Reposted from the Fabius Maximus blog
By Larry Kummer, Editor / 17 November 2019
Summary: Let’s hit “pause” in the climate wars and see how we got here, where we are going, and what we can learn from this mess.
“I can’t use this result. It doesn’t support the narrative.“
Photo 99364552 © Standret – Dreamstime.
At the time I thought this statement was daft. Now I see that she was spot on, but not in the way she meant it. And with results that she did not intend.
“The time for debate has ended.”
— Marcia McNutt (former director of the US Geological Survey, then editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, now President of the NAS) in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, an editorial in Science, 3 July 2015.
Science is a structured process of debate. No debate means no science, as we use the term. Since 2015, the debate about a public policy response to climate change has stopped in any meaningful form, because the activists who control it have abandoned science. Now the headlines describe reports by activists describing every form of extreme weather as resulting from rising CO2 – and making increasingly dire predictions of future weather. The former are largely bogus, for reasons described below. The latter are either based on the unlikely-or-impossible RCP8.5 scenario (see here and here) – or fantasies of ever more extreme scenarios. There is little or no effort to base these in hard science. They are presented to the public as certainties. The models making these predictions are presented as a modern form of haruspicy (oracles from the gods elicited by animal sacrifice). Contrary opinions are seldom given, except in a pre-debunked form.
The goal is to arouse fear, even panic – not to inform.
“Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!”
— Editor’s advice to a junior reporter in Hell. From The Screwtape Lettersby C. S. Lewis (1942).
The effect of this on climate science
Almost everybody works for a living. We have aspirations for a good life. Most of us have families to provide for. Almost none of us have any substantial way to influence the conduct of the institutions in which we serve as cogs. We are vulnerable to formal and (more important) informal feedback mechanisms of our rulers.
In climate science, the elites running its institutions – such as Marcia McNutt – want research that supports the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative. After saying “the debate is ended,” she is not likely to support papers that call it into question. As Editor of the Science family of journals, that means they will not get published (damaging careers of junior scientists who did not get the memo). As president of the National Academies, that means no funding (wrecking the careers of upstart junior scientists). Even eminent and senior scientists are discarded if they challenge the narrative (e.g., Roger Pielke Sr., Judith Curry).
That is just good sense for McNutt and her peers. Journalists want doomster stories. Activists controlling the flocks of non-governmental agencies demand doomster research. Powerful political interests want doomster research (“conservative” politicians, organizations, and corporations do not care – knowing that they will have their share of gain from the expansion of government power). The incentives are tilted to one side.
So we get a flood every month of increasingly dubious research about the effects of global warming. Dubious statistical methods, exaggerated claims, endless predictions doom based on bogus claims that RCP8.5 is “business as usual” scenario. Models are used to make increasingly detailed predictions about regional effects and far future events – with little effort to validate them (there is a large body of knowledge of model validation, largely ignored by climate science). But climate science has a deeper and more severe problem.
“Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory – an event which would have refuted the theory.”
— Karl Popper in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge
“Viewed as a body of substantive hypotheses, theory is to be judged by its predictive power for the class of phenomena which it is intended to ‘explain.’ Only factual evidence can show whether it is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or, better, tentatively ‘accepted’ as valid or ‘rejected.’ As I shall argue at greater length below, the only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of its predictions with experience.”
— Milton Friedman in “The Methodology of Positive Economics“, from Essays in Positive Economics
Instead of making specific predictions about near-term (testable) weather, climate scientists now explain how current weather results from increased greenhouse gases. A big hurricane (e.g., Katrina in 2005, Irma in 2017) produces papers showing that more and bigger hurricanes are our future (here, here, and here). Large regional droughts are proclaimed the “new normal” (e.g., Texas, California) – until they end. The end of snow, more & bigger tornadoes, more & bigger wildfires (see them all here) – climate scientists seldom accurately predict them, but afterwards confidently forecast more of the same. Even outright falsification of predictions are evidence of global warming, such as the rising and falling of the Great Lakes. False predictions are ignored, preventing progress. My favorite: Terrifying predictions about the melting North Pole!
Climate scientist Richard Betts warned his fellows in a BBC op-ed (which they would not publish today): “Science must end climate confusion” (11 January 2010).
“Of course, we know that these things {extreme weather} happen anyway, even without climate change – they may happen more often under a warmer climate, but it is wrong to blame climate change for every single event. Climate scientists know this, but still there are people outside of climate science who will claim or imply such things if it helps make the news or generate support for their political or business agenda. …
“{D}o climate scientists do enough to counter this? Or are we guilty of turning a blind eye to these things because we think they are on ‘our side’ against the climate sceptics? …Climate scientists need to take more responsibility for the communication of their work to avoid this kind of thing. Even if scientists themselves are not blaming everything on climate change, it still reflects badly on us if others do this.”
But what about the ethics of science? Scientists’ sacred obligation to pursue truth. It is a chimera – a thing that is desired but in fact is imaginary. Biomedical research – with its massive direct effect on people – is severely corrupted. There is no Hippocratic Oath for scientists (and increasingly, nothing like it that is meaningful for doctors). We should expect any field of science whose fruits are valuable to the powerful to be corrupted.
- About the corruption of climate science.
- The noble corruption of climate science.
- A crisis of overconfidence in climate science.
Danger, journalists at work
Fame is money in our society. Journalists boost the careers of scientists whose work supports the narrative. Climate scientists would have to be saints to ignore this. Few are, and the rest cheer journalists who misrepresent or exaggerate their findings.
- A real-time example of the birth and spread of climate propaganda.
- Daily stories of climate death build a Green New Deal!
- A look at the workings of climate propaganda.
- Wildfires and climate change: fake news in action.
- See how climate science becomes alarmist propaganda.
- How journalists helped wreck the climate debate – by climate scientist Roy Spencer.
- A look at the workings of climate propaganda.
- Enlisting peer-reviewed science in the climate crusade.
The policy debate decouples from science
After the IPCC published its Fifth Assessment Report in 2014, activists took a fateful but brilliant step. AR5 did not support the doomster narrative, so they condemned the IPCC as “too conservative” (examples here and here). With the support of journalists and NGOs, they broke free from the tethers of science, birthing the Climate Emergency and Extinction Rebellion – based on false claims of mass extinctions occurring now (here, here, and here). Scientists have joined the parade with increasing bogus claims of dooms present and future. Those that are insufficiently enthusiastic are attacked (e.g., here).
Naked Capitalism, whose daily links are imo the premier source of news from a left perspective, gives a dozen such stories every week. Most are to some extent fake news. But their volume makes refutation, even verification of their claims, impossible for any individual or small group. And there is no money for skepticism (easily seen by comparing the amateurish skeptics’ websites with the lavishly funded, professionally run activists’ websites). A very few climate scientists have spoken out against the growing hysteria (e.g., here, here, and here), but one might as well have tried to save the Titanic with a bucket.
I and others have proposed rational responses to climate change that can get broad support (e.g., here and here). It is hopeless. The tide of alarmism continues to rise, often becoming self-parody. There are rumors that AR6 will go full doomster. The Bandwagon Effect generates positive feedbacks that in America today often converts concerns about real problems into moral panics (e.g., white slavery, satanic ritual abuse). There is nothing visible that can stop this escalation.
Conclusions
The response of our science and political institutions to climate change have been self-defeating – the opposite of what people expect from scientists warning about a severe threat (see here and here). So far they have little to show in America for their vast expenditure of time and money. And China has ignored them. But they have laid the foundation for victory. They need only some help from Nature. With their control of so many key institutions, a big bout of severe weather (e.g., a hurricane hitting downtown Miami or Washington) – blamed on Climate Change – might panic Americans into supporting the Green New Deal.
Mother Nature has been their foe so far. But she is fickle. Like any insurrection, climate alarmists need win only once.
But the damage to climate science is effectively forever. Generations of scientists have learned that success is political, and I believe the resulting long slide of research quality has just begun. Only great effort over long periods of time will reverse that. I doubt we will start in the foreseeable future. We might pay much for our folly when past extreme weather comes again.
“We don’t even plan for the past.”
— Steven Mosher (member of Berkeley Earth; bio here), a comment posted at Climate Etc.
For More Information
Ideas! See my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see Chapter One of a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.”
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change, and especially these …
- Let’s prepare for past climate instead of bickering about predictions of climate change – Doing something is better than nothing.
- Scientists show us why the climate change campaign failed – so far.
- Experts now run the world using their theories. What if they fail, and we lose confidence in them?
- Paul Krugman shows why the climate campaign failed.
- A demo of why we do nothing about climate change.
- Why climate skeptics will lose. How they can win.
Activists don’t want you to read these books
Some unexpected good news about polar bears: The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened
To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change
Talking about past weather extremes, a “great frost of 1709” type event looks to be shaping up to happen in Russia over the next 6 days. As a jet stream flowing within the Arctic makes its exit down across northern and central Russia. This pattern is already taking hold in northern Russia and will spread down into central Russia over the next few days. Expect to see some very low temps over this area as the cold Arctic air makes its way across the cold Russian snowfields. But all climate science will be focused on will be the Arctic warming that this event will cause.
Almost all of Russia (except the extreme west) is snow-covered now.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_asiaeurope.gif
“AR5 did not support the doomster narrative …”
They’re sure trying to fix this in AR6. One of my comments was why they mentioned policy goals so often in the chapter that was supposed to be the science supporting the climate sensitivity they claim will lead us to a catastrophe.
Co2 is not evil,
“They’re sure trying to fix this in AR6. ”
That’s what I hear, too. Not a surprise. The alarmists dominate most of the major institutions – climate, weather, academia, and news. Now they are putting that power to work.
As the old adage says, “fortune favors the well-prepared.” By that metric, they deserve to win.
“I can’t use this result. It doesn’t support the narrative.“
A characteristic of climate science is their reliance on climate models that interferes with their ability to separate empirical evidence from theory. This deficiency in the science is seen most clearly in their obsession with the evaluation of Arctic sea ice dynamics in terms of climate models and therefore in terms of climate change without consideration of the relevant statistical details of the empirical evidence or of the known and documented geothermal activity there. Pls see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/11/18/the-ice-free-arctic-obsession-of-agw/
chaamjamal,
Theory? I wouldn’t call speculative, politically driven opinions theory. An opinion, i.e. a hypothesis, can’t rise to the level of a theory unless its testable, well tested and not falsified. Nothing that meets this bar is part of the alarmist lore they call climate ‘science’ which is more properly called political science, which itself is a misuse of the word ‘science’.
This illustrates the biggest impediment to getting climate science corrected. Far too many don’t understand the fundamental difference between a hypothesis and a validated theory. Even many scientists on both sides of the issue seem to have have forgotten this fundamental concept. As the article points out, if it doesn’t fit the narrative it must be false, but more importantly, if it does fit, it must be true.
For example, the claimed climate sensitivity of the surface in degrees per W/m^2 of forcing is readily falsified once you accept the fact that no one Joule is any more powerful than any other at warming the surface or maintaining its temperature, yet the IPCC’s self serving consensus regards this obviously wrong metric as immutable ‘theory’, not just because it fits the narrative, but because the narrative depends on this falsified hypothesis being valid.
“Doing something is better than nothing.”
Not so! Doing the wrong thing can make things worse. Even if doing something has no impact on what one is trying to improve, that means resources diverted from other deserving problems. Even doing the ‘right’ thing, if not done at a level that will accomplish the intended results, means a waste of resources. Imagine a conflagration that would require 5 fire companies to extinguish, and a single fireman shows up with a portable hand pump. He puts himself at risk with no apparent impact on the fire.
“Doing something is better than nothing” is as dumb as the Precautionary Principle.
Clyde,
Did you read the full sentence? It does not propose a random action, but a prudent and effective step that can gain support from a broad spectrum of Americans.
Let’s repeat it: “Let’s prepare for past climate instead of bickering about predictions of climate change – Doing something is better than nothing.”
Larry
The problem is, if you aren’t certain exactly what the problem is, and how the complex dynamic system works, one can’t be certain which of the three possible outcomes will result from any action, even if it has “support from a broad spectrum of Americans.” What you are proposing is action based on consensus, not on science.
Any attempt to solve a problem needs to qualitatively be of the correct type, and needs to be of the optimal quantitative amount. History may not be an adequate guide, and certainly the consensus of a random sample of people lends little support to the scientific challenges of coming up with “a prudent and effective step.”
I’m sorry, but the remark is much like suggesting that everyone should live a good life, without defining “good.”
I wish the cites were more from sites other than the one by the reposter. I think cites should be more to “lukewarmer” climate scientists whose careers were damaged by the activists. One thing I am wary of is that someone or a movement who points out errors by the alarmists often does so to advance an agenda that is erring in the opposite direction. I think that would happen less if the “scientific community” was more of a community of scientists like they were before a few decades ago. Sadly, lately too many scientists have been going along with the party line of an “in-crowd” or having their careers downturned by not doing so. And the news media has been playing poorly lately, by uncritically favoring extremists of one end or the other of the spectrum, and throwing the most truthful climate scientists such as Dr. Roger Pielke Jr under the bus.
When I was in high school, we were introduced to jujutsu in PE. This is the art of using the opponent’s own force against themselves, instead of confronting them.
Stop arguing with the righteous believers. Demand they take stronger action, e.g.:
“There is no political policy any country can pursue which will avert climate change unless China and India agree to, and initiate, a rapid zero-carbon policy, as well. Therefore, our policies must include a demand, in no uncertain terms, that these countries conform. All actions to achieve this must ‘on the table,’ from trade sanctions to armed force. The future of man is at stake, and we must take drastic action. Anything less is simply not worth doing at all. Are you willing to take serious action to save the planet, or not?”
Just throw the above at them everytime the make a demand. Then let’s see what policies the vast majority will want to pursue.
Political jujitsu seems to be the strategy Roger Pielke Jr. employs.
He “tows the line” saying that we must aggressively control CO2 emissions. WHILE AT THE SAME TIME pointing out with authority that:
1.) Extreme weather events are not getting worse.
2.) We need to start building 1 Nuclear Plant EVERY DAY between now and 2050 to cut CO2 in half.
By proclaiming that the climate problem is really bad and that a massive effort is required, Pielke is still allowed to speak his heresy (i.e. Actual Science) in public.
Another Delphic post by ‘the Editor’.
Who knows what Larry is trying to convey here but back in 2014 he was a firm advocate for the IPCC, ‘major science institutes’, more funding for climate sciences and “… a well-funded conversion to non-carbon-based energy sources by the second half of the 21st century; for both environmental and economic reasons”.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2014/02/27/climate-science-communication-65125/
It is time to do a metaanalysis of all these published predictions against available evidence. Lets see how accurate they really are.
I think that all democrat congress people should immediately go on an all plant based diet. This will prove to their constituents they are serious about climate change.
Why not call it as it is?
The European-North-American-Euro-Anglosphere Swamp. Seriously! Conservatively, there are millions (maybe tens to even possibly 100 million) people who will profit materially by a huge, totally ineffective, compromised, duplicitious and ultimatly mendacious Green New World Deal. Trillions in future income over dozens of years.
The Euro-Anglosphere swamp’s millions of rah-rah advocates are positively salivating at the idea of defunding militaries world-wide, defunding fundamental government research on any topic except Green Green Green. The defunding of these arms of goverment in turn deliver trillions to the salivating masses who so desparately want to make more than low-five-figure income. The armies of the hardened stoics await their day … “in the sun”.
That conclusion really is the SOLE DRIVING FORCE behind the worldwide green swamp. The ever clever Chinese and Asians more broadly have divined that there is a LOT of coin to be made by producing the endless not-very-green container ships full of windmills and solar panels. Of batteries and crâhp-inverters. Of crâhp-software, obfuscating manuals, mind-melting after-installation insufficiencies. Getting the Green Camel’s Nose under the Tent, so to say.
President Eisenhowever left the sanguine and frankly immortal words, “beware the military industrial complex”. That’s when the military was the Big Spender. Now … it is the Green Swamp and the millions of slavering entrepreneurs waiting to write studied papers, engineer completely pointless systems, and do it over, and over, and over again as long as the Green Swamp remains full of foetid lucre.
That is what is driving this.
Not vapid climate non-predictions, not anti-science post hoc pastcasting, not the endless armies of university Climate Science departments churning out kids-AKA-new-adults that couldn’t find a solution to a series of dependent differential equations if they were holding both cheeks with both hands. Seriously!!!
I know this is a perhaps unkind rant.
But the underlying truth couldn’t be clearer.
And it ain’t pretty, Goats.
It Ain’t.
Just Saying,
GoatGuy ✓
The author makes the case that climate skepticism has failed. He offers little or no strategy for countering that failure.
“It is hopeless. The tide of alarmism continues to rise… There is nothing visible that can stop this escalation.”
Commenters largely agree, although some make the same tired arguments that nobody but the choir hears.
I suggest that we strike back with the alarmists own medicine: memes and dire reports about the effects of climate alarmism.
For the last 20 years I have promoted the idea that Warmer Is Better. I should have trademarked that phrase and sold ball caps and tee shirts, but I didn’t. Instead I gave it freely to anyone who wanted it. Few have availed, even though it is the g.d. truth.
Hello! Major gains could be made with that simple meme. Break the backs of the Chicken Littles by pointing out that their dire predictions are actually beneficial! or would be if warming was to occur.
It might also help to point out the corollary, that a cooling planet would be an unmitigated disaster.
We might also cast a few dire reports of our own. For instance, the Green New Dealers wish to kill all the cows! They said so, right? We should delve into that. No more milk, cheese, or ice cream, no more pizzas, no more hamburgers, forever! Do you hear that, kids? My scientific models indicate that a minimum of 50,000,000 people would starve to death! Rotting corpses in the streets! Rampant cannibalism! How’s that for dire?
Fight fire with fire. Don’t be a boiled frog. Don’t wait for somebody else to do it. Now is better than never.
Just after the Inquisition forced him to recant the heliocentric theory, Galileo muttered “Eppur si muove” (“And yet, it moves”). The meaning of the statement is clear; the Inquisition could force one man to deny the truth, but it couldn’t actually change the truth. Nature’s truths are always available for someone—anyone—to see. Man caused global warming is a religion based on faith not science. You must have faith in the “science based” man created Global Climate Models that were designed to validate the hypothesis that man is causing global warming through the burning of fossil fuels. If the models predict something at odds with the hypothesis government grant money is quickly cut off for that line of research. The Anthropogenic Global Warming religion has that as its dogma. Ignore the truth e.g. recent empirical data showing global cooling that does not fit the dogma… Send in the inquisition lock them up they blasphemed they dared to deny the faith. “Eppur si muove”
“Science is a structured process of debate. No debate means no science, as we use the term.”
actually not.
The debate in science happens outside most of your view Larry. It happens in group meetings, for example.
At Berkeley around 12 people sat an debated in person every week, and via chats and mails. Yes,
including some skeptics. The debate happens informally at conferences where papers are given.
The debate happens between authors, between advisors and their grad students, and lastly between
authors, editors and reviewers. In fact, I would’nt even call these things “debates” in the normal
use of the term.
It is not a STRUCTURED process, where all sides get 5 minutes of time “for”, and 5 minutes of time “against.”
There is no moderator tossing questions. No cameras. No audience. No vote on who won.
In the end you OBSERVE who won by watching WHOSE WORK holds up. WHOSE WORK gets built upon
Wonder why no one builds on Lindzens work? No one trying to make a contribution considers it worthy.
Wonder why people built on Tyndall? Hansen? Wonder why they built on those foundations?
Because they were convinced by the debate that happened over that work. “Debate” in groups, “debate”
at conferences, “debate” in the literature, “debate” during office hours, “debate” during Phd defenses.
All unstructured. No cameras, no theatre, no audience.
The science “debate” is largely UNstructured. In our philosophical dreams of what science should be, we
imagine it to be something akin to structured, rule governed, rational process. Observationally,
empirically, it is not. Never has been, never will be, and its foolish to think otherwise. It is fallible
humans, using fallible institutions, and fallible processess to come to a better understanding of how
the world works. We can observe the winners of this “debate” by observing whose work gets used.
Some of the folks whose shoulders we stand upon are giants. Some are moral reprobates. The beauty of science is it doesnt care about your character. It cares only if your work is sound enough to build upon.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
As a scientist you have to ask yourself, whose work will I build upon? It is quite impossible
to check every reference, to audit every data source, to redo every experiement in the chain of
evidence that leads to your starting point. In the end you pick a foundation to start from.
In the blockchain world we call this the “heaviest” chain. The chain of transactions with the most
proof of work behind it. The longest chain. The deepest chain. You build on that; its beyond debate.
Its quite practical and pragmatic.
If you want to replace the chain of evidence for climate science, you have centuries of work ahead of you.
In the end folks will want to see your proof of work.
Not philosophy about about science, but actual work that can be built upon.
Skeptics won’t do this work. They can’t learn from their mistakes. So you are stuck with the existing
science, especially if you are a policy maker. Mere doubt is toothless in that arena.
“Skeptics won’t do this work. They can’t learn from their mistakes. So you are stuck with the existing
science, especially if you are a policy maker. Mere doubt is toothless in that arena.”
Painting with a broad brush, as usual.
Not so, Steven,
Many major science breakthroughs were far distant from “Upon whose work shall I build” (to phrase it in correct English). It can be the opposite, like “This problem has a solution that nobody known to me has explored.” Best you keep distant from home-brew science philosophies until you are older and have seen a broader view. Geoff S.
Mosher’s problem is that he’s talking about climate science, but thinks he’s talking about science.
Try as one might to explain the difference, it goes in one ear…
Steven, thank you for this disturbingly vivid glimpse into the farcical, cargo-cult epistemology of the climate world.
You certainly have a way with words. I won’t soon forget the picture you’ve painted of the inner workings of climate science.
(Gosh, there are even one or two skeptics involved somewhere in the process, are there?)
I use the word “workings” loosely, of course, because what you’ve just told us—in some detail—is why climate science doesn’t work.
Meanwhile, in the world of real science, it’s not a popularity contest and the million-dollar question is not who won but which hypotheses work and which ones don’t. And the arbiter of THAT is not your thesis supervisor, a quorum of the faculty lounge, or the bean-counters who dole out grants.
It’s nature.
Your diseased theory of the march of science isn’t much better than Naomi Oreskes’. Just like you, she seems to think it works by social proof.
For the iron-stomached, here is Oreskes’ most recent denial of the existence of anything resembling the scientific method:
I’m probably being a bit hard on Oreskes. I mean, this would be a great answer if the question was how did the early Church come up with its doctrines?
sorry to break it to you Steven, but 12 people sitting in their echo chamber is not a debate.
“Wonder why no one builds on Lindzens work? No one trying to make a contribution considers it worthy.”
Or, it doesn’t come to an alarmist conclusion.
Joanne Nova likes to say: scientific consensus isn’t a proxy for nature, it’s a proxy for funding.
Steven,
(1) “The debate in science happens outside most of your view Larry. ”
That’s obviously false. As you note, much of it happens in small groups in unstructured fashion.
But it is odd that you deny the existence of the vast apparatus of conferences (and their output) – and journals (sitting on the large machinery of peer review and corrections).
As a thought experiment to test your statement, how well would the sciences work if all the structured elements were removed?
(2) As for the rest of your comment, that’s a different subject for another day. Broadly speaking, I agree that skeptics’ avoidance of the conferences and p-r journals has been a cardinal error.
(3) “So you are stuck with the existing science, especially if you are a policy maker.”
That’s grossly false. The people making a case have to prove it. That some folks say the world is ending, no matter what their credentials, does not compel others to accept that belief. Everybody has to go through the process of showing their work and responding to challenges.
The IPCC has done so, and its work justifies concern and some kinds of action. But nothing in the work of the IPCC’s WGI reports justifies the hysteria of the climate alarmists who now dominate the public spaces. Climate scientists’ silence to this exaggeration and misrepresentation of their work discredits them, by the ancient adage “silence means assent.”
Hence the current gridlock.
Just in time for “No-nut November”, though that may not be what the originators had in mind 😉
““Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory – an event which would have refuted the theory.”
No event by itself can “refute” a theory. The reason is simple and was pointed out by the physicist/philosopher Duhem. See his 1914 work in which he critized the baconian notion of
“critical” experiment. Popper tried ( unsuccessfully in the Logic of Scientific Discovery) to answer Duhems objections. In short as the physcist Duhem pointed out a failed experiment only tells you that something is wrong. it could be the observation, the instrument, the theory the instrument depends on,
it could be a PART of the theory, it could be a missing part of the theory it could be one of the many BACKGROUND assumptions that ALL theory relies upon. You don’t know,merely from the fact that the experiment “conflicts with” the “theory”. They always “conflict” in some way.
Even the great Feynman, in practice, realized that there was no simple
rule for “rejecting” a theory. When the theory of solar neutrinos conflicted with the critical experiment
that measured them, Feynman concluded that we don’t know which is correct. In the end it was the theory
that won out after DECADES of work. Theory won. Opps.
In “theories” about how science ought to work, ( Popper has a weird concept of science being reduceable to universal propositions “”The theories of natural science, and especially what we call natural laws, have the logical form of strictly universal statements” ) we might dream that science consists of doing critical
experiments ‘Find the black swan!!!!” But in practice, empirically, it is nothing like Popper’s dream.
Basically we can “falsify” his theory of how science works, by actually WATCHING what scientists actually
do. They hang on to theories that work 80% of the time until they have a better theory that explains more.
They adjust observations when the observations conflict with well known theories. Say WHAT?
Witness Romer in 1676. He was about validating newtons law of gravity. And when the observations
of the transits of jupiters moon conflicted with newtons law, Did he throw out Netwon?
NOPE.
he hypothesized that Light took time to travel. Up until then folks debated whether lights speed was infinite
or finite. So he assumed it was finite, and the apparent contradiction with theory was removed. An additional
ad hoc statement is added to square up theory and observation. eg, Light takes time to travel”. So he adjusted the observations assuming that light takes time to travel.
This is the type of ad hoc statement that Duhem is talking about in his critcism of Popper.
When Romer did his experiment his background assumption was that the speed of light was infinite.
When the observation conflicted with theory, SOMETHING was wrong? Note that LOGICALLY
you cant decide between the theory and the observation. One of the two or both need correction.
Or maybe its the BACKGROUND assumptions you made. oh? shit! I assumed that light travels infinitely
fast. If I change that assumption, I can SOLVE FOR the speed of light. and Presto!
A) Save the theory ( it was WORKING for a lot of things)
B) Save the observations. (whew I didnt fuck up)
C) Add something new.
So sorry. Philosophy doesnt help. Can’t help. and settles nothing.
Conjecture:
“All cats are white”.
Refutation:
I find a black cat.
Conjecture
“CO2 will make climate warm forever”
Refutation
Climate fails to warm forever.
Steve
Do you seriously think that Karl Popper’s falsifiability theory depends on experimental measurements always being perfect?
All you’ve done is shown that measurements are sometimes imperfect.
I can go further – measurements are ALWAYS imperfect.
But Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion in unaffected by this.
Newton’s gravity theory was confirmed by experiment.
Even though both theory and measurement were imperfect.
Einstein’s relativity was confirmed by experiment.
It’s possible that both relativity and related measurements are imperfect.
This affects Popper’s criterion in no way whatsoever.
Your thinking is unfocused – to quote Jordan Peterson.
Some good philosophy would help!
“Conjectures and Refutations” by Popper would be a good start.
Can measurements NEVER refute theory?
Is that what you’re saying?
If so, they welcome back Lamarck and Lysenko.
Mosh
Er, so why in heck did you just spend a whole page philosophizing about science?
(Surprisingly well, I might add?)
Mosh,
Hmmm. I wonder how many scientists ever question the accuracy of their instruments when the experiment confirms their hypothesis.
That’s the problem with Duhemian wiggle-room—it’s all so convenient, which makes it a recipe for confirmation bias and incorrigible self-delusion.
There’s a reason you’re NOT allowed to decide post facto whether your experiment [dis]proved your theory or merely [dis]proved that your instruments were working properly.
That’s a slippery slope towards Hiding the Decline—because, hey, we know what the truth is, so if and when the proxies don’t match our theory, that means they’re obviously wrong and we should just substitute thermometer readings instead. (On the other hand, if the proxies do line up with our preconceived theory, circa 0 AD – 1960 AD, then they’re obviously reliable during that period… right?)
No you can’t, not even in principle, because you can’t possibly know the scientists you’re watching are being scientific.
Absent a prior philosophy of science, you’d have no basis on which to decide whether you’re watching science WORK, or simply watching it malfunction.
If I had to formalize/codify/theorize the norms by which ‘science works,’ I would probably put honesty fairly high up on the list. Suppose you then “watched” someone like Michael Mann, and noticed he was confabulating his ass off.
Which of the following would it prove?
a) that science doesn’t require honesty after all!
b) or that Mann isn’t actually doing science—he’s a ‘scientist’ for tax purposes only
What would win, Steven: the theory (science works by honesty) or the observation (a ‘scientist’ can lie his ass off and still get tenure and awards up the wazoo)?
Brad
Charles Darwin put it very nicely:
“About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember some one saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!”
Separation of logical domains. Speculation begins as philosophy, and with observation and replication, transitions to the scientific (i.e. near) logical domain, or one of the two other logical domains: fantasy (improbable, but not impossible), faith (unattainable without external support).
Speculation begins as philosophy, and with observation and replication, transitions to the scientific (i.e. near) logical domain, or one of the two other logical domains: fantasy (improbable, but not impossible), faith (unattainable without external support).
“Speculation. It makes a spec out of u and some guy named ‘lation.'”
Dr. Gregory House, House
Phil, thanks, I hadn’t come across that passage before. Writing was just one of Darwin’s six-sigma talents. He’s captured one of the harder ideas to get one’s skull around when one is a novice scientist: the idea that an experiment doesn’t evaluate nature, it evaluates a hypothesis.
“So sorry. Philosophy doesnt help. Can’t help. and settles nothing.”
Or it can help because we need something of a philosophy of science to serve as a background encumbrance against epistemological suicide, as, with all due respect, your Duhemian (h/t B.K.) Theosophy of Scientific Theory seems to advocate here.
For example, you suggest that scientists “adjust observations when the observations conflict with well known theories. Say WHAT?”
Yup, emphasis added, because that’s what I’m (still) asking after the two test cases you offer as evidence of your theory – ain’t:
Call me a quibbler, but not having a good method to properly empirically observe a theoretical something isn’t the same thing as adjusting the observations of that which hasn’t yet properly been observed is it?
Regardless, what finally objectively resolved our issues with solar neutrinos seems to be the capability of objectively measuring them. Admittedly, I haven’t a clue about solar neutrinos, but what I’ve read about them contradicts your theory of theories. Here’s a summary (emphasis added):
“Recently, however, the GALLEX experiment, using a gallium-solution detector system, has observed the PP1 neutrinos to provide the first unambiguous confirmation of proton-proton fusion in the Sun.”
“There is a “neutrino problem”, however, and that is the fact that every experiment has measured a shortfall of neutrinos.”
“The one missing element in this 1994 article is the new and extraordinarily precise agreement between the predictions of the standard solar model for sound speeds in the Sun and the recent accurate measurements of those sound speeds over nearly the entire volume of the Sun.”
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/solar_neutrino.html
And then finally, the “missing neutrinos” appear to have been “found” by empirical measurements as discussed here:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/solving-the-mystery-of-the-missing-neutrinos
Can you help me understand how observations were adjusted to fit the solar neutrino theory as per the above? I don’t see it. I don’t see anyone saying, e.g., the original neutrinos that went missing no longer exist before they’re missing (adjusting observations), but rather, I see them waiting for a better measurement system before making any dogmatic statements.
You know, NOT climate “science” and NOT your theory of theories.
Then your next example:
Fair enough, and I doubt anyone would object to Romer’s NOT completely tossing Newton, unless they’re nobody in the first place. But by your own admission, Romer himself must’ve been a moron, because neither did he adjust the empirical observations to fit his theory. Instead, “he hypothesized that Light took time to travel…So he assumed it was finite, and the apparent contradiction with theory was removed.”
Agreed. In other words, and contrary you, Romer adjusted the theory to fit the observation rather than the other way around, i.e., the wrong way around.
Yeah okay granted, but for goodness’ sake so what? Skepticism is plenty healthy as long as it’s rational skepticism, but denying any and all knowledge (or the capability of it) simply for the sake of denying it isn’t scientific, it’s Bohemian, or maybe better said, “Duhemian,” or even best of all said, “Stupid.”
I recall my Modern Philosophy professor remarking that a particular branch of empiricism posited the notion that all human thoughts were a random firing of neurons in the brain. That’s right, random. Conversations between individuals were just a random firing of neurons in the brain, without any direction or purpose. And they really believed it. I asked him until he shamed me in class for continuing to ask the same question. The reason these morons believed what they believed was because of their rabid empiricism.
We can see a thought on a monitor, in so far as the monitor can show the firing of a neuron when a subject is asked to think about something. But if that’s true (and it is), from where comes the thought to cause the firing of the neuron in the first place? They obviously can’t happen at the same moment in time. Something needs to fire the neuron, or so goes common sense. Because some couldn’t figure that out, they went Duhemian.
Anyway, back to the point, can you give me another scientific discipline besides climate “science” where objectively verifiable empirical observations are adjusted to fit a theory?
sycomputing
What Mosh has done is describe the exceptions that prove the rule. And has also shown that modifying a hypothesis (eg the solar neutrino example) is a subset of refutation. Refutation as a philosophical concept does not have to mean throwing out babies with bath water. Popper’s rule remains intact.
Romer found that he could confirm Newton gravity if he took light speed to be finite. Fine. He just calibrated his instruments, making a useful observation along the way – light having finite speed. Newton’s gravity did not involve light speed (Einstein would make that connection later). That observation led in turn to another – falsifiable – conjecture. So far that conjecture has survived – light speed is about 3E8 ms-1. Poppers rule remains intact.
Mosh: In short as the physcist Duhem pointed out a failed experiment only tells you that something is wrong. it could be the observation, the instrument, the theory the instrument depends on,
it could be a PART of the theory, it could be a missing part of the theory it could be one of the many BACKGROUND assumptions that ALL theory relies upon.
This is a “get out of jail free” card for a scientist who wishes for his / her hypothesis to be irrefutable. Take away the logical possibility of refutation and use a web of multiple interacting logical elements to blur the experiments outcome in a “cloud of unknowing”. Duhem was ahead of his time – he would be a rockstar climate scientist today. That is exactly the conjouring trickery that Popper was guarding against – weaving a “scientific” narrative that is immune to falsification. That’s why Mosh is right – they must get Popper out of the way if the alarmist climate indoctrination is to march on unimpeded.
The examples that Mosh uses are in cosmological or physical cases where measurement is extremely difficult and the measurement actually has theory bound up in it. But for the measurement to be meaningful in Darwin’s sense it needs to be engaging with hypothesis even if some of the hypothesis is tied up with the experimental method. None of this challenges Popper’s rule of falsification.
Scientific hypotheses have to be falsifiable. Even if that is hard. If they’re slippery like eels that can secrete copious mucus and tie themselves in semantic knots if you try to get hold of them (I speak from a fisherman’s experience) then it’s not science that is taking place, but fraudulent sophistry.
Many thanks for that confirming analysis, Phil. You’ve taught this poor humble layman a thing or two about fishin’ for scientific truth!
Your questions killed it; very nicely done.
Hey thanks buddy, but I reckon I’m just another springer compared to you, the Keyestone [sic] of this thread.
Brilliant comment, Phil.
Took the words right out of my mouth, redacted the profanities, edited for punchiness and flow, added lots of even better ones and took the time to type them up as a mitzvah to all mankind.
The climate believalist’s contempt for Feynman and Popper—if “contempt” is the right word for the hatred a dung beetle’ feels for a rhinoceros, which it isn’t—makes good sense.
Shhh! You’re raining on Mosher’s parade!
Mosher,
“No event by itself can “refute” a theory”
I think everybody is clear that refutation is usually a process, seldom a single event. Your comment isn’t clear why you believe that is news.
Popper didn’t say that refutation was an “event.” Paying attention to the exact quote you are attempting to refute – not adding stuff – would make your efforts more rewarding.
“So he assumed it was finite, and the apparent contradiction with theory was removed. An additional
ad hoc statement is added to square up theory and observation. eg, Light takes time to travel”. So he adjusted the observations assuming that light takes time to travel.”
Mental gymnastics fail.
He didn’t adjust the observations, since no one had observed light traveling at infinite speed. He adjusted the assumptions.
Aborted or never was. The theory of [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate change, and its subsidiary characterization of carbon dioxide in isolation, does not conform with reality, without regular injections of brown matter. Either the theory is not viable or it was posed to operate in an improper frame of reference, dependent on hypotheses rather than observation, liberal license to assumptions/assertions, inference in lieu of deduction, and, of course, a sociopolitical consensus to force its normalization.
There is currently an election campaign in the UK.
Every single party has based part of its programme on ‘fighting climate change’ and are competing to set dates for net-zero emissions in the UK.
I give that as an example that the science is in most parts of the world/society absolutely accepted, on its merits and that there is NO roll back on public opinion or the science.
Griff,
There are countless examples of science being wrong. This is why we have the scientific method. The alarmists refuse to accept the scientific method as the true arbiter of what is and what is not science because the IPCC/UNFCCC requires the science to be wrong, otherwise, there’s no cause for alarm and no legitimacy for their agenda of replacing free market capitalism with centralized control under the auspices of the UN. Anyone who can’t see that this is the stated goal of the IPCC/UNFCCC either isn’t paying attention, wants to destroy western economies or has a serious intellectual deficiency, i.e. green goo on the brain. It’s not like the IPCC/UNFCCC is trying to hide their nefariously destructive agenda.
BTW, the only reason the many scientific lies have become accepted by a gullible public is because our politically biased media fails to report the truth and too many suckers buy in to emotionally supported, politically driven alarmism because having been wildly misinformed, they just don’t know any better.
We’re not all gullible, but you’re right, there is very little media attention given to any opposing view. We live in country Australia and are being sh@t on by renewable energy. We don’t have much of a say and I’ve been doing some considerable research and have learned quite a lot about the negative aspects of RE. Apart from the fact that they are not in any way cost effective, the toxic side of them is horrendous. All in all a criminal waste of money.
The ecological impact is not spoken about in the media and we have been trying for months to get some form of media to take up the story. The gatekeepers are not passing it on. Government representatives promise they’ll pass on the information to the environment minister and no one wants to have a conversation.
This blog is at least one platform I can go to to feel that I am not alone.
The general public deserve to be given a balanced view, we are so tired of constant propaganda and catastrophising. Totalitarianism is already here if you have no say.
“We’re not all gullible, …”
It’s a good thing. No matter what foolishness the IPCC/UNFCCC and its self serving consensus applies to push the fake science supporting their narrative, skepticism that they have any legitimacy whatsoever at establishing what is and what is not climate science will never go away.
griff,
I accept it as an example of politicians doing what they do best. They are doing what they think will get them the most votes. It has nothing to do with Science or Public Opinion. It has to with their perception of what will get them elected.
It’s about politicians going with the flow to gain more power.
Just a random UK politics related (old) link for you:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/29/ukip-mep-sparks-outrage-with-report-denying-human-role-in-climate-change
That’s for your “UK is a clean place where diversity of thoughts doesn’t exist” claim.
I can’t use this result. It doesn’t support the narrative.
Under this category would fall the continued cooling and growing of Antarctica (except for the small western volcanic part) while the establishment continues to report falsely that it is warming and melting.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/nasa-natural-causes-behind-polar-melt/?fbclid=IwAR2ndxE6h–D3dO0kks10iRPS6K7KIYy66jFyIefMr8f73Wx2lLEKu6g3dU
Earlier in the thread Karl made repeated references to Arrhenius’ theory of 1896.
Strangely he makes no mention of Arrhenius’ revised version of 1906 (ish) in which he dramatically reduced his estimations of the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 to levels similar to the modern sceptic position.
“But the damage to climate science is effectively forever.”
The abject failure of climate science will damage all pursuits of science for generations to come.
Climate Science is not science.
We have a mishmash of undefined terms and no units of measurement.
What form of measurement is an Estimated Global Average Temperature?
And if this is a actual measurement ,how is it compared with the past?
What is this Climate Change?
Defined how?
What is the “ideal global temperature?
Do we even have a coherent and falsifiable hypothesis ?
Brad Keyes highlights this
“The point of science is to increase human knowledge—while decreasing delusion—about nature, something Climate Science ceased to do many years ago. (I use a capital C and a capital S here to indicate agnosticism as to whether it’s actually a field of science at all.)
I dare say it’s the only field with comparable manpower and budget of which you can ask, as I’ve asked, “what have we learned in the last 5 years?” and get no answer.”
Users of the scientific method do not shriek and hurl abuse when their speculation is questioned.
The history of Climatology since Herbert Lamb has been astounding.
We did not develop an accurate history of climate, but we did so much speculation with so few facts,that Mark Twain might have been impressed.
So is it warming?
Or cooling?
Why is the answer still lost in the error bars of our proxies?
My own intuition is that the Cult of Calamitous Climate is in decline and the promoters and propagandists are frightened.
People in general will tolerate all kinds of BS, until you demand their money.
The taxpayers are only now beginning to grasp the $$$ level of theft and dishonesty of this Government Orchestrated Fraud.
John,
it’s often been said by me that climate science is responsible for a historically-unprecedented explosion in human belief about the natural world.
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
GCM General Circulation Model (many, based on IPCC CO2 assertions)
——————————-
These eight links from five authors are all you really need to understand global warming.
My speculation: As the temperature went down into the Little Ice Age, limestone was deposited around the edges of bodies of water. As the temperature has recovered since, the limestone dissolved and added CO2 to the oceans, with a delay of 300-400 years. It was just an accident that this added CO2 coincided with our industrial revolution. Temperature creates CO2, not the other way around. There is proof of that. Read on.
—————————-
Pangburn
Shows that temperature change over the last 170 years is due to 3 things: 1) cycling of the ocean temperature, 2) sun variations and 3) moisture in the air. There is no significant dependence of temperature on CO2.
https://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com/
—————————–
Connolly father & son
Shows the vertical temperature profile follows the ideal gas laws and is not caused by CO2. Millions of weather balloon scans and trillions of data points have been analyzed to come to these conclusions. One important conclusion is that there is no green house gas effect.
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
utube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY
——————————
Pat Frank
Shows that GCM results cannot be extrapolated a few years, let alone 50 or 100.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/15/why-roy-spencers-criticism-is-wrong/
———————————
Joe Postma
Shows that the “flat earth model”of the IPCC is too simple. Their real models are built into the GCMs which don’t fit the real data.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/10/19/the-thing-without-the-thing/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/09/05/real-climate-physics-vs-fake-political-physics/
https://principia-scientific.org/webcast-no-radiative-greenhouse-effect/