Eric Worrall writes about “The Conversation” Austalia’s favorite hangout of climate doomers:
As the great unwinding of the more extreme climate alarmist positions gathers momentum, “The Conversation” provides us with a hilarious new excuse for some of the wild claims made by climate scientists over the years. Apparently they weren’t lying or exaggerating, they were “oversimplifying”.
According to The Conversation;
“To exaggerate is human, and scientists are human. Exaggeration and the complementary art of simplification are the basic rhetorical tools of human intercourse. So yes, scientists do exaggerate. … In general, limiting or extreme results come about because a simplified analysis is missing an important feedback or because an intricate model is being “exercised” by simulating an extreme scenario.”
![dog-homework[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/dog-homework1.jpg?quality=83)
So you see, its not the fault of advocate scientist that anyone took their claims of imminent arctic melting, approaching climatic catastrophe, and irreversible tipping points literally. Its our fault, because our feeble intellects were simply incapable of comprehending that they were just talking about worst case scenarios, which they didn’t expect would actually occur.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
(But) WE’RE (still) ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!
“We’re not wrong. It’s just going to take a little longer than we thought. You just wait ’til warming picks up again and look out! We’re all gonna’ fry!”
Some alarmists will never move on.
So ironic that an article excusing bad science is in a magazine where under the mag title banner (in very small print) it says: “Academic Rigour”.
All my college profs would’ve laughed at that…..you have to wonder what happened to an academia where this sort of stuff is not only excused/ignored but even encouraged.
“you have to wonder what happened to an academia where this sort of stuff is not only excused/ignored”
Decades of students attending high schools and colleges; with increasingly Liberal (L) instructors, with some of those students going on to be next generation of increasingly Liberal (L+1) instructors.
Facts, Truth, Logic, and common sense have been replaced by Exaggeration, Spin, Emotions, and what seems good.
I’m afraid not. Like the press, academia invests a great deal of effort promoting itself. The truth is that the “old times good times” meme is not only absurd but backwards. We are where we are because of where we’ve been. The fact is that the academia has always been a minefield of mediocrity and that, in general, things are improving. The current situation simply shows how far we have to go. But, for those of us that have been in the academia for a long, long time, this is nothing new.
In Australia they threw open the doors of academia back in the mid seventies with free tertiary education. They have partly closed them since with a publicly funded loads scheme (HECS). The initial effect has been maintained which was massive expansion of the academic sector, in practical terms the (f)arts and (in)humanities/inanities ( which of course includes climate ‘science’).
So what happens when you throw open the doors? The insects flood in. What happens when you create a perfect environment for fruitbats and bird brains? The gardens and parks are full of them crapping on those below.
I think that pretty much explains The Conversation as an outcome.
“We are where we are because of where we’ve been. The fact is that the academia has always been a minefield of mediocrity and that, in general, things are improving.”
I disagree – When I was in school “social justice” was never introduced into the equation and now it’s not only a core ingredient of the humanities but has also polluted the sciences, climate science being one of the best examples.
Yes, we’re all gonna die. It’s one of sure things in life. It’s just a matter of when …
And how?(!)
Hopefully by age and not by fictional causes …
“And how?(!)”
Foreign Infections comes to mind…
Open border political correctness have brought us EV-D68 (Pollo like disease) and Ebola (possibly related to Medieval Black Death).
Open borders, brought to us by same politic groupies that brought us AGW scam.
Chicken-like disease?
Notice how utterly lazy warmists are getting?
“Climate Change ©®™ is already impacting us today, just look out your window”.
OK then warmists, point it out to me through your famed “window”. Is it that cloud? That wave? That curious moisture rainbow around the Moon on certain nights? That rare Easterly breeze? No? Then what is it? Do you have any proof whatsoever except blatant lies and lazy rhetoric?
Thought not.
Scientist are human but they are supposed to be practising science which tests as objectively as possible any theory to achieve the Truth. No excuse at all.
Since science is based on data, for them to admit they “exaggerate” simply means they fudged/falsified/screwed with the data.
And that’s not science–that’s wrong, especially when global policies impacting billions of poor people the most are determined by that data. And now they want to impact all 7 billion of us.
They admitted to being criminal at most and negligent at least.
But bottom line is this–they are NOT scientists. They should be stripped of that title.
Spot On!
…….and when the inevitable warm weather returns for a couple of decades we’ll all hear……….see we were right all along. Then it’ll cool off again and they”ll say……….it’s just going to take a little longer………and when the inevitable warm weather for a couple of decades we’ll all hear……….see we were right all along. Then it’ll cool off again and they”ll say……….
Meanwhile the grants keep flowing by playing both sides against the middle which sensible people call climate.
If you read the actual papers they did try to pepper them with “woulds” and “coulds” and uncertainties to try to leave themselves some kind of escape. But it was a pretty prefunctory effort; the mainstream media completely ignored that stuff and reported only worst case scenarios; and nobody made any effort to correct the resulting misleading impression. Now that the storm is upon them and it is time to take to the lifeboats I think they are going to find they don’t have nearly enough of them and those that they do have are far too small and not nearly strong enough enough to weather the coming storm.
Reminds me (and stay with me here – It is relevant) of Richard Dawkins’ hit book The Selfish Gene. It was actually about how genes are “selfish”, i.e. evolution works to preserve deserving gene complexes, not deserving individuals. However, it came out at the height of the Yuppy era, and lots of guys in red braces and enormous trousers bought the book because they thought it was about the gene for being selfish, which they believed they had and which made them superior to ordinary mortals. They never found out different, because of course they never read it. Just left it laying around as another prop to their image.
Dawkins had plenty of opportunity to correct this popular misconception, and in fact in one or two interviews he touched on it, but in general he was happy to let it ride and let the money keep rolling in. I’ve never really trusted the man ever since.
My point is that this is a common attitude for scientists to take. (Or maybe I should say, those “working in the field of science”. “Scientist” suggests someone who is interested in the truth.) And why not? They are not trained to be saints. They have a living to make.
Self appointed/designated scientists are not. Science is a practiced way of thought and not a title or epithet.
If you read the actual papers they did try to pepper them with “woulds” and “coulds”
=================
Anything “could” happen. Why would anyone publish a scientific paper with “could” in the conclusions? Why would it be accepted past peer review? It certainly can’t be called science.
A scientific paper should read “we conclude X with Y error at Z probability”. There is no need for would or could, except when the paper isn’t about science at all.
If you read far back enough, they only starting using the would’s and could’s once the will’s proved mistaken.
But they made no effort, or made no attempt, to ensure that the uncertainties were included in the press releases that accompanied the papers. The lame legacy media just reported on the press release and didn’t bother reading the paper.
Unbelievable.
Scientists really do tend to oversimplify. They call it a spherical horse.
The problem though is that at the track the Scientific approach is a loser.
Just like when Scientists claim that satellite clocks run slower, proving the Theory of Relativity. They are either ignorant, stupid, condescending, or just plain frauds because the clocks in the satellites run faster because there are two relativity theories. Clocks in the Gravity well run slower. The theory of Relativity is fine, but the purveyors of knowledge are….
Yes, you’re a certified moron. I claim my $10
John A,
Would you care to place a $10 bet on it? With the money going to WUWT?
To save a little time John A so that Anthony can get your money quicker, refer to http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
Not even wrong.
Your link completely contradicts your claims.
No it doesn’t. There is a valuable lesson here that many people (including me) fall into and that is that as soon as you see what you’re expecting to see or want to see then you stop looking.
In this case, had Typhoon kept reading he would have got the full picture which does agree with Ghengis’ claim.
“They are either ignorant, stupid, condescending, or just plain frauds because the clocks in the satellites run faster because there are two relativity theories. ”
So if we had one theory they would *not* run faster? What if we had three? Would they run backward at that point?
I once tried to read a textbook on sociology. It was full of English like that quote. Amazing really, totally content free …
Pointman
Pointman – I’d go one step beyond (…).
The words may use the English language, in one form or another. However, I’ve been English all my life (57 years and counting) and I’ve learnt that there is a world of difference between words in the language and actual English. Sociology, like much climatastrology, may be written in what is ostensibly English but …
I understand your sentiment well. My first remembrance of similar misconstrued and twisted language started around the mid 1960s in San Francisco. I was making very good progress on my search for comprehension, and the beginning of understanding. Yet all around the SF/Bay Area ‘gurus’ were springing up to {mis}guide the unwary seekers. There was Hubbard with his Scientology. Then EST came along. There was Jim Jones, who became very popular for awhile. Anton La Vey was a satanist who lived on California St just off of Fillmore St. He had 2 lions to aid in drawing thrill seekers, and those who wanted to explore the Dark Side. I had friends who became interested in him. In all cases I was an advocate against all of the above, and spoke to quite a few people advising them to look inside first, and then elsewhere for knowledge. I could make effective arguments. The main concept I promoted was to learn to be your own guide. Learn to seek within yourself, within the bounds of traditional studies from recognized streams of wisdom.
In reading pysch material, I felt somewhat similar to the above. I read Menninger, Freud and others. I could comprehend the points they were making, but I always saw much of their thought stream as being subjective. There were limits to how broadly their conclusions could be applied.
This is a fine example of “snake logic” which goes as follows:
“You cannot blame the snake for being a snake. I’m a snake. I bit you. Get over it!”
For years I have used Phys.org.com as my ‘science-ish’ news accumulator (that’s the name of its bookmark), but lately they have gone over to the Scientific American side with da’ Convo and similar self-righteous blogs. Like the old farmer said to his horse (or wife, depending), “That’s two!”
Agreed, the religion is strong there.
It was to the horse. The new wife got the hint and it didn’t go past “one” with her.
SciAm, despite some still-good anthologies, was at “three” for me a long time ago.
This is pure GOLD, from the article. (I clicked, so you don’t have to)
“A more pertinent question is: does the way in which scientists and politicians speak publicly lead to wild exaggeration? When both are engaged in advocacy, there is little difference; both politicians and scientists will use whatever rhetorical devices they have to win an argument.”
But scientists ARE politicians when they engage in “advocacy”. Got it.
Advocacy scientists need a new label: maybe “Lying scumbag hypocrites”.
Too harsh?
“Lying scumbags” should be enough. There is no hypocrisy involved in lying through exaggeration.
Exaggeration, being shown to be wrong via observations, over-use of caveats (might, could, may) flat out lying is what many sceptics have accused them of over the years. See some scientific and political quotes here.
Arctic death spiral, the oceans will end up the the atmosphere, runaway warming Venus style, if Antarctica all melted……..if Greenland ice cap all melted…..each and every one of these was an example of the double ethical bind as stated by the late Dr. Stephen H. Schneider.
Why not just tell the truth and forget the bit about being human beings????? It is not up to scientists to play the role of advocates or to dishonestly attempt to influence policy. As the Tsunami of exaggeration goes into retreat many scientists will rue the day they went along with this kind of advice from Schneider.
Schneider, better than anyone else, should have learned his lesson on this. Let me illustrate the issue about making “simplified, dramatic statements.”
1978
http://youtu.be/DsdWTBNyvX0
Schneider fooled a lot of people, but first he fooled himself.
========================
The hypocrisy comes in when those that advocate that government force us to live poor and stay put through punitive costs of living resulting from energy sourcing mandates or regulations to kill certain lower cost sectors, taxes, or outright travel restrictions, on account of our “carbon footprints” jet off to Bali, and Davos, and other choice destinations often using funds derived from taxes and otherwise enjoy all the fruits of a high-end lifestyle.
“Too harsh?”
Too mild by a long chalk
Methinks you should get off the fence and say what you really mean ;¬)
And voting or otherwise supporting any of the two main platforms is like a chicken voting for Don Tyson and Colonel Sanders.
Now, now. One is skinless & Grilled and other is breaded & Fried. Big difference. /sarc
Darren, ya forgot to pluck that bird first.
Sounds about right.
Let’s ask Mark Steyn.
Let’s ask the Mann about his Nobel Peace Prize
Let’s ask the Mann about his Hockey Stick chart
Let’s ask the Mann about his “hide the Decline”
Let’s ask the Mann about his “most influential tree in the world”
Let’s ask the Mann about his “work”
No, no.
Let us ask Mann WHO were the two proof-reader/pal-reviewing/patters-on-the-back who decided his many papers – and one tree in the Yamal wilderness – that created the Hockey Stick were correct.
“So yes, scientists do exaggerate.” Really? My high school chemistry teacher wouldn’t have let me get away with that excuse.
They used models that they just knew were accurate. Because science.
When the models didn’t work they fudged/massaged/smoothed the data.
When that didn’t work they insisted the models just needed more time.
When that didn’t work they’re trying this load of, well, you know what I mean.
Why can’t they just admit the models don’t work? Never mind, I already know the answer…
In reality, there will be no consequences for these chicken littles. These scientists, with their new fangled way of analyzing data and presenting graphs will be unscathed all due to buck passing. Even better, because this was an international effort, each country gets to pass the buck across the boarder. This will not end up with license to practice revocations, as it was over the vaccine scare, originating in one individual with a charismatic style (and he does indeed have one). He also over simplified plus over reacted, and called out an alarm that the media picked up on and that bled all over front page news reports. Turns out his findings were in need of replication but he let the horse out of the barn too soon (thinking he was doing what was best to possibly have a positive impact on a potentially devastating disorder).
Safety is in numbers and the number of climate warnings out in left field from a cadre of international scientists will unfortunately actually serve to protect them. It is the swarming group of arm chair amateurs like us who will feel the brunt of this, as we go to our graves forever jaded in our now broken beyond repair idealized vision of what science is, or should be. As for me, my only recourse is the vote. Which I will use with fury for sure.
Early and often I hope!!!
In my state voting for who you want was/is not possible for me. A ballot with the circles you fill in with a pencil. I asked for a write-in ballot, she said, “This is all they sent us, you can write in on it but the machine won’t count it.”
People with Dyslexia might check the wrong box.
You have a brain-dead meme.
If requiring an ID to exercise the Constutionally protected right to vote an undue burden, then wouldn’t it also be an undue burden to have to jump through hoops, get a permit, carry a license AND an ID to exercise your Constitutionally protected right to bear arms?
Are we supposed to trust the comments of an inverted name?
No thanks.
You must be brain dead to vote for either of those parties, you’re voting against your own best interests.
Please do not tell me my best interests.
Do you mind if I call you nitram prempE? I’m too lazy to tilt my monitor.
Ahhhh, you found me out.
Brain dead…. with 2 engineering degrees, while hiring and mentoring 2 teams of engineers and technicians, bringing new technologies into my company, publishing the occasional paper, and generously supporting my favorite charities, causes, and candidates.
I’m pushing 60 and I have to show a photo ID to get healthcare, buy beer/wine/liquor, pick up packages at the post office, UPS, Fed-X offices, or get into the DemocRAT convention.
Given that, what’s your point? Is it ‘racism’, when we are asked to provide photo ID for those services?
I have a dream, that one day the right to vote will be as rigorously validated as the right to buy a beer. Ihave a dream…..
@ur momisugly Mac…great answer!
Religon = Alarmism = Money
Simplifying rhetoric. Where have I seen that before?
On the internet.
Science/Truthiness + Alarmism + Government = research/Money/grant
Don’t sully religion with the fingerprint of cAGW faith
Nope. Sully religion by quoting religion at length. That’s why the Internet is where religions come to die.
Usually attacks on religion are made by blaming the religion for the behaviour of those who claim to be its followers. It has a nice ring of truthiness. It used to be known as guilt by association and is used in a prejudice-building process called ‘othering’. The new and equally vile version is guilt by membership. They think it sounds truthier.
“Are you now or have you ever been a member of a climate science fraud investigation panel…?”
Obviously a nutter.
/sarc for those who still don’t get it
John A, it is worth bearing steadily in mind that the biggest slaughter in history, 100 million plus billions enslaved, was caused by explicitly and adamantly atheistic state socialism.
Modern leftism/environmentalism is a competing moral ideology that has many of the characteristics of a religion, and what a lethal one it is.
John A
Is the internet the cure for Islamofascism?
John A
October 18, 2014 at 10:33 am
“Nope. Sully religion by quoting religion at length. That’s why the Internet is where religions come to die.”
Hehe. Good Luck with that. I never had better access to all Bible translations.
“Never murder a man bent on suicide…” Woodrow Wilson. As these snakes eat their tails, there will be time and moments. Patience mes amis.
Sorry, the US and the Brits could not just wait for the kamikazes to hit their carriers. The allies shot them down, hit their airfields, and devastated their infrastructure.
As the one vulture said to the other “Patience my a$$, I’m going to kill something.”
Meanwhile, Obama marches on, kissing and hugging nurses that had ebola exposure. Neat, huh?
Clever dude that Obama. Many people think that is what he said, and the news media helps heim get away with giving that impression. But what he actually did was hug nurses at the CDC before there were any ebola patients there.
Meaning what, exactly? There appears to be a concerted effort on this blog by fake commenters on this blog to be the first to mention President Obama. Failed computer models? Obama. Ebola epidemic? Obama.
Give it a rest. Yes, we know you don’t like Obama.
For a lot of reasons.
How are they fake, John? Have you researched everybody that’s been critical of Obama?
How do you do that–or you just figure anybody that criticizes him is a racist/idiot/moron/etc./etc.?
Talk about confirmation bias.
Meaning fakes like you are still trying to defend the indefensible.
Give it a rest.
“we know you don’t like Obama.”
We? How many of you are in there?
1000 words when 50 would have sufficed. Just like the sophistry of SkS tree hutters when confronted with an unpleasant reality.
It’s unfair to Dawkins to say that “in general he was happy to let it ride”. He explained the metaphorical nature of “selfish gene” until he was blue in the face, not once or twice, or occasionally, but dozens of time and almost every time he had the opportunity. And, of course, he had explained this very clearly in the book itself (a terrific book by the way, which many purchasers did indeed read all the way through because it was so well written). Furthermore, I would say that a high proportion of people who got involved in discussions about the book did clearly understand this point. I don’t think this is at all comparable to climate catastrophism; you can easily find numerous explicit quotes from catastrophists which do predict a climate holocaust. For many of them, it’s not that they failed to point out the unlikely nature of their predictions; it’s that they explicitly denied this. And many of them are still doing it.
take Al Gore- the interior of the earth is millions of degrees.
Degrees, millikelvins, what’s in a name?
take Al Gore ……. Please!
You mean Gore was saying he liked to use lots of Vaseline.
Unfortunately, this “exaggeration” has diverted TRILLIONS of dollars over the past two decades from mostly well-meaning people and channeled it into dealing with a colossal fairy tale.
What if the world had instead mustered together to find a cure for Ebola or ALS or earthquake retrofitting buildings in Haiti or developing clean drinking water systems for villages in Africa and Latin America or any other number of causes that are, in fact, of genuine concern?
Exactly! If wasting tax dollars is the new wave, then spend them on infrastructure that has a positive result for the communities who will benefit and spend those dollars on fixing health rather than patching/masking it with the ills of pills.
Someone should pass this information on to all of the “scientific” researchers who use these “exercises” to show that all of the various species will disappear within the next umpteen years or that the billions of climate “refugees” will be fighting over the last remnants of food . The “simplified analysis missing an important feedback” forms the sole basis for any credibility of their results.
[On this site, do not post a video link without an introduction or description of that video. .mod]
The first half of the projection isn’t correct either. They had the benefit of being able to revise their earlier stuff as the temperature unfolded.
And they will continue to do this so it does not look ‘worse than we thought!’ Their unfolding failures had been predicted over the years. Brooker of the the Telegraph said (I paraphrase) “Sceptics have two things on our side, time and the weather.”
Ah, so it’s not “the science” that’s wrong, it’s more to do with a failure to communicate “the science” which causes problems. Got it.
Is it too much to ask our scientists to apply the “scientific method” vs the response above: “To exaggerate is human, and scientists are human”
“The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
OK, so scientists are human but what they presented to us was not authentic science then was it.
Part of reconciling previous actions/statements with reality/truth that was wrong requires other human traits………integrity, humility and honesty.
So clearly, (climate)scientists not only exaggerate but they also lack integrity, humility and honesty.
Exaggerating and simplifying when shooting the bull around the water cooler over who the best pitcher is in the Major leagues is fine. Scientists need to keep their exaggerating and simplifying to water cooler discussion on sports or movies as well.
But Climate Science let the horse out of the barn and they took political power, political advocacy, 15 minutes of fame and grant and book money and left science way behind way long ago.
Trying to walk it back with this kind of statement of “being human” is disconcerting. Yes, being dishonest and unfaithful (to professional ethics) is a “human thing”, it also inexcusable.
And let’s not forget how anyone who suggested that the exaggerated results were exaggerated were berated and labeled as anti-science and worse.
Will they now issue an apology to everyone they labeled for pointing out what they’re now admitting to?
Only slightly off topic…do you think this guy is being paid by the click or has he truly drank the Kool-Aid??
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/1000-years-of-dust-bowls-now-inevitable-2014-10-17?siteid=rss&rss=1
When Paul F. is explaining the issues of investing in certificates of deposit (CDs) he doesn’t do too badly. Regarding Earth’s dynamic systems, especially atmosphere and oceans, he is a kook.
Rex Nutting too.
Agree re both Farrell and nutting. Both unqualified in the GW debate.and ravers to boot.
That’s the fault of the media/broadcasters who transmit the views of scientists in a distorting manner.
It’s the fault of Governments continuing to fund based on worst-case scenarios rather than most likely scenarios.
It’s the fault of ‘scientific journals’ publishing extremely distorting headlines and discussion using ‘code’.
Appropriate reporting is telling it straight.
Thing is, media are drugs like heroin, football and alcohol. It’s all about getting people addicted and making them come back for me. Making them emotionally unhealthy promotes that.
Climate scientist is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or expert novice or over simplification.
Sorry your poorest on the planet can’t have cheap available power but you were too stupid to know we were exaggerating even though when you called us on it we said we wished we could jail you. Yeah it’s your fault.