And after denigrating the value of climate forecasts developed and agreed on by people who spend their lives looking at the problem, you’re happy to take this very rough economic forecast as established “fact”. Yeah, that’s not a double standard in skepticism. Did you at least make it available to “unfriendly reviewers”?
Telling people what they believe doesn’t usually go well, because they will know that much better than you do. But no, I don’t care about appeal to not-quite-authorities like what Moore thinks; I know and care about science, and despise repeated attempts to ignore it with dishonest quibbling.
Something that definitely falls into that category is insisting everyone else knows much less than you do until called on a claim, then suddenly crying how nobody would believe you anyway. If you know you don’t have anything solid enough to persuade, or to show you aren’t applying a double standard for evidence, it leaves your bragging about “facts” very hollow.
Interesting you should say it’s right, because you just finished saying it was wrong, that such values are measurements and no agreement is necessary. Since as others explained, that’s a good example showing how consensus is useful in science, I’m assuming you’re conceding the point? No, of course not, you’ll just keep quoting Crichton. Maybe if we hear him three more times, we’ll forget he’s not accurate?
The problems I am talking about are not 50 years in the future. They start immediately. The effect of Germany’s solar energy project is a massive transfer of wealth from the pockets of the poor and middle class (who can’t afford the expense of panels) to the pockets of the upper middle class (who can).
Interesting you should say it’s right [about experiments in the real world], because you just finished saying it was wrong, that such values are measurements and no agreement is necessary.
I’m not sure what you are talking about, do you? A computer climate model is not an experiment until it is proved wrong (proved right repeatedly under variety of circumstances). A computer model is based on algorithms and assumptions that might or might not comport with the real world. Even the raw temperature measurement data are derived from algorithms and assumptions to account for urbanization, moved measuring stations, and lazy monitors. A model is not the real world. It’s a model.
Well, you know, the relevant quotes are all in this thread. Let me lay them out for you side by side:
Now you’re trying to change the topic to models, but you can see your claim was that all science doesn’t need consensus, and values like the earth-sun distance are just measurements. I said such things have agreed values based on many measurements, and you said that’s right. So are you admitting agreement has a place in science or not? You could at least be honest about what you’ve said, since we all can see it.
No, measurements are the results of experiments to figure out a value
Ergo, they are not about “consensus”. No one would say there is a “consensus” about the distance between Earth and the Sun. That would be a bizarre way to phrase it. “Consensus” is an appeal to authority rather than evidence. That’s why using the term “consensus” is a concession that the science isn’t sound yet. The scientific method means that anyone can reproduce the exact same results (which is why being allowed to look at Mann and Jones’s data was so important). You don’t need to appeal to authority.
You are confusing the term “consensus” with “conclusion”. Why? Because you don’t understand how much give and take there is underlying the way a climate computer model derives its predictions, because you don’t know how much give and take there is in deriving the basic temperature data it uses for its algorithms, because you don’t understand how disputed are the assumptions computer models have to make and why, because you don’t realize how small the temperature differentials the models are intended to predict. Because of that, you actually assume that a climate computer model is like a pocket computer deriving a square root. That is simply not the case. A climate is not a car engine that runs faster directly proportional to the amount of pressure you put on the gas pedal.
I’ll give you the summary for all the global warming climate modeling ever produced:
Global surface temps have increased .8C in the last 150 years since the end of the Little Ice Age. They have increased 1.5C in the last 250 years. That’s not “deniers”. That’s Berkely Earth. Does that sound catastrophic to you? Does it even sound unexpected?
The second half of that sentence, the one you left out, was about how measurements ultimately lead to an agreed value other scientists use. I see you aren’t honest enough to address that even when asked; instead you’ve just repeated the lie that consensus is a bad word, then covered it with a lot of chaff about how I don’t understand models and some misleadingly averaged figures.
Well, you’re making a lot of stupid assumptions, because in truth you have no idea how much I might or might not understand about models. But is there any point in discussing that either, or when you are caught being wrong on that, are you just going to try changing the topic again? Because most people here are smart enough to know a Gish gallop when they see one.
They “agree” because the measurements can be duplicated by anyone over and over. And that is why scientists don’t refer to a measurement as a “consensus”. It is obtuse to act as though they are synonymous.
A computer model produces different results when you change the algorithms and assumptions. That’s because a computer model isn’t reality. It is a tool, not a measurement.
I didn’t say they were synonymous; I said scientists obtain agreed values through repeated measurements. And such things do get described as consensus values as, to pick some purely random examples, with the Earth’s mass here or the Hubble constant here.
So you’re wrong on that. In fact these uses reflect what I said: most scientists have agreed on something, but are pointing it out because not everyone does. In some cases that dissent has merit; but if you need an example of the opposite, here’s a statement from the American Association of University Professors:
The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars and has contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the natural world. The Ninety-first Annual Meeting of the American Association of University Professors deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.
You’ve said that the word “consensus” is a trap for suckers, a concession that the science isn’t sound. Are you going to argue that applies in cases like this, the way the ID crowd have, or maybe consider that word doesn’t quite have the connotations Crichton assumes?
I apologize for my delay in response: I was at my aunt’s house for two days, which is not a great place for any type of internet. I just got back.
About the first part of your comment, sourcing copyrighted material for “study” is fair use. Re-publishing it, is not. What Schollenberger intended to do was make public the private web addresses of material NOT PUBLISHED in the original survey.
Schollenberger wasn’t just trying to publish the study itself. That’s already public information, posted under creative commons, and is available. I already posted a link to the results in the past thread where this was discussed (see above). What he did that was a (legal) problem was threaten to post the location of all the data for all the source studies used in the survey. Those aren’t all public, and they are variously copyrighted material. He had no right to threaten people with open publication of material that was not his to publish. That’s what he’s not mentioning to you.
@JonS already responded in my place about your “scientific consensus” comment, and for that I thank him. Here’s an additional quote that you might find interesting. We use the term “scientific consensus” to describe a specific type of action. Currently, we know the actual, measured distance to the sun. There’s no reason to use the term anymore. A “consensus” is used to discuss those things we have no solid answer for, but do have some results for. For example:
“Informally, the term “solar system” is often used to mean the space out to the last planet. Scientific consensus, however, says the solar system goes out to the Oort Cloud, the source of the comets that swing by our sun on long time scales. Beyond the outer edge of the Oort Cloud, the gravity of other stars begins to dominate that of the sun.”
That’s a current post from NASA. Scientific Consensus, much like the term, “theory” isn’t referring to an “uneducated guess”. A scientific consensus is reached by comparing the opinions of experts in a specific field and then using those opinions to make a best guess. “Proof” in science, is hard to come by. The fine point NASA is calling on the crowd for is this: “Does the solar system end at the end of the heliosphere or somewhere beyond the Oort Cloud?”
The UQ survey in question is similarly “calling on the crowd” to draw a line. It both treats and reports the information completely correctly, because the survey was done in two parts. In part one, it examined the abstracts of (again, over 12,000 peer-reviewed) studies specifically about climate change. Of those studies, only the ones making a specific claim about AGW were included in the count to determine position held by the expert - that means: only experts with results backing their position were given the chance to hold a position. (No one was allowed to “just guess”.) That’s the published, and oft-referred-to 97.1%.
In part two, scientists with related studies that drew no conclusion (not previously opposing studies, just those withholding position) were contacted directly, and offered the chance to place themselves in a position based on their study. That part of the survey raised the consensus to 98.4%. The consensus only grew when people were directly asked to make a choice.
One last thing, while scientific consensus is not a part of the direct scientific method, collaborationis often a part of science, because replicationis a part of the scientific method. You can’t test something one time, one way, and assume that your result proves anything. Duplicatable results are required, before you can even make a claim.
“I didn’t say they were synonymous; I said scientists obtain agreed values through repeated measurements. And such things do get described as consensus value as, to pick some purely random examples, with the Earth’s mass here or the Hubble constant here.”
No. No. No. “Agreeing” on something isn’t what is meant by a “consensus”. Do you dispute the published mass of the Earth? Publish your calculations. They will either be found to be right or wrong. It’s math. There’s no issue for “denying” or “alarmism”. Since you agree that a measurement is not obtained or established by consensus, stop using the terms synonymously. If I were to say “The scientists voted and elected this answer as the right one” you would rightly see that I was crazy. That’s not how science works. But that is all anyone is saying when they say “The consensus of climate scientists is that…”
You’ve said that the word “consensus” is a trap for suckers, a concession that the science isn’t sound. Are you going to argue that applies in cases like this, the way the ID crowd have, or maybe consider that word doesn’t quite have the connotations Crichton assumes?
So you have moved from Arguments from Authority to Ad Hominem Arguments: “You say there is no place for consensus in science. But the AoUP as argued for the authenticity of the theory of Evolution based on consensus. So you must believe the world is 6000 years old.”
To answer your other question, arguing from consensus has the same lack credibility coming from the AoUP as it does from anyone else. The AoUP self-evidently doesn’t know how to mount a scientific argument or have decided that is not the right tack in this situation (and they are engaging in politics here, not science, soooo not surprising). Rather than demonstrate why ID is wrong, they have opted to declare a creed. This is the equivalent of “the Pope has declared”.
Pointing out an argument is used to support terrible conclusions isn’t really what ad hominem means. It means trying to discredit an argument by attacking the person making it - for instance, asking to dismiss results from a whole field of science based on one or two examples of questionable actions by people involved in it.
More to the point, you didn’t only say there was no place for consensus in science. You explicitly said it meant the science was weak:
I’m not suprised you don’t agree with citing the majority opinion of scientists, though it’s actually the best sensible approach for discussing the matter with people who don’t intend to learn enough to review the evidence, as with school boards. Because contrary to your claim, “denying” is a huge issue in such cases.
But anyway, if you’re going to stand by these quotes, the fact that they did so must be a concession the science isn’t sound. It’s as simple an application of what you said as possible. So if you’re not supposing it’s true, then your quotes must not actually apply in practice.
consensus, n. A general agreement. consensus, n, often attributive.
1a: general agreement: unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border -John Hersey>
1b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
When in doubt, deny all the terms? But consensus does in fact mean what has been generally agreed upon. And I already commented on its place in science: people who are going to learn a field in detail should form their own opinions based on evidence, but if you’re not going to, your best best is to listen to the people that did.
Because only in the most simplistic cases will something actually obvious from math, until you understand context. Scientific literature is scattered with bad results from people who thought they could do a linear regression or student t-test on data where they weren’t the appropriate analysis.
But yes, publishing calculations is how consensus would get corrected if necessary. As it happens, I’ve never seen anyone publish any serious attempt to explain the climate, or model the effects of increased carbon dioxide, that didn’t end up with AGW. Has there finally been some alternative I should look at?
Schollenberger wasn’t just trying to publish the study itself. That’s already public information, posted under creative commons, and is available. I already posted a link to the results in the past thread where this was discussed (see above). What he did that was a (legal) problem was threaten to post the location of all the data for all the source studies used in the survey.
Currently, we know the actual, measured distance to the sun. There’s no reason to use the term anymore. A “consensus” is used to discuss those things we have no solid answer for, but do have some results for. For example:
“Informally, the term “solar system” is often used to mean the space out to the last planet. Scientific consensus, however, says the solar system goes out to the Oort Cloud…”
Another way of saying this…the way they would have said it when I was a kid was “It is believed…”
But that doesn’t really carry the same weight as “scientific consensus”, does it? NASA is a highly politicized organization. Kudos for whoever wrote this (no scientist is credited) to work-in a political dog whistle in an article as mundane as the solar system.
Consensus, much like the term, “theory” isn’t referring to an “uneducated guess”.
No. It’s an appeal to authority. It is a not-so-subtle implication that a vote was taken by all the scientist that matter and they have selected the right answer. Again, there is no need to appeal to consensus when the science is sound. It is typically used to imply that a controversial claim has been declared (by whom, we don’t know) above dispute.
It is not a term with an established usage like “theory” which is the broad area between a Law and a hypothesis. A theory might be well established or it might be pure SF-style speculation with only the slightest nod to evidence. You have attempted to get the smell of “theory” onto the word “consensus”. No sale.
One last thing, while scientific consensus is not a part of the direct scientific method, collaboration is often a part of science, because replication is a part of the scientific method.
On this we agree. But “consensus” is not collaboration. And multiple computer models that use different algorithms and data and assumptions but come to roughly the same conclusion is not collaboration. In fact, that is a suspicious sign. A computer model is not evidence, regardless of how often it is run. At any time the computer model does not match the events on the ground, it demonstrates that the model was in error.
The UQ survey in question is similarly “calling on the crowd” to draw a line. It both treats and reports the information completely correctly,
Cook’s 97% consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by the following leading scientists was published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most “consensus scientists”.
David R. Legates, Professor of Geography, University of Delaware. Former Director of the Center for Climatic Research and a former Delaware State Climatologist.
Willie Soon, astrophysicist and geoscientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics, receiving editor for the journal New Astronomy.
William M. Briggs, Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University
Lennart Bengtsson, Head of Research and then director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 until 1990; director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading
They said, the definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent. Legates said "It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” Bergtsson said, “The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.”
Shortly after the release of this paper, Bergttsson requested that his name be removed from it. And he dissassociated himself with working with the scientists in the future. He wrote this letter to them apologizing:
"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
With my best regards, Lennart Bengtsson
I can’t understand why there scientists with a non-“consensus” opinion would not be as open about it as those with a pro-“consensus” opinion.
You say that like you’ve just uncovered a logical fallacy. Go you.
‘Appeal to authority’ can be a logical fallacy, when it is misused. Otherwise, and generally, it’s is some very good advice that you should listen to these folks because they know WTF they’re talking about.
97-98% consensus (or ‘agreement’ if you prefer) amongst THE group of people who know WTF they’re talking about is not a logical fallacy. It is an appeal to authority that you really should pay attention to.
Eh, yeah. Go back and read his post (much more carefully this time), and you’ll find that they laid claim to their own letter - the one he went ahead and posted excerpts from anyway! (He really cares nothing for copyright.) He never posted his own letter, and they made no legal claim about him posting his original letter. They have no legal claim to it.
Clearly, you haven’t done the one thing I did do.
That is, read and understand the survey itself.
Since you can’t be bothered to go do a tiny bit of homework (like click a link),
I’ll help your useless self out here:
In part one of the survey,
32.6% or 3896 of the total studies endorsed AGW.
66.4% or 7930 had no AGW position.
0.7% or 78 studies rejected AGW.
0.3% or 40 studies were “uncertain”.
Cook omitted the 7930 from the count, because those studies made no claim about man’s role in global warming. He was asking scientists who had performed studies about that subject what their position was. His final count for studies in part one was still 4014 - that’s after omitting unrelated studies (like volcano and hurricane studies).
3896/4014=97.06%
Even if you try your hardest to make a claim against Cook’s study by saying “he should have included all the unrelated studies as well” (which makes no sense in seeking information about AGW), you still can’t come up with a percentage lower than 32.6% (not 0.3%) endorsing AND higher then 0.7% denying !!!
You’re (rather foolishly) relying on a group of other people to tell you what to think without checking their work. By the way, you left out some basic information about your authors:
Legates and Soon coauthored the now-debunked “polar bear study” and Soon has handsomely profited from ties to big-oil. Legates lost his title as a Climatologist because of his AGW denying.
The fourth author still-listed on the paper (that you chose to omit) is actually not a working scientist at all, but instead someone who spends his time at Capitol Hill muckraking. That would be the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
The other author isn’t a climatologist, but a statistician (“To the Stars!”). He also happens to be a staunch conservative. Here’s a link showing that he’s happy to flub the numbers if it means he’ll get his way. (In other words, he’ll lie.)
You may want to consider the (very real) possibility that you’re backing the wrong people.
Now, I’m done talking to you - because I’m not crazy enough to try any longer.
‘Appeal to authority’ can be a logical fallacy, when it is misused. Otherwise, and generally, it’s is some very good advice that you should listen to these folks because they know WTF they’re talking about.
It’s fine to appeal to authority when there are two uninformed people. But when it is used (as “consensus” is) to declare that the arguments of contrary informed scientists are irrelevant because “The vote is in. They had their chance.” That is a good example of Appeal To Authority being a logical fallacy. When Al Freakin’ Gore waives away the arguments of geophysical and astrophysical scientists (“climate scientists”) that is an example of Appeal To Authority being misused. It certainly has no business coming from the mouth of an “informed” person like someone putting together the IPCC report (which is where this “consensus” business started in the 90s). When it is used that way, it is used improperly. In that case, it is like a prosecutor in court saying “Your going to hear ‘blah, blah, blah’ from the defense. But the consensus of law enforcement officials is that this man is guilty.”
When an Appeal to Authority is used to buttress ad hominem (“These people are just ‘deniers’”) then that is equivalent to a religious inquisition.
