Human beliefs sure are weird. Why is it so difficult to get audiophiles to accept the existence of perceptual bias?

[pkane]

I would hate to see your house get damaged by a falling tree.

Trees are less likely to fall on your house if you hug them.

 

[Ron Texas]

Governments can find any evidence they need to push through whatever policy they want to. Just employ the right experts to write a report, and if you don't like it, employ some more until they see the light and get it right.

Here in the US it is possible to have a legislative finding of fact. It may disagree with reality but once done, it can only be undone if the resulting statute violates the US constitution.

 

[kevinh]

Oh it is the most evidence based endeavor. They just have a different idea of evidence than you do.

Actually AGW is based exclusively on computer models

 

[Cosmik]

I think the recent acceptance and promotion of "alternative facts" by the current U.S. federal government is related to that. When that term entered the American lexicon, I began to feel that all hope was lost for even a small amount of reason and logic from those currently governing the U.S.

But supposing one politician says "It is a fact that US inflation is currently low", is that a fact? If they add more details like "compared to the historical average", does that make it more of a fact? Or if they say "compared to the rest of the world"?

Can another politician not be justified in saying "Well I have an alternative fact: inflation is much higher than it should be, given our current employment levels" (or whatever).

True facts (inflation as measured by CPI is 1.25%) are virtually devoid of information. To make a fact useful it needs interpretation, context, linking to ideas. And then it is no longer just a fact.

 

[Wombat]

If there was a bucket of gold stars to give out for good posts here, you would deserve the biggest one for that comment, which is an extraordinarily succinct point the the thread with it many bloviations.

Most of those who propose solutions - especially people involved in finance, investing, and other business-related are looking for way to profit from those solutions. I'm not sure we as a species with our cultures and governments are even capabile of selecting the most effective and beneficial solution. The global current trend towards electing far-right nationalists and saparatists. The haves want to keep what they've got, and the have nots want s big slice of the pie. I am not optimistic regarding the long term. (He says as ominous thunder from an approaching storm accentuates the dark afternoon sky.)

Science and logic will not determine the path forward - politics and big egos will lead the way.

 

[Wombat]

Actually AGW is based exclusively on computer models

So is the navigation for our visits to the planets.

 

[Blumlein 88]

There is a tendency for governments to pass legislation based on a hypothesis. It sounds good, so let's do it. Maybe it works or it doesn't. Sometimes they admit defeat and reverse course.

Yes, actually that wouldn't be so bad. It seems gov't tends to pass legislation on theory, and if it doesn't work, they keep that legislation and add some more for some other reason.

I don't know a practical way to do it, but I'm wondering if at least as done in the USA, precedents and legislation shouldn't be pruned away periodically in some manner. Keep the constitution and its amendments, but some laws need clearing out or a limited lifetime or something like that. Even when things get revisited and updated it seems the old versions (or old interests in the old versions) corrupt it plenty. e.g. the most recent copyright acts.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Actually AGW is based exclusively on computer models

Demonstrably not so. Plus lots of science has been/is based upon models with and without a computer. That alone isn't much of a criticism.

NOTE:my post you quoted was in reference to political activity, not AGW.

 

[Xulonn]

Who or what specifically is "the climate science research"?

You had to step deep into the community of known AGW/CC denialists to find those discredited voices.

Ph.D. physicists Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaeveris are not climate scientists, and Patrick Moore was not the founder of Greenpeace. None of the three have ever done climate research and held it up to peer review. None of the three are true experts in climate science. For their supposed expertise, they seem to be clueless about the suite of roles of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere - and totally clueless about the negative effects of CO2 on things like increased growth vs. and nutrient value of human food crops and the relationship of CO2, plants, pathogens and crop-destroying pests. Or the atmosphere dynamics related to increased atmospheric moisture, floods, droughts, storms, precipitation patterns, etc.

There is a rather delicate "balance of nature" that lead to human farming, domestication of animals, the development of cities and civilizations, and explosive population growth of humans as extinction rates for many other animals and plants began to rise precipitously. A range of climate conditions conducive to the development of human civilization began about 8-10,000 years ago and there was no single truly global climate aberration lengthy enough to destroy that development. Now, we are stepping into new territory. Global warming and climate change effects and feedbacks are erratic and sometimes slow, and tipping points and black swan events are impossible to predict accurately with respect to time.

But one thing climate scientists know for sure, is that during eras when CO2 levels we are approaching lasted for thousands of years, human civilization could not exist as it is now. As professor Albert Allen Bartlet said in his famous lectures, "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." And sea level rise is the most likely slow, insidious feature of AGW/CC that will disrupt human civilization. If nothing else, humanity will have to move every single port city in the world within the next 200-300 years. Think about that.

 

[kevinh]

So is the navigation for our visits to the planets.

See the video by Gaiever posted recently about the climate models.
Or you can reference this one about beautiful models that make incorrect predictions.

 

[Ron Texas]

Yes, actually that wouldn't be so bad. It seems gov't tends to pass legislation on theory, and if it doesn't work, they keep that legislation and add some more for some other reason.

I don't know a practical way to do it, but I'm wondering if at least as done in the USA, precedents and legislation shouldn't be pruned away periodically in some manner. Keep the constitution and its amendments, but some laws need clearing out or a limited lifetime or something like that. Even when things get revisited and updated it seems the old versions (or old interests in the old versions) corrupt it plenty. e.g. the most recent copyright acts.

I use the word hypotheses as something which has no proof. A theory has insurmountable evidence to support it. Part of the climate debate is over whether the evidence is insurmountable. Sunset dates would help a lot. The constant extension of copyright terms is unfortunate. A recent project by the NY Public Library identified many books written before 1964 which were not registered with the copyright office and are now in the public domain. I wonder if the same approach is possible with other works such as audio recordings and movies.

One of these days I will get to Florida and buy the first round.

 

[SIY]

I think the recent acceptance and promotion of "alternative facts" by the current U.S. federal government is related to that. When that term entered the American lexicon, I began to feel that all hope was lost for even a small amount of reason and logic from those currently governing the U.S.

The term may be new, the reality is not. When I was doing grant-based research into endocrine disruptors, the granting agency was very clear about what the assumptions and outcome were expected to be. "They're really not a big deal and nothing needs to be regulated" would NOT have resulted in the grant award.

 

[Xulonn]

Or you can reference this one about beautiful models that make incorrect predictions.

Please point out the deviation from projections (And if you don't know the difference between "projections" and "predictions", you are completely clueless about climate science.)

 

[Cosmik]

If there was no such thing as alternative facts and politics was based on evidence, wouldn't that mean that if you had two political parties and they weren't saying the same thing, one of them had to be lying?

 

[mansr]

If there was no such thing as alternative facts and politics was based on evidence, wouldn't that mean that if you had two political parties and they weren't saying the same thing, one of them had to be lying?

Better than the current situation that if you have two political parties, three of them are lying.

 

[kevinh]

So let's look at the CO2 levels not over the past few ice ages (ie Cherry Picked Data) but over a longer time scale.

So over the past 500 million years, CO2 levels have fluctuated from 6,000 ppm to as low as 180 ppm dueing the last ice age, there has been NO Correlation between Global Temps and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, so 97% of the CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere is now gone? Where has it been sequestered?

BTW before we get to THAT, note the linear decrease over time ( the scale of the graph isn't linear). What would happen IF the CO2 levels went down another .5% from their historic highs, down to say 150 ppm?
The planet would literally Die, WHY? Photosynthesis stops at 150ppm. Plants would starve to death and life on Planet Earth would cease.

So where did most of the CO2 go? well some seems to have gone into Fossil Fuel formation and Natural Gas, but that is only a tiny fraction, most went into forming Calcium Carbonates, mostly by sea animals like Clams, Oysters, Scallops.
Humans may be (quite inadvertently) saving the planet by burning fossil fuels and restoring CO2 levels so plants are no longer starving.

The biomass of the planet has INCREASED nu >10% over the past 40 years, due to increased CO2 levels. The Deserts are getting greener.
Why? Well CO2 allows plants to have smaller stoma can be smaller in the presence of more CO2 and the plant loses less water becoming more resistant to drought.

 

[kevinh]

I use the word hypotheses as something which has no proof. A theory has insurmountable evidence to support it. Part of the climate debate is over whether the evidence is insurmountable. Sunset dates would help a lot. The constant extension of copyright terms is unfortunate. A recent project by the NY Public Library identified many books written before 1964 which were not registered with the copyright office and are now in the public domain. I wonder if the same approach is possible with other works such as audio recordings and movies.

One of these days I will get to Florida and buy the first round.

Very good point any Scientific theory has a Null Hypothesis, ask a climate scientist what the Null Hypothesis for AGW, I'll save you time there isn't one.

 

[kevinh]

BTW the CIMP climate Models runs vs observation. The CIMP Models are the ones used by the IPCC.

I would also note the inability of the climate models to converge to a single solution. Those who took math in college may appreciate the significance of that.

 

[PierreV]

BTW the CIMP climate Models runs vs observation. The CIMP Models are the ones used by the IPCC.

View attachment 31205

I would also note the inability of the climate models to converge to a single solution. Those who took math in college may appreciate the significance of that.

Hmm...

https://www.yaleclimateconnections....have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/

But, anyway, no need to argue at length, we all have our opinions and, as long as we aren't specialists in the relevant fields, our respective opinions are worth about as much as our a****

 

[ahofer]

I think those discrepancies (kevinh vs Yale) relate to using the satellite or land-based measurements (is that graph from a Watt's Up with That" Christy post?). The skeptic community has a lot of problems with the land-based measurements, due to heat island and "cooling the past" accusations. I wouldn't be able to referee that dispute competently.

But even if you were to take the satellite measurements as gospel, you still have warming, just a lower overall climate sensitivity than modeled. Put a reasonable range of uncertainty around that and you still have a significant RISK of man-made warming that could cost a lot of money and/or lives in the future. It seems to me even the skeptics ought to be worried about man-made warming in the long-term.

I like to believe the skeptics, and the uninformed-but-resistant types as well, would be more receptive if the message wasn't the unrealistic "hair shirt" version of what we need to do.

btw, tangentially related to audiophile matters, have you ever looked at the Cultural Cognition Project? http://www.culturalcognition.net/
They document with climate and certain other topics that the more informed people are the more they disagree. Fascinating:

A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased.

http://www.culturalcognition.net/br...risk-perception-commons-culture-conflict.html