Another possible representation would be to keep the diagram as is, BUT have the two labels alternately blinking between one another, where “science” sometimes blinks to “politics”, and “politics” sometimes blinks to “science”, as if they are the same words, one cyclically oscillating re-defined as the other, in the true spirit of alarmist, verbal, hijacking gymnastics.
Rich Davis
December 27, 2018 5:07 pm
Wrong JPP. The circle labeled”Science” in a diagram with the caption “Climate Change Venn Diagram” is clearly intended to refer to “science of climate change”, not “science of everything”.
My interpretation of CTM’s diagram is that there is no aspect of climate change science that is not an aspect of climate change politics and at the same time there is a certain amount of climate change politics that is completely devoid of science. I’d say that’s about right, except that the climate change science circle is far too large in proportion to the climate change politics circle.
Robert B
December 27, 2018 5:08 pm
The term “evidence-based research” has infiltrated politics. A supposedly subset of politics that is synonymous with “science” rather than “scientifically influenced” being just a subset of their policy decisions. Sounds better than claiming better researched policies but its hijacking the good name of a useful method that has limitations just to make all their pronouncements look superior. If anything, science is the antithesis to divination, which is all reasoned to some extent but assumed to be infallible by the preacher and disciples. You should be very wary of policies that are almost guaranteed to be based on personal preferences but draped with the tinsel of the scientific method. Almost guaranteed that evidenced that supported the postulate was searched for and not that single result that told them that they were wrong.
Eternaloptimist
December 27, 2018 5:27 pm
Ctm diagram looks like a tree ring to me. It needs to be spliced onto something, maybe turned upside down and run through an excel sreadsheet.
We have politics with undefined, fuzzy borders, interacting with the real world, like with butterflies.
We have Climate Science, full of holes, completely constrained by Politics of various colours.
There is a small area of Proper Science that at times can cut across Climate Science and Politics to reach the Real World. But, it has a strong wall built around it, so that only the gifted can – and should – enter and leave. Geoff
JP Kalishek
December 27, 2018 7:32 pm
Should be three parts. Politics, and False Science in the above with a touching but rather small circle labeled “Actual Science” with at most an overlap of four pixels.
Stephen Singer
December 27, 2018 8:19 pm
Very few Politicians know or understand much science which explains dumb policies they propose/enact.
Ian Macdonald
December 27, 2018 11:19 pm
4 layers required: Politics, Propaganda, Pseudoscience, Science. Your call as to relative sizes 😉
Yes. Most of CAGW is Politics and Propaganda. Plausibility requires a core of Science. We all agree on the chemical reaction C + O2 -> CO2 at elementary school level. Just after that all changes acidic.
CAGW agenda relies a long chain of assumptions ( emissions add CO2 to atmosphere, CO2 warms it, feedback warms more, warming is harmful, CO2 taxes help, … ). Each of the needs a seed of plausibility so that a 8-year old can understand it. If not, the sheeple relies on what others say.
Skeptics need elementary school level talking points.Memes that connect to people: recovery from the ice age, GW gives more nice weather, plants live on CO2, organic fuels are essential to mankind, bankers and bureaucrats try to rob us, …
Steve Borodin
December 28, 2018 1:14 am
I suggest a large circle encompassing the other two labelled “Corruption”.
The USGS is sending out ‘robot death tweets‘ that are being used to flesh out news stories before news is available: “Their initial, automated report estimated a 44 percent chance at least one life would be lost, a 27 percent chance the death count could reach 10, and a five percent chance it could top 100. There is a 24 percent chance no lives will be lost.”
Perhaps Politics and Science should both be encapsulated completely in a STATISTICS bubble. Because when there is a statistical possibility of death… nothing else matters.
Roy Spencer
December 28, 2018 4:31 am
Not all science has policy implications. The overlap is not 100%.
Yep… Most science doesn’t have policy implications. Whether mountain ranges are built by plate tectonics or geosynclinal processes or something else has no relevance to government policy.
Yep… Most science doesn’t have policy implications. Whether mountain ranges are built by plate tectonics or geosynclinal processes or something else has no relevance to government policy.
Yeah, but if you want the government grant money, you’ll find ways to make even a non-relevant to government policy paper bow down to the desires of the government grant givers. So a paper about Mountain ranges being built by platetonics will work in how AGW might or could make that process worse in the nebulous future. A few words about how Climate change could make mountains more unstable, but more research is needed and Grant granted.
True.
It reminds me of “innocent until proven guilty”. A sound basis for any justice system.
But when politics enter in … we get the attempted perversion of justice we witnessed in the Kavanaugh hearings. An unfounded accusation was proof enough for some … because of their politics.
In climate “science” the claim that Man’s CO2 is responsible for (usually future) changes in the weather, climate, extinctions, volcanoes, flooding, …. the list goes on, is politically/financially useful and therefore the “claims” have replaced the scientific method.
Pamela Gray
December 28, 2018 9:02 am
In which part of the circles do we put the climate scientists who have committed what in normal people’s world crimes?
Discuss
Another possible representation would be to keep the diagram as is, BUT have the two labels alternately blinking between one another, where “science” sometimes blinks to “politics”, and “politics” sometimes blinks to “science”, as if they are the same words, one cyclically oscillating re-defined as the other, in the true spirit of alarmist, verbal, hijacking gymnastics.
Wrong JPP. The circle labeled”Science” in a diagram with the caption “Climate Change Venn Diagram” is clearly intended to refer to “science of climate change”, not “science of everything”.
My interpretation of CTM’s diagram is that there is no aspect of climate change science that is not an aspect of climate change politics and at the same time there is a certain amount of climate change politics that is completely devoid of science. I’d say that’s about right, except that the climate change science circle is far too large in proportion to the climate change politics circle.
The term “evidence-based research” has infiltrated politics. A supposedly subset of politics that is synonymous with “science” rather than “scientifically influenced” being just a subset of their policy decisions. Sounds better than claiming better researched policies but its hijacking the good name of a useful method that has limitations just to make all their pronouncements look superior. If anything, science is the antithesis to divination, which is all reasoned to some extent but assumed to be infallible by the preacher and disciples. You should be very wary of policies that are almost guaranteed to be based on personal preferences but draped with the tinsel of the scientific method. Almost guaranteed that evidenced that supported the postulate was searched for and not that single result that told them that they were wrong.
Ctm diagram looks like a tree ring to me. It needs to be spliced onto something, maybe turned upside down and run through an excel sreadsheet.
In the Venn Diagram you misspelled “Snake oil”.
That sure looks familiar.
Ahhh . . . I remember:
https://dks.scene7.com/is/image/GolfGalaxy/16CWYWSPRSFTPNK20GBL_Pink?wid=500&fmt=jpg
http://www.geoffstuff.com/VENNB.jpg
We have politics with undefined, fuzzy borders, interacting with the real world, like with butterflies.
We have Climate Science, full of holes, completely constrained by Politics of various colours.
There is a small area of Proper Science that at times can cut across Climate Science and Politics to reach the Real World. But, it has a strong wall built around it, so that only the gifted can – and should – enter and leave. Geoff
Should be three parts. Politics, and False Science in the above with a touching but rather small circle labeled “Actual Science” with at most an overlap of four pixels.
Very few Politicians know or understand much science which explains dumb policies they propose/enact.
4 layers required: Politics, Propaganda, Pseudoscience, Science. Your call as to relative sizes 😉
Yes. Most of CAGW is Politics and Propaganda. Plausibility requires a core of Science. We all agree on the chemical reaction C + O2 -> CO2 at elementary school level. Just after that all changes acidic.
CAGW agenda relies a long chain of assumptions ( emissions add CO2 to atmosphere, CO2 warms it, feedback warms more, warming is harmful, CO2 taxes help, … ). Each of the needs a seed of plausibility so that a 8-year old can understand it. If not, the sheeple relies on what others say.
Skeptics need elementary school level talking points.Memes that connect to people: recovery from the ice age, GW gives more nice weather, plants live on CO2, organic fuels are essential to mankind, bankers and bureaucrats try to rob us, …
I suggest a large circle encompassing the other two labelled “Corruption”.
… + 100
Politics = Corruption
The USGS is sending out ‘robot death tweets‘ that are being used to flesh out news stories before news is available: “Their initial, automated report estimated a 44 percent chance at least one life would be lost, a 27 percent chance the death count could reach 10, and a five percent chance it could top 100. There is a 24 percent chance no lives will be lost.”
Perhaps Politics and Science should both be encapsulated completely in a STATISTICS bubble. Because when there is a statistical possibility of death… nothing else matters.
Not all science has policy implications. The overlap is not 100%.
Yep… Most science doesn’t have policy implications. Whether mountain ranges are built by plate tectonics or geosynclinal processes or something else has no relevance to government policy.
Depends on the grant source. In some cases, if you were studying how clouds appear to take on fruit shapes, you would be obliged to mention AGW.
Yep… Most science doesn’t have policy implications. Whether mountain ranges are built by plate tectonics or geosynclinal processes or something else has no relevance to government policy.
Yeah, but if you want the government grant money, you’ll find ways to make even a non-relevant to government policy paper bow down to the desires of the government grant givers. So a paper about Mountain ranges being built by platetonics will work in how AGW might or could make that process worse in the nebulous future. A few words about how Climate change could make mountains more unstable, but more research is needed and Grant granted.
True.
It reminds me of “innocent until proven guilty”. A sound basis for any justice system.
But when politics enter in … we get the attempted perversion of justice we witnessed in the Kavanaugh hearings. An unfounded accusation was proof enough for some … because of their politics.
In climate “science” the claim that Man’s CO2 is responsible for (usually future) changes in the weather, climate, extinctions, volcanoes, flooding, …. the list goes on, is politically/financially useful and therefore the “claims” have replaced the scientific method.
In which part of the circles do we put the climate scientists who have committed what in normal people’s world crimes?
Here is the most recent alleged crime:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/climate-change-expert-aaron-doering-charged-with-choking-his-fiance
Ugh. My sentence grammar is atrocious. Addled language center in my west Nile filled brain.