I’m otherwise engaged today, so it is time for an open thread.
Discussion is open within the limits of WUWT policy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m otherwise engaged today, so it is time for an open thread.
Discussion is open within the limits of WUWT policy.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I propose a new countdown. Actually it is a count- up. Number of birds killed by turbines.
A frequent topic is questioning the assessment processes of the IPCC. What parts are science processes and what parts pseudo-science processes?
Generically I ask what is(are) the fundamental distinction(s) between science and pseudo-science?
If we identify objectively the difference between science and pseudo-science, then the IPCC products can be more clearly characterized.
John
I’d like to encourage my fellow “denialati” to treat Prof Dan Kahan and his Yale blog (http://www.culturalcognition.net) as an opportunity or nexus for positive, respectful communication between the two “sides.” He may still be mired in the skeptics-are-not-grasping-the-evidence preconception endemic to his profession, but he doesn’t lie about or censor what skeptics write on his blog. Therefore let’s not make the mistake of dismissing him as another Cook or Lewandowsky.
(Kahan was recently rude, for no good reason, to Willis E., but apart from that he’s been a gentleman, as far as I can see.)
Thanks for reading this plug—
BK
You sound silly. Renewable energy is not climate. We need wind / sun / bio-fuel and whatever it takes to become less dependend on oil, since these days we export to much euro’s and dollars to the middle east and the price keeps going up.
As a megalomaniac with a secret base within Holyhead Mountain (henchmen, helicopters, geezers with steel teeth, I got all that) I am encountering a problem. Being a wealthy megalomaniac I didn’t have the agonizing choice between lake of molten magma versus shark-infested pool and plumped for both. The magma lake was a doddle, it’s flowing well and apart from the unfortunate incident with the tealady Mrs.McGillis (she shouldn’t have been so bloody careless in my view) there have been no problems.
The problem is with the pool. I have tried to infest it with sharks but so far no success. I managed to manhandle a few up the cliffs but the only two that survived are stubbornly refusing to breed.. I strongly suspect that the female is a lesbian shark (caught her reading The Guardian on many occasions). Do any other WUWT readers have any tips on how to get a really good infestation going?
John,
there are scientific methods for squeezing juice out of already-published science—methods such as systematic review and scientific meta-analysis—and then there’s the way IPCC does it: by getting a bunch of alarmist political attachés to look over the shoulders of a bunch of handpicked scientists and reaching an inane consensus. They call this “synthesis” but it conforms to no known scientific method. Everything about it—down to the way they express their confidence in their own prophecies—is non-scientific. And when a prediction fails, they don’t even pretend to follow Feynman’s law of science (“if your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong”). Clearly they’re playing to a scientifically-uneducated audience, and they know it.
Unless I’m missing something, it’s no more “scientific” than a conclave of cardinals, but in a tropical hotel.
John Whitman:
re your post at September 22, 2013 at 7:56 am.
Science and pseudoscience have often been discussed on WUWT.
Science is an attempt to obtain the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information which contradicts existing understanding(s) and amending or rejecting existing understanding(s) in the light of obtained information.
Pseudoscience accepts an existing understanding as being ‘true’ then seeking information which supports the understanding while ignoring and/or rejecting information which contradicts existing understanding.
Richard
Just glanced at Scientific American at the newstand today. Put it back quickly when the first thing I saw was a commentary on how the new report on GW didn’t mention that Permafrost is melting far faster than predicted, putting us in danger of vast Methane emissions, and that Greenland is melting far faster than predicted as well, which was news to me. They claimed that the problem with the UN body was that it takes so long to process a report that they often don’t get in the latest scariest news.
Richard,
those are excellent definitions.
(What you call pseudoscience I also like to call ecneics.)
BK
John Whitman says:
September 22, 2013 at 7:56 am
A frequent topic is questioning the assessment processes of the IPCC. What parts are science processes and what parts pseudo-science processes?
Generically I ask what is(are) the fundamental distinction(s) between science and pseudo-science?
If we identify objectively the difference between science and pseudo-science, then the IPCC products can be more clearly characterized.
John
====================================
First we must define what is not political, or politically driven.
Given the IPCC is purely political and socialist control fanatics the group as a whole is nothing but garbage and agenda 21. control policies. Obama is on board with the one world government agenda as well, one simply has to look at the EPA to see it.
You know that old saying, “Nature abhors a vacuum”? Well, with my latest attempt at trim carpentry I can add a few more items:
– Nature abhors 90 degree angles (corners).
– Nature abhors straight lines.
– Nature abhors flat surfaces (walls, floors).
There may be others, but my skills and patience are limited. I guess that helps to explain why carpentry is a venerated skilled trade. 🙂
John, I prefer well-done science versus poorly-done science. Even science that holds to the null hypothesis, ie: that Earth is a highly variable planet with multiple intrinsic random-walk oscillations teleconnecting between oceanic and atmospheric semi-permanent systems can be poorly done.
Wijnand Schoutem:
At September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am you assert
“Renewable energy is not climate”?
Tell that to the politicians who are inflicting the damage and immense expense of wind, solar, and biofuels on us in the mistaken belief that such use will reduce CO2 emissions. In reality these expensive methods INCREASE CO2 emissions. See
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
If you want to reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East then increase fracking for gas and oil.
Richard
Prior to Mann’s Hockey Stick, was there any doubt whatsoever about the existence of the Medieval Warming Period?
If not , how could anyone produce a paper which obiterates the MWP , unless it was intentionally and purposefully fraudulent ??
Everything is crumbling down!
The geeks are starting to doubt the AGW gospel:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/the-climate-change-report-will-confirm.html
It is grand to read reports of the alarmists backpedalling, slowly at first, as the climate cools in the natural sinusoidal cycle, they will think of reasons they can list of why their dire predictions failed, they will throw the blame on Mother Nature. The sea ice is more this year, and I bet it will be even more next year as it returns to average. Their empire is crumbling, and I snicker smugly. Good job, Anthony, hail to thee good citizen. WUWT is a great place to be! Thanks to all the readers as well.
Snow at the 8000 footlevel in the Sierrra yesterday. Must be that cursed climate change at it again.
“As you journey through life, my friend,
“Whatever be your goal.
“Keep your eye upon the donut,
“And not the donut hole.” ___ Anonymous
A useful allegory for recognizing the credible conduct of science, as opposed to the non-credible (or incredible!) conduct of science.
Proxima says:
September 22, 2013 at 8:25 am
Everything is crumbling down!
The geeks are starting to doubt the AGW gospel:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/the-climate-change-report-will-confirm.html
===================================
[img] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ssfs099OLVQ/Uj5OYVxlO1I/AAAAAAAApco/hZyuSyYo8YQ/s640/17yr_santer_graph.png [/img]
Well this kind of looks like the top of a normal sign wave….Can you say “natural variability”?
– – – – – – –
Brad Keyes,
Your comment appreciated. Thanks for being the first responder.
I think your distinction starts discussion on a good direction. Also, there should be fundamental distinctions between mimickers and the mimicked. What are those distinctions?
You concluding paragraph was a classic keeper. : ) Thanks.
John
Brad Keyes says:
September 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
Kahan was recently rude, for no good reason
============
Looks like a lot more than simply rude. The following snip from a post by Willis appears to cover it:
August 16, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterWillis Eschenbach
OK, I get it. Mr. Kahan fooled me by first using an alias, and subsequently by lying to me to keep the deception going. But that’s all on me, because in Joshuareality, I fooled myself—I just saw what I wanted to see …
Joshua, using an alias on your own web site is an action which is guaranteed to fool some of the people some of the time. Thus, when Mr. Kahan does it, we can safely assume that is his intention. He is setting out to fool people by using an alias, and he is successful in his aim.
And when I questioned it, he lied to keep up the pretense. When I said that the dmk38 post was bizarre, he lied to my face, assuring me that yes, he thought it was strange as well.
– – – – – – –
richardscourtney, Brad Keyes, Bill H, Pamela Gray;
Thanks for engaging the topic. I will have return comments after a few hours. Personal stuff to attend to first.
John
@Peter Crawford
Well, Al Gore jumps sharks on a regular basis. Maybe you could follow him around for a while and catch them when they are mounted. It may be cold at those places though, so don’t forget your coat.
peter says:
September 22, 2013 at 8:12 am
They claimed that the problem with the UN body was that it takes so long to process a report that they often don’t get in the latest scariest news.
====
All that really happens is by the time they get a report through…
…the weather changes and makes total fools out of them
Anybody else operate WSPR? Interested in radio and global/local propagation conditions and/or propagation reporting?
Or testing HF antennas in situ in real-life environments (subjected to ‘real’ ground, compromise ground radial sets et al) vs ‘on the range’ or modeling via NECWIN, EZNEC or 4NEC2?
.