Climate Change Fail

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Climate Change Fail

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:55 pm UTC

Times wrote:The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

This is where I thought, "Ok, their numbers were a little off. No big deal."
It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

NOBEL PRIZE!

User avatar
Zuwow
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Zuwow » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:23 pm UTC

It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.


Well shit, that means they're shrinking faster than we thought. They'll be gone by 2015 at this rate, something must be done!
Indon wrote:Nonsense. Exploiting people (the poorer, the better) is extremely American, and Walmart is a shining paragon of Americanism.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby The Reaper » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:41 pm UTC

If we extrapolate this curve, the glaciers never existed, and antiglaciers exist in their place. o_O

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Ixtellor » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:45 pm UTC

The ICPP report falls into two major catagoies.

1) What is causing the warming.
2) What are the results going to be.

While I have never put much faith in any predictions - many of them seem to 'sky is falling' - I dont' see any flaws with their conclusions on catagory #1 - Man's contribution to CO2 is the leading explanation for rising temps.

It seems like that testing and analysis alone would be worthy of a Nobel, regardless of their more loosey goosey predicitions about the results.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Arancaytar » Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:41 pm UTC

One of the problems with the climate change science is that everyone is too convinced of the results they are expecting. Whenever one of those scientists makes a misstatement or error, the media (which long ago determined that the scientists are all wrong anyway) is going to parade it around.

Similarly, if one of them publishes findings that are ambiguous or lead to new questions, the people who have already made up their mind that man-made climate change does not exist will consider this data proof of their notion. This is akin to the often-seen argument of "look, the cosmologists admit they don't know everything. Thus, God created the universe."

If scientists cannot publish neutrally (which includes being able to say "I don't know"), then they cannot do science effectively. What results is the "scandal" of those leaked emails, which further deepens the rift between the science and the public's understanding of it. Vicious cycle.
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Indon » Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:43 pm UTC

This just in: Scientists are not absolutely perfect in every way.

We can only conclude that science, as it is not infallible, is worthless.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:54 pm UTC
Location: Cambs., UK

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Admiral Valdemar » Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:15 pm UTC

So...

1. The IPCC have a peer-reviewed prediction, one of many, that is put into a document and found to contradict other data found by the organisation and affiliates. This organisation also happens to have people not particularly sympathetic to the cause i.e. the KSA. Even so, the data is withdrawn and the report amended.

2. The IPCC was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

3. Conservatards go ape over science working. Clearly the IPCC's best bet in order to maintain this global conspiracy is to give up and retract falsified statements at the first sign of conflict.

System works, folks.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:04 pm UTC

No, the IPCC said "This is a peer-reviewed prediction. It's like totally scientific consensus." In actuality, it was an extrapolation of what a single guy said during an interview eleven years ago.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Indon » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:19 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:No, the IPCC said "This is a peer-reviewed prediction. It's like totally scientific consensus." In actuality, it was an extrapolation of what a single guy said during an interview eleven years ago.


Yes, scientists screw up sometimes.

No, this does not mean they hate you and are in a worldwide conspiracy against you.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Hawknc » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:29 pm UTC

To be fair, nobody in this thread is really saying that. The important thing is that when screw ups like this occur, they are caught, admitted to and fixed, which is what happened here. Predictions are always going to be the most unreliable part of climate science.

User avatar
Krong
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:49 am UTC
Location: Charleston, South Cackalacky

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Krong » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:18 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:Predictions are always going to be the most unreliable part of climate science.

This is true, but also a pretty huge sticking point. For the public at large, the predictions are the only thing that matters. It's important to know if humanity has had an effect on global temperatures, but if predictions showed that no change is expected over the course of the next century, you'd never hear about climate change on the news.

Speaking as someone without any formal education in this stuff, I'd think that the kind of action that society needs to take is dramatically different depending on which prediction is right. If you predict that the ice caps will be gone in 20 years, we're in an emergency of let's-take-care-of-this-at-any-cost, and we start dumping metallic dust into the atmosphere and denying personal liberties. If you predict, I don't know, 3 degrees C over the next century, we need to overhaul our industry and our habits. If it's only a degree, we could just rely on the market pressures that will come from running out of fossil fuels.

When scientists say that billions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake, people aren't going to give them much leeway to be wrong.
The answer to the question "What’s wrong with the world?" is just two words: "I am." -- G. K. Chesterton (attributed)

guyy
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:02 am UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby guyy » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:43 am UTC

The unreliable predictions are a large part of the danger of climate change, though. It could turn out to be much worse than we predict, so we can't just assume that nothing horribly bad will happen, even if that's what the scientists generally think. And that's not what they generally think; most think it's a pretty serious problem. So what if it's even worse than anyone expects? The large error bars go in both directions.

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Arancaytar » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:55 am UTC

Indon wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:No, the IPCC said "This is a peer-reviewed prediction. It's like totally scientific consensus." In actuality, it was an extrapolation of what a single guy said during an interview eleven years ago.


Yes, scientists screw up sometimes.

No, this does not mean they hate you and are in a worldwide conspiracy against you.


We totally are. Wait, crap, I think I wasn't supposed to say that.

[-Not actually a scientist, but play one on fora.]
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

User avatar
Krong
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:49 am UTC
Location: Charleston, South Cackalacky

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Krong » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:13 am UTC

guyy wrote:The unreliable predictions are a large part of the danger of climate change, though. It could turn out to be much worse than we predict, so we can't just assume that nothing horribly bad will happen, even if that's what the scientists generally think. And that's not what they generally think; most think it's a pretty serious problem. So what if it's even worse than anyone expects? The large error bars go in both directions.

There is such a thing as overreacting, though, as in my first example of stopping climate change with terrible side effects (assuming that dumping metallic dust into the atmosphere has these.) I doubt that the kinds of things that would have to be done if disaster is imminent -- let's say they include dramatic rationing of goods, restrictions on travel, and cessation of industrial production -- are all low-cost "things we should be doing anyway."
The answer to the question "What’s wrong with the world?" is just two words: "I am." -- G. K. Chesterton (attributed)

User avatar
Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Mokele » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:17 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:Predictions are always going to be the most unreliable part of climate science.


At a seminar I attended by a prominent climatologist, he pointed out that one of the biggest uncertainties in any figure beyond ~10 years is actually human behavior. Whether we clean up our act now, in 10 years, or never has major effects on the predictions, more than almost anything else.
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby psyck0 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:43 am UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Times wrote:The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

This is where I thought, "Ok, their numbers were a little off. No big deal."
It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

NOBEL PRIZE!


And was this the entire substance of the report, or was it a trivial little detail that took up virtually no space in the grand scheme of the report? Because if it wasn't the former then who the fuck cares? Whoops, minor error, sorry, but it doesn't mean that all the other thousand or so papers are also wrong since none of them would have drawn from the same source.

If they got a nobel prize for reporting that the glaciers were going to melt and that was it, I would have a bigger issue with the prize committee than with the scientists for getting it wrong.

So either way, this is a stupid attempt to mislead the public and discredit legitimate results because one (high profile) paper made an embarassing mistake in one minor section.

User avatar
Ivora
Posts: 1088
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:18 am UTC
Location: Wandering the Crystal Blue.

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Ivora » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:05 am UTC

Totally embarassing. :lol:

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:27 am UTC

psyck0 wrote:So either way, this is a stupid attempt to mislead the public and discredit legitimate results because one (high profile) paper made an embarassing mistake in one minor section.

This: And because, for some reason, global warming is now apparently a pseudonym for socialism. I've never understood why the GOP has to call global warming a myth rather than, I dunno, give tax breaks to companies that pollute less?

There's no reason to deny science over a disagreement on method, but that's what is going on. The very fact that we've created an ideological superstructure where being educated is held as a stand in for a political position.

Think about it, if you're a climatologist, who are you going to side with: the party that seems to care about what you have to say or the party that says you're an incompetent, bumbling idiot who has a political agenda?

The culture of the right continues to scare the shit out of me. Please, somebody make Megan McCain the leader of the party. Please, for my sanity.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:55 am UTC

Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through. Most of these will be minor and inconsequential, but sometimes they might be more substantive. As many people are aware (and as John Nieslen-Gammon outlined in a post last month and Rick Piltz goes over today), there is a statement in the second volume of the IPCC (WG2), concerning the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding that is not correct and not properly referenced.

The statement, in a chapter on climate impacts in Asia, was that the likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035″ was “very high” if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate (WG 2, Ch. 10, p493), and was referenced to a World Wildlife Fund 2005 report. Examining the drafts and comments (available here), indicates that the statement was barely commented in the reviews, and that the WWF (2005) reference seems to have been a last minute addition (it does not appear in the First- or Second- Order Drafts). This claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a ‘central claim’ of the IPCC. However, the statement has had some press attention since the report particularly in the Indian press, at least according to Google News, even though it was not familiar to us before last month.

It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to realise that this doesn’t mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine. They aren’t, and there may be serious consequences for water resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers.

More generally, peer-review works to make the IPCC reports credible because many different eyes with different perspectives and knowledge look over the same text. This tends to make the resulting product reflect more than just the opinion of a single author. In this case, it appears that not enough people with relevant experience saw this text, or if they saw it, did not comment publicly. This might be related to the fact that this text was in the Working Group 2 report on impacts, which does not get the same amount of attention from the physical science community than does the higher profile WG 1 report (which is what people associated with RC generally look at). In WG1, the statements about continued glacier retreat are much more general and the rules on citation of non-peer reviewed literature was much more closely adhered to. However, in general, the science of climate impacts is less clear than the physical basis for climate change, and the literature is thinner, so there is necessarily more ambiguity in WG 2 statements.

In future reports (and the organisation for AR5 in 2013 is now underway), extra efforts will be needed to make sure that the links between WG1 and the other two reports are stronger, and that the physical science community should be encouraged to be more active in the other groups.

In summary, the measure of an organisation is not determined by the mere existence of errors, but in how it deals with them when they crop up. The current discussion about Himalayan glaciers is therefore a good opportunity for the IPCC to further improve their procedures and think more about what the IPCC should be doing in the times between the main reports.


From Real Climate, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ble-shock/

When it comes to predicting the consequences of climate change, it is literally a herculean task, plagued by uncertainties, as mentioned before, largely how we behave in coming decades. Effects of climate change are going to include, sea level rise, displaced peoples, changing weather patterns, changing conditions for food crops, changing conditions for fresh water supplies, animal and plant life on land and sea, and even the annulment of countries (Maldives).

To predict what the consequences of each of these impacts, plus others, globally and extend those predictions far into the future (100+ years) is just an impossibility. We know its going to be bad how bad depends on our behavior, and studies do suggest it would be much better to mitigate climate change than adapt to it, although so late in the day, its going to be a mixture of the both.

You can argue with those studies, and perhaps you should, but your only going to find more uncertainty in each of the predictions, complete with error bars and while you might be looking for certainty and reliability in this, your not going to get it. Dealing with those uncertainties, calculating the costs of doing nothing compared to that of doing lots is what we have, uncertainty is at the very heart of it and that is just the way of it.

What also needs to be realized, is where the responsibilities of science start and end in this. Human science is trying to establish how climate science is working, and what possible scenarios are, it is doing this to the best of its ability. It is also its responsibility to warn governments of the consequences, complete with uncertainties.

Governments respond to this threat as they see fit, allocating resources as they decide and have to make their own choices in regard to risk and uncertainty. Science researches, warns, offers advice and recommendations. How we respond is 100% in the hands of our government and responsibility for such action lies with governments.

Human science is doing its job as we expect it to.

And because governments are mostly democratically elected these days, the people of the planet are ultimately responsible for their governments actions or inaction, fitting that we get what we deserve.

User avatar
Plasma Man
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:27 am UTC
Location: Northampton, Northampton, Northampton middle England.

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Plasma Man » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:58 pm UTC

It's also important to note that the IPCC report was not the end of research into climate change. There will continue to be new studies that are done and new results that may or may not agree with the information in the IPCC report. That's the whole point of doing research. The IPCC report was a snapshot of the scientific consensus at the time of writing; science does not stand still, so changes in predictions are to be expected.
Please note that despite the lovely avatar Sungura gave me, I am not a medical doctor.

Possibly my proudest moment on the fora.

Arrian
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Arrian » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:27 pm UTC

psyck0 wrote:And was this the entire substance of the report, or was it a trivial little detail that took up virtually no space in the grand scheme of the report? Because if it wasn't the former then who the fuck cares? Whoops, minor error, sorry, but it doesn't mean that all the other thousand or so papers are also wrong since none of them would have drawn from the same source.

...

So either way, this is a stupid attempt to mislead the public and discredit legitimate results because one (high profile) paper made an embarassing mistake in one minor section.


Couple points:

1) This isn't a news story because of one statement they made, it's a news story because the IPCC report is supposed to be trusted (and is trusted by world leaders and policy makers) because they were to use only the most trustworthy, peer reviewed science. A release from an advocacy group based on an article in a popular magazine whose research consisted of a phone call to a scientist who didn't study the subject but ventured a conjecture does not peer review make.

2) Now that this is out, people are looking at the sources more closely and the IPCC 4 references non peer reviewed sources a disconcerting amount.

3) IPCC isn't "one (high profile) paper," it is. by design, the definitive source on global warming for international policy. It's not "an embarassing mistake," it's a failure in the basic process of determining content for the report.

[edit]

Regarding "scientists make mistakes" reasoning.

Yes, scientists make mistakes and there are bound to be errors in such a large document at the IPCC report and the research it quotes. Even if your thesis is correct, there are bound to be some unlucky samples which don't reflect the population mean no matter how rigorous your methodology and advanced your statistics.

But, those errors would lead to headlines like "New statistical review finds no significant correlation between climate and Himalayan glacier recession rate," or "Follow up study finds glaciers are receding slower than previous study predicted." Those aren't embarrassing mistakes, they're how science (and peer review) works.

But this headline is "IPCC uses un-reviewed publication from a climate advocacy group as a primary source." This isn't a study that the WWF funded and was published in a scientific journal, it's something they self published without even questioning the facts or conclusion. That IS embarrassing because the IPCC rules strictly limit source information cited to peer reviewed science. This is at best sloppy, and is cause for criticism. When the expressed methodology isn't followed, it renders the conclusion questionable.

After all, if the issue is truly settled to the point where research is no longer necessary to prove the thesis, there should be plenty of rigorous, peer reviewed literature to cite and no need to reference less authoritative sources.
Last edited by Arrian on Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Ixtellor » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:54 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:Please, somebody make Megan McCain the leader of the party.


I really like her, but if you saw her appearance on Bill Mahr you would realize she doesn't have the chops to be a party leader. Paul Begaula made her look very foolish.
Paraphrase:
Paul said "Reagen used to ...."
Megan says "Well I wasn't alive then, so I don't know...."
Paul replies "Well I wasn't alive during the french revolution, but I know all about it"
Megan *silence* with a shameful look.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:38 pm UTC

This just in, the IPCC isn't infallible, they are still our best reference source for all things climate change related.

This mistake has been recognized and corrected much more you cannot ask of them, except of course that they shouldn't make any mistakes.

Please refer the real climates response on this.

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Iv » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:55 pm UTC

I must say I have already flip-floped quite a few time in this debate :
1°) Politicians, act ! global warming is coming !
2°) Now wait, what nonsense are spouting these doom-soothsayers ?
3°) Hey! The IPCC full report isn't actually that bad ! It admits almost all of the reasonable criticism I have read about it !
4°) But but but, the summary of the IPCC report is completely off !

Now I think I'll stick to "yay science ! go climatologists !". I must say however that one thing worries me almost as much as politician completely ignoring some ecological disaster, it is the rhetorics of some ecological movement : it looks like a call from self-mortification that made the catholic Church so popular. An appeal to masochism : do this, do that, don't buy this, save that, stop doing that... 90% of these advices backed up by no or very poor data. Apparently when doing something "for the planet" one should just do that and not question the advice : if everybody does an extra effort, whatever the effort, it *has* to help, no ? This is the trend I feel the second most disturbing, just after politician braggin about their ignorance and distrust for science.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:17 pm UTC

The part of this article that I found most disturbing was not this single error (which was one of five confirmed so far, including using the WWF as a primary source), but rather that the glaciologist they cited recognized this error years ago, and was afraid to speak out against the IPCC.

I'm sure there's plenty of good science in that report, but how much of it is tainted by confirmation bias, intimidation, and a taboo against challenging exaggerated predictions?

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Indon » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:31 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:The part of this article that I found most disturbing was not this single error (which was one of five confirmed so far, including using the WWF as a primary source), but rather that the glaciologist they cited recognized this error years ago, and was afraid to speak out against the IPCC.

I'm sure there's plenty of good science in that report, but how much of it is tainted by confirmation bias, intimidation, and a taboo against challenging exaggerated predictions?


"I'm not saying these scientists are in a global conspiracy against us god-fearing Americans, but why is it that I'm the only one asking these questions?"
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:50 pm UTC

Indon, please stop trying to associate me with these ridiculous statements.

I have made no statement questioning Climate Change, which is a very real problem, and I refuse to parrot your crazy talk simply to fit into your narrow worldview.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Indon » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

I'm just calling it like I see it.

And what I see is, "I'm not saying you should stop trusting climatologists, but you should totally stop trusting climatologists!"

From your choice of quotation out of the two-page article:
Heisenberg wrote:...in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.


To what seems to be rhetorical exaggeration of what is a fairly minor error:
Heisenberg wrote:NOBEL PRIZE!


Heisenberg wrote:No, the IPCC said "This is a peer-reviewed prediction. It's like totally scientific consensus." In actuality, it was an extrapolation of what a single guy said during an interview eleven years ago.


To a thinly-veiled accusation against climate science itself:
Heisenberg wrote:The part of this article that I found most disturbing was not this single error (which was one of five confirmed so far, including using the WWF as a primary source), but rather that the glaciologist they cited recognized this error years ago, and was afraid to speak out against the IPCC.


Finally capped with the Pundit-style "Why am I the only one asking these questions?" moment.
Heisenberg wrote:I'm sure there's plenty of good science in that report, but how much of it is tainted by confirmation bias, intimidation, and a taboo against challenging exaggerated predictions?


Psych0 is correct.

Psych0 wrote:So either way, this is a stupid attempt to mislead the public and discredit legitimate results because one (high profile) paper made an embarassing mistake in one minor section.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

masakatsu
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby masakatsu » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Everyone,

A good example by Indon of the straw man tactic.

Indon wrote:I'm just calling it like I see it.

And what I see is, "I'm not saying you should stop trusting climatologists, but you should totally stop trusting climatologists!"

From your choice of quotation out of the two-page article:
Heisenberg wrote:...in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.


To what seems to be rhetorical exaggeration of what is a fairly minor error:
Heisenberg wrote:NOBEL PRIZE!


Heisenberg wrote:No, the IPCC said "This is a peer-reviewed prediction. It's like totally scientific consensus." In actuality, it was an extrapolation of what a single guy said during an interview eleven years ago.


To a thinly-veiled accusation against climate science itself:
Heisenberg wrote:The part of this article that I found most disturbing was not this single error (which was one of five confirmed so far, including using the WWF as a primary source), but rather that the glaciologist they cited recognized this error years ago, and was afraid to speak out against the IPCC.


Finally capped with the Pundit-style "Why am I the only one asking these questions?" moment.
Heisenberg wrote:I'm sure there's plenty of good science in that report, but how much of it is tainted by confirmation bias, intimidation, and a taboo against challenging exaggerated predictions?


Psych0 is correct.

Psych0 wrote:So either way, this is a stupid attempt to mislead the public and discredit legitimate results because one (high profile) paper made an embarassing mistake in one minor section.
I will not attack your math, just your epistemology.

You think you have it bad, I teach Intro to Project Management to Undergrads.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Indon » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:47 pm UTC

masakatsu wrote:Everyone,

A good example by Indon of the straw man tactic.


I'd like you to describe precisely how I'm perpetrating a strawman fallacy.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

masakatsu
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby masakatsu » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:51 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
masakatsu wrote:Everyone,

A good example by Indon of the straw man tactic.


I'd like you to describe precisely how I'm perpetrating a strawman fallacy.



By first stating a position as being Heisenberg's and then cherry picking qoutes with your subjective editorizing those qoutes.
I will not attack your math, just your epistemology.

You think you have it bad, I teach Intro to Project Management to Undergrads.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:53 pm UTC

O noez, somebody is posting subjective opinions in N&A!

Edit: Kinda funny, actually, that masakatsu just quoted Indon's post with his own spin on it.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Indon » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:55 pm UTC

masakatsu wrote:By first stating a position as being Heisenberg's and then cherry picking qoutes with your subjective editorizing those qoutes.


Cherry picking?

I'd like you to post all the things Heisenberg said on this thread that I didn't quote in that post. If I'm cherry-picking, then that will show us the whole story, right?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

masakatsu
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby masakatsu » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:17 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:O noez, somebody is posting subjective opinions in N&A!

Edit: Kinda funny, actually, that masakatsu just quoted Indon's post with his own spin on it.


Thank you, I specialize in irony and hypocrisy, just ask my students. ;-)

Indon wrote:Cherry picking?


Yep, the beginning of logical fallicies. For example:

Indon wrote:To what seems to be rhetorical exaggeration of what is a fairly minor error:
Heisenberg wrote:NOBEL PRIZE!


I think if you consider the qoute Heisenberg lists before that statement, you would understand his statement.

It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.


His warrent is that they used grey literature without a cursorary review of known facts, which is a sign of poor scholarship. He is incredulous that such work got any Nobel prize.

However, I have to point out it was the Nobel Peace prize, which seems to be handed out for the silliest of reasons.
I will not attack your math, just your epistemology.

You think you have it bad, I teach Intro to Project Management to Undergrads.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Indon » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:04 pm UTC

masakatsu wrote:His warrent is that they used grey literature without a cursorary review of known facts, which is a sign of poor scholarship. He is incredulous that such work got any Nobel prize.

Yes. His incredulity and use of rhetoric to convey such is part of what he seems to be trying to convey overall - that climate science is untrustworthy.

That point was as such a part of the overall description of how that idea was being conveyed, starting with selection of specific details from the article, continuing through expressing a personal opinion of doubt in the validity of climate science, then finishing off with broad claims about the legitimacy of climate science, all with a capstone that boils down to, "Oh, well, I'm sure it's valid... or is it?"
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

masakatsu
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby masakatsu » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:34 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
masakatsu wrote:His warrent is that they used grey literature without a cursorary review of known facts, which is a sign of poor scholarship. He is incredulous that such work got any Nobel prize.

Yes. His incredulity and use of rhetoric to convey such is part of what he seems to be trying to convey overall - that climate science is untrustworthy.

That point was as such a part of the overall description of how that idea was being conveyed, starting with selection of specific details from the article, continuing through expressing a personal opinion of doubt in the validity of climate science, then finishing off with broad claims about the legitimacy of climate science, all with a capstone that boils down to, "Oh, well, I'm sure it's valid... or is it?"


Which he takes a tack that is commonly used in critical theory, a valid epistemological theory.
I will not attack your math, just your epistemology.

You think you have it bad, I teach Intro to Project Management to Undergrads.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:34 pm UTC

Anyone curious about how confirmation bias works should review this thread. First, Indon believes that anyone who would question any part of the IPCC report is a Lunatic Warming Denier. Then, someone questions part of the IPCC report. Finally, Indon decides to brand that person a Lunatic Warming Denier, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Indon wrote:starting with selection of specific details from the article,

The article was about several errors. I posted one of those errors. How was that disingenuous?
Indon wrote:continuing through expressing a personal opinion of doubt in the validity of climate science,

If you review the thread, I've never made any such claim. In fact, I remember going out of my way to proclaim my belief in the validity of climate science, to dispel the mythical caricature you were trying to portray me as. Remember? No?

masakatsu
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby masakatsu » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:43 pm UTC

I think we can sum up by this:

There is relevent observed phenominia and data to say that there has been some climate change (Superfreakanomics, 2009).
There are valid questions about the scholarly nature of the work done in analysis, especially considering the twerking that current analysis does to match past analysis (Superfreakanomics, 2009).
There have been some serious questioning of current trends in indept statistical analysis (Statistics in a Nutshell, 2008). *The best damd stat desk ref.... ever.
Several of us need a basic epistemology course.
Al Gore is a dick.

I am not correctly citing because I am lazy today... come on, been up for 15 hours already and have 2.5 more before I can go home.
I will not attack your math, just your epistemology.

You think you have it bad, I teach Intro to Project Management to Undergrads.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:07 pm UTC

masakatsu wrote:Several of us need a basic epistemology course.

Hey, now. Indon is usually a good contributor, he just seems hell-bent on painting me as a crazy skeptic today.

masakatsu
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

Re: Climate Change Fail

Postby masakatsu » Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:13 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
masakatsu wrote:Several of us need a basic epistemology course.

Hey, now. Indon is usually a good contributor, he just seems hell-bent on painting me as a crazy skeptic today.


Hell, I was including me. I always thought the epistemology of social sciences I took in 08 suxored. I did break the Dr.'s brain by choosing to write on the epistemology of game theory. Formal epistemology likes to use game theory as a proof. Recursion nightmare... Fun.
I will not attack your math, just your epistemology.

You think you have it bad, I teach Intro to Project Management to Undergrads.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests