The Moon is the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, but has no atmosphere. ppolish: the Earth’s greenhouse is fine tuned isn’t it. The Earth's climate apparently oscillates between two poles; ice ages, and ice-free periods. There are some dampening effects that tend to push it back and forth over geological time scales.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
The surface and lower atmosphere would be warmer than the gray-body temperature" Not observed/measured, then. Calculated or Estimated. Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Zach, the Earth's greenhouse is fine tuned isn't it. Very fine tuned isn't it? Yes it is, we know that. We also know the Asian Continent is impacting the fine tuned greenhouse the most. We need to speak to China. We do. Let us.ppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
"The gray-body temperature can be calculated from first principles." But it's not a measured observation. Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
ppolish: You guys are worried about a “runaway greenhouse effect'”. A runaway effect is improbable. Stop the forcing, and the system will reach equilibrium, albeit, at a higher energy level. However, there is a strong flywheel effect, and changes made today will still be felt decades in the future.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Have any real greenhouses ever run away? Isn't a runaway greenhouse an imaginary construct? A thought expirement?ppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
asauber: It would be a guess as to what the “otherwise” was supposed to be. Well, no. The gray-body temperature can be calculated from first principles. asauber: how would someone observing the atmosphere recognize the greenhouse effect? The surface and lower atmosphere would be warmer than the gray-body temperature while the upper atmosphere would be cooler.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Yes, Zachriel, the greenhouse effect is necessary for life. We know that the greenhouse effect is good. Very good. You guys are worried about a "runaway greenhouse effect'". You guys should be more clear. Greenhouse is good. Result of fine tuning.ppolish
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply