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
"Per the author of the study, anthropogenic forcings are expected to overwhelm the natural signal." Did you read the part where she says AGW is not real? Read the article again Zachriel...ppolish
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
asauber: So where and how do I observe it? Hundreds of studies have been published starting with Lecher & Pernter, On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours, Philosophical Magazine & Journal of Science 1881. The first calculation of the effect in the atmosphere was Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896. More recently, Polyansky et al., High-Accuracy CO2 Line Intensities Determined from Theory and Experiment, Physical Review Letters 2015. ppolish: why are they ignoring this very important fact? We didn't. The study found that solar activity will be at a minimum, similar to the Little Ice Age, but not that it will lead to a mini ice age. Per the author of the study, anthropogenic forcings are expected to overwhelm the natural signal.Zachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Out here in California, where the winds blow away the AGW, (http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html) , we are looking forward to a strong El Niño. El Niño does not respect AGW either. http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/el-nino-to-be-one-of-strongest/50081969ppolish
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Nothing on that NAOO link discusses the coming "mini" ice age, Zachriel, why are they ignoring this very important fact? http://www.marketwatch.com/story/global-freezing-a-mini-ice-age-is-on-the-way-by-2030-scientists-say-2015-07-13ppolish
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
"It’s an observable effect" OK. So where and how do I observe it? Andrewasauber
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
asauber: “Greenhouse gases” is a slogan. It's an observable effect, and we provided relevant detail. Waving your hands doesn't make it go away.Zachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
"We didn’t repeat a slogan" "Greenhouse gases" is a slogan. It's a talking point endlessly regurgitated by folks like you. Do you not see that? (Similar to 'evolution') Andrewasauber
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Zachriel: there are countervailing influences. A doubling of CO2 adds about 3.7 W m^-2. The forcing from low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum was about -1.3 W m^-2. Krivova et al., Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux, Astronomy and Astrophysics 2007. asauber: Do you ever just get tired of repeating the same slogans? We didn't repeat a slogan, but provided relevant empirical data, with a citation to the primary scientific literature.Zachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
"greenhouse gases" Zachriel, Do you ever just get tired of repeating the same slogans? There are more constructive things to do with your time. Seriously. Andrewasauber
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
Andre: I can’t believe that the same people advocating our insignificance somehow think we are significant enough to out do the sun. It's not a matter of "outdoing" the sun, but the effect on the surface due to changes in greenhouse gases.Zachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
ppolish: it’s good that climate models are starting to include solar impacts. It's not new. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/climate-forcingZachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
I can't believe that the same people advocating our insignificance somehow think we are significant enough to out do the sun. Do they realize that they are mad in the head?Andre
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Related paid propaganda at MIT Technology Review:
Conspiracists Concur: Climate Change Is a Colossal Cover-Up Why science denialism and conspiracy theory walk together, suspiciously.
Mapou
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
"Valentina Zharkova, the reduced solar activity would­n’t out­weigh the expected ef­fects of anthropogenic glob­al warm­ing." Nature (Sun) versus Design (AGW). Tough call? I don't know Zachriel. but it's good that climate models are starting to include solar impacts.ppolish
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
ppolish: The science behind solar cycles is not controversial. The coming “mini ice age” will be an inconvenient truth for the AGW gang. Um, no. The study found that solar activity will be at a minimum, similar to the Little Ice Age, but not that it will lead to a mini ice age. Per the author of the solar study, Valentina Zharkova, the reduced solar activity would­n’t out­weigh the expected ef­fects of anthropogenic glob­al warm­ing. http://www.world-science.net/othernews/150711_sunspots.htmZachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
The science behind solar cycles is not controversial. The coming "mini ice age" will be an inconvenient truth for the AGW gang. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/13/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots When we will start to see the ice age deniers?ppolish
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Andre: What is your point? Changes in the climate due to anthropogenic CO2 are much larger than the changes due to solar forcing since the Maunder Minimum.Zachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Zachriel What is your point? I'm saying it again.... There is jack you can so about climate change.... absolutely jack..... It's normal it's as old as the planet.....Andre
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
asauber: AGW doesn’t prevent the temperature from going down, if that’s where it’s going. You can greenhouse effect yourself on the internet till you are blue in face and you won’t be preventing the temperature from going down. No, but there are countervailing influences. A doubling of CO2 adds about 3.7 W m^-2. The forcing from low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum was about -1.3 W m^-2. Krivova et al., Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux, Astronomy and Astrophysics 2007.Zachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Zachriel The only people that get screwed because of this is developing nations. The so cared first world countries are just fine and dandy.... Rest of us foobar thanks to you lot.Andre
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Dr JDD And none of this will be remembered or come to mind.Andre
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
"Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works?" The "greenhouse effect" is not relevant to my point. You're just regurgitating the party line, because you have nothing to refute it. AGW doesn't prevent the temperature from going down, if that's where it's going. You can greenhouse effect yourself on the internet till you are blue in face and you won't be preventing the temperature from going down. Andrewasauber
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
I wouldn't worry too much about global warming. The elements will melt in fervent heat before then I should imagine.Dr JDD
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Andre: We are going into a panic because of computer estimates? The lead time is decades, so there's no need to panic. However, the economic costs of mitigation will be lower the sooner changes are implement, and the lower the overall damage to the climate, including irreparable damage to ecosystems.Zachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
We are going into a panic because of computer estimates? I've always suspected you're a superstitious crackpot now I can prove it.Andre
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Andre: They will try and convince people that people did it and some numbnuts will believe it. Climate scientists are very aware of natural mechanisms of climate change. It's how they reconstruct past episodes of climate, including ice ages and ice-free periods. For that matter, studies of Earth's natural climate shifts help provide an estimate of the climate's sensitivity to CO2.
PALAEOSENS Project Members, Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity, Nature 2012 Here we present a stricter approach, to improve intercomparison of palaeoclimate sensitivity estimates in a manner compatible with equilibrium projections for future climate change. Over the past 65 million years, this reveals a climate sensitivity (in KW^-1 m2) of 0.3–1.9 or 0.6–1.3 at 95% or 68% probability, respectively. The latter implies a warming of 2.2–4.8K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates.
Zachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
They will try and convince people that people did it and some numbnuts will believe it. Their superstitious nature makes them believe anything without question. You are one of those.Andre
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Andre: Zachriel and 60 000 000 years ago it was at least 5C warmer than now with much more CO2 and not a single human in sight….. Yes, climate has changed substantially over time. What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next!Zachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Zachriel and 60 000 000 years ago it was at least 5C warmer than now with much more CO2 and not a single human in sight.....Andre
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Andre: There is no such thing as man made global warming Repeating your position is not an argument. asauber: I can tell from my own daily observations of solar activity that AGW can’t prevent it from getting colder. We'd be happy to discuss the scientific evidence. Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works? Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's surface would be a chilly -18°C rather than the balmy +15°C that it is. A doubling of CO2 will increase this effect by about 3%, resulting in a direct 1°C rise in temperature. This is before accounting for feedbacks.Zachriel
July 13, 2015
July
07
Jul
13
13
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply