Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Today, as the result of a series of wrong turns and bad choices, I ended up at the Wikipedia entry for Watts Up With That. It says:
Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.
The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change.
Appalled by the misrepresentations in that, I thought I might comment on them.
First, the blog doesn’t “promote climate change denial”. I always laugh when I read about “denial” because none of the authors of such nonsense ever get around to telling us exactly what we’re supposed to be “denying”. Me, I deny nothing. I disagree with some of the revealed wisdom of those who believe in “consensus science” but that’s a very different thing. And for those who would like a full explanation of why “consensus” has nothing to do with science, let me recommend a wonderful paper entitled Aliens Cause Global Warming.
The real misunderstanding, however, is that WUWT doesn’t “promote” anything. Instead, it serves a very different purpose. Let me explain what WUWT really is, which will require a bit of a digression. But then if you know me, you’ll know that I’m susceptible to being sidetractored …
Many, perhaps most people don’t understand what science is. Some say they rely on “the science”, as if such a thing existed. Others think that science is a subject. Some believe that a scientific “consensus” establishes truth.
In fact, science is a process, not a subject. And it is a most curious process, one that has brought infinite good to the world. The process works as follows:
- Someone comes up up with an idea about how the world works.
- They publish their results in some public forum, along with all of the facts, logic, references, mathematics, and/or computer code that they think will support their idea.
- Then other people try to poke holes in their facts, logic, references, etc.
- If they are successful in that process, then the idea goes down in flames.
- If nobody can find any errors in what they’ve done, then their idea is provisionally accepted as being valid.
- The reason the acceptance is “provisional” is that at some time in the future, someone may find something wrong with the idea.
Now, there are several import things to note about this process we call “science”
- It doesn’t matter who came up with the idea. Either it is valid or it is demonstrably incorrect.
- The education level of the person who came up with the idea is also immaterial. The only valid question is whether they are right or wrong.
- Similarly, it doesn’t matter who poked holes in the idea.
- The education level of the person who poked holes in the idea is also immaterial. The only valid question is whether they can show the exact problem(s) with the idea.
- It doesn’t matter where it is published. E=MC2 is not untrue just because you find it written on a bathroom wall.
- The system only works when there is transparency and access to the facts, logic, etc. If other people can’t see what the person has done, how can they possibly determine if it’s valid?
- The system is totally adversarial. If I can show that the central idea in someone’s entire lifetime of work is incorrect, they will not be happy with me … my saying about this is, “Science is a blood sport”. So we should not be surprised if passions run high.
- The more people who try to poke holes in the claims, and the better they understand the subject, the better the system works.
Now, historically there were no “scientific journals”. New scientific ideas were circulated hand-to-hand or mailed between people who knew each other. But the process described above was how they judged the ideas. If someone could show the idea was wrong, it would be discarded.
Then along came the scientific journals. Historically, they started earlier, but they only became prevalent in the 20th century. Same idea. But they use “peer reviewers” to secretly judge the validity of the ideas.
And as you might imagine … this system is highly slanted towards whatever is currently believed. People whose continued employment depends on some idea being correct will only very rarely be honest enough to say that a new idea is worth publishing if that new idea will cost them their job …
Finally, in modern times, in some cases, we’ve gone back to the original, pre-peer-review method. And THAT is what WUWT is. It’s not a place that only publishes things that are 100% validated. There’s little point in that.
Instead, it is a place to expose new scientific ideas to the harsh glare of widespread publicity in the crowded public marketplace of new ideas.
People say “But WUWT publishes some things that are obviously false”, as though that were a bad thing.
That’s true, and it’s not a bad thing. It is a good and necessary thing. The more that incorrect ideas get exposed to critical review, the sooner they will be shown to be incorrect.
And inter alia, this is why I love writing for WUWT. If my work contains errors, they rarely last more than a couple of hours before someone points them out. This is infinitely valuable to me, as it keeps me from wasting months haring down a blind alley.
It is also a place where I can publicly defend my ideas against people trying to poke holes in them. As mentioned above, science is adversarial, and to make that work, the person who came up with the idea needs to be able to defend it, rather than have it censored by what I call “pal review”. There’s a description of one of my interactions with the peer-review system in my post called “Michael Mann, Smooth Operator“.
Next, compared with WUWT, the peer-review process is infinitely slow. On WUWT I can think of a new idea in the morning and see it published by the afternoon, and then totally demolished the next day, not six months later. And this is good because I’m not interested in being famous or garnering citations. I’m interested in having an effect on the ongoing discussion of climate science, and for that my ideas need to be current.
Next, unlike my ideas being shot down by a few peer-reviewers with a large investment in defending the consensus ideas, there are literally thousands of people out there who would like very much to prove me wrong. Heck, there are whole websites that do little else but tell people what a jerk I am. Having this many adversaries provides a far more rigorous, skeptical, public, and fair peer-review than having say three people with fixed ideas on the subject censor my ideas in secret.
(In passing, I am happy that there are websites that spend much of their time dissing my ideas, or me personally. They’ve obviously never heard the old Hollywood axiom that “All publicity is good publicity.” In my case, what looks like bad publicity is actually good because when people read that my ideas are wrong, wrong, wrong … well, a certain percentage of them will wonder why the folks on that site are so opposed to me, and they’ll come here and read what I actually wrote. So they’re just driving traffic to WUWT in general and to my work in particular. What’s not to like?)
To summarize, WUWT is not a blog for “promoting” anything, as Wiki falsely claims. And it is assuredly not a blog that only publishes just what is “correct” or just what skeptics say.
Instead, it is a place where scientific ideas of all kinds can be most critically examined and publicly peer-reviewed in a modern, efficient manner. And curiously, it is one of the few places in the world where this is true.
Finally, in that regard let me say that without Anthony Watts, Charles The Moderator, and the various moderators around the world, none of this would be possible. My thanks to the whole crew—WUWT is a huge contribution to the testing of new scientific ideas.
And now? … now I’m going for a walk in the sunshine with my gorgeous ex-fiancee, my delightful wife of forty years.
My best to everyone, and wishes for the finest of new years.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Do not disagree with anything, but would like to broaden the perspective in two additional dimensions.
First is in the philosophy of science, scientific paradigms (Kuhn, 1962, Structure of Scientific Revolutions) A paradigm is the then ‘consensus’ science, eventually disproven by an accumulation of discrepancies resulting in a new paradigm. Paradigms are useful even if wrong because they exclude crackpottery at the risk of also excluding a real discrepancy. His two main examples were phlogiston theory of combustion (disproven by LaVoisier) and the luminiferous aether theory of electromagnetic radiation propagating in a ‘vacuum’, disproven by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Kuhn’s concept breaks down when there is NO pre-existing paradigm, as with Wegener’s continental drift. What is odd about AGW, CAGW, and climate change is that there was and remains a valid pre-existing paradigm of natural variation. On multi centennial scales, MWP to LIA as seen in Alpine glaciers. On multi millennial scales, repeated glaciation/deglaciation. AGW seeks to compress this natural time frame blaming anthropogenic CO2. The problem is, for the last 40 years all their compressed time frame predictions have proven wrong.
The other perspective is socioeconomic, best represented by Mackay, 1841, Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The Mackay example best fitting AGW was the Dutch tulip bulb mania. It was very profitable and everybody played, until it wasn’t and many lost everything. AGW is very profitable (research grants for playing computer model games, and renewable peddlers)—until it won’t be when its unscientific edifice implodes.
Willis:
On the surface, a very good article. However,in my experience, WUWT has refused to consider submissions which would significantly advance the understanding of Climate Change, for trivial reasons.
As an example, I have recently had a peer reviewed article published
https://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climate-change/
Based upon previous experience, it will also be rejected.
But perhaps readers of WUWT will comment upon it.
.
:
.
First, I have no idea what “submissions” you refer to.
Next, your link goes to 404, not found.
Next, there are submissions sent to WUWT which are childish, or rambling, or virulent and vituperative, or are personal attacks … not saying that yours is one of those, be clear. I’m just saying that many things are submitted to WUWT, and those that have even a chance of being real, even if they might disagree with skeptical thoughts, generally get published.
…
…
OK, I tracked it down by name, and I now recall who you are. You are the SO2 guy. It opens as follows:
To me, any paper that claims that “all of the changes” for millions of years are due to one single variable, SO2, is as laughable as the idea that CO2 is responsible for the same.
However, more than “exclusion by incredulity” I’ve actually written the question of SO2 and the Little Ice Age in a post called “Dronning Maud Meets The Little Ice Age“, q.v. Here’s an image from that post along with the original caption:
Figure 3. Volcanic sulfate records from Maud Dronning Land (blue and green) and the ice cap expansion records from Baffin Island (purple line). The PDF values are the probability percentages multiplied by 100, so for example if the scale reads “400” that means 40% (0.40).
From your paper, you are claiming that SO2 cools the earth. So let’s compare that to reality
Now, as you can see, the ice (purple line) expanded greatly around 900, but there was no corresponding increase in SO2.
However, the next increase in SO2 precedes the start of the ice expansion around 1300, so things are looking promising … at least for a moment.
But why would the ice stay stable from 1300 to 1450, while the SO2 is about average?
And why does the big ice peak precede the next increase in SO2? Is ice causing a jump in SO2?
Then around 1800 there is a big increase in SO2 … but no increase in ice. Say what?
And finally, there’s lots of SO2 starting around the year 1950 … which per your theory should make things cooler, not warmer.
Now, I recall pointing this out to you … and never getting any answer to any of those questions.
And that may be the reason your papers have gained little traction either here or in the journals. Look, if you’re not willing to explain the evidence that totally contradicts your theory, it’s a very bad sign …
Is this peer-review? No. It’s done in public, and it contains and analyses actual evidence to refute your theory that SO2 “is responsible for all the changes” for millions of years.
The problem is your inability to explain evidence that falsifies your theory.
Best regards,
w.
Willis:
The link that the publisher gave me works, i must have copied it wrong.
Will try again:
http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climate-change/
Willis:
??Still doesn’t work
http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-sciences-and-climatic-change/
Again: http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/
Burl, I couldn’t make your link work either. The link I found is at the top of my comment just above. It may be that once the article is published the old URL becomes invalid.
w.
Without denying WUWT’s contribution, I can’t entirely agree that “those that have even a chance of being real, even if they might disagree with skeptical thoughts, generally get published.”
All or almost all of my submissions had been accepted before I showed that Christopher Monckton’s “irreducibly simple climate model” actually was irredeemably innumerate. After that it was only when Anthony Watts was on sabbatical that I was able to slip a couple in, and one of those rather by subterfuge.
In contrast, WUWT ran nearly a dozen pieces over the course of a year by Lord Monckton that were various variations of the fatally flawed “proof” presented at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebokc6z82cg. Readers would have been in less danger of being taken in if Mr. Watts had been impartial and allowed me to demonstrate the theory’s problems.
Again, I’m not disputing this site’s great contributions. But it’s not impartial.
Thanks, Joe. I’d not looked at the Monckton paper. The conclusions of Monckton’s model, however, are hardly revolutionary:
Like I said, no surprise. He says that his model shows less warming than the conventional models.
====
Now, I have to say a couple of things. First, I know all four of the authors—Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs. Matt Briggs is arguably the best statistician I know of. I’ve written a short paper with David Legates, and I have a long-standing relationship with Willie Soon. Finally, I spent a lovely evening in a pub with Chris Monckton.
Now, Viscount Monckton, like me, has interesting ideas but few formal qualifications.
Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and aerospace engineer with a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering with distinction.
David Legates, Ph.D. is a professor of climatology in the Department of Geography at the University of Delaware.
William “Matt” Briggs has a Ph.D. in Mathematical Sciences and M.S. in Atmospheric Physics from Cornell University, and his B.S. in Meteorology and Mathematics from Central Michigan University. He has served as Professor of Statistics at the Cornell University Medical School, Visiting Professor of Mathematics at Central Michigan University, Research Scientist at New York Methodist Hospital, Statistician at DoubleClick, Meteorologist with the National Weather Service, and Cryptologist for the U.S. Air Force.
Now, absolutely that doesn’t make them right on this question … but it would make me cautious in contradicting them.
Finally, I’m also familiar with some of your posts and comments, and generally found them interesting and reasonable.
===
With that as a preface, I generally have little to do with the acceptance or rejection of papers. Occasionally I’m asked whether I think something is worth publishing. I write up my analysis of the paper, with a copy to the author. But I don’t make the decision whether to publish or not. In your case, no one asked me, so I had no involvement with your paper.
So … how about you give us an elevator speech about what you think was in error regarding the paper, and I’ll take a look? Next, is your paper online somewhere accessible so I can read it?
Can’t promise anything, because although I write a lot for WUWT I have no position or authority other than guest author. But I will take a look, and let you know what I think of it.
Next, you say “would have been in less danger of being taken in if Mr. Watts had been impartial and allowed me to demonstrate the theory’s problems”. In that regard, I’d note that you published two posts here and here on WUWT laying out your objections to the paper, and Chris Monckton published his rebuttal to your arguments here and a more general defense of the paper here. There was also discussion over at Judith Curry’s site that you participated in, as well as at Roy Spencer’s site.
Finally, a quick search finds three posts by you after the Monckton back and forth.
Not saying who is right, because I don’t know … but you certainly got a chance to argue your case on WUWT and elsewhere.
My best to you,
w.
Actually, I was referring to two Monckton theories, not one.
The first was his “irreducibly simple climate model,” whose Equation 1 is a fundamental error in linear systems. And as you observed I did indeed get two pieces published about that one, although I was soft-pedaling a little in those because at the time I still harbored the notion that perhaps Lord Monckton might see his error and correct it. But Mr. Watts turned me down when I submitted a response to Lord Monckton’s (in my view, intellectually dishonest) third piece, and it was at that point that Mr. Watts appears to have black-listed me.
Lord Monckton’s other theory, which Mr. Watts didn’t accept my responses to, is the one I linked to in the comment above and about which Mr. Watts ran maybe a dozen of Lord Monckton’s posts beginning with the one at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warming-on-trial-and-the-elementary-error-of-physics-that-caused-the-global-warming-scare/.
Unfortunately, there’s some feedback and electronics in the authors’ errors, I’ve only encountered about half a dozen guys at this site who seem able to comprehend those subjects, and I sense you aren’t really interested in this enough to plow through it anyway. So I won’t go into detail. I’ll just mention one error in the first theory and one in the second.
One error in the first theory is the authors’ Equation 1, which contradicts a linear-systems fact that I think you may actually know. The linear-systems fact is that the response y(t) of a linear system to a stimulus x(t) is the convolution of x(t) with the linear system’s response h(t) to the Dirac delta function. Equivalently, it’s the convolution of the stimulus’s time derivative x’(t) with the linear system’s response u(t) to a unit step function. The authors’ Equation 1 says instead that y(t) = x(t) * u(t).
That’s not true in general. In linear systems the authors’ central equation is roughly like the arithmetic contention that you can calculate the product of two numbers by adding them; there are an infinite number of number pairs for which that works, but usually it doesn’t.
One error in the second theory is that it’s essentially bad extrapolation, which you can see in the “single slide” at the end of the post at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/30/climatologys-startling-error-an-update/. The authors claim that when feedback is involved Hendrik Bode says extrapolation is calculated in accordance with the average slope rather than the local slope. Again, not true in general
I’m sure that’s all too terse, but there it is. If you really have the stomach for the math, I did as I said manage to get a post in somewhat by subterfuge that sets it out: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/16/remystifying-feedback/#comment-2747162
As to the credentials of Lord Monckton’s co-authors, I don’t know what to tell you. I’m just a retired lawyer, I know nothing about astrophysics, I’m inept at statistics, and I’ve had my errors in all manner of fields pointed out to me over the years as I dealt with a lot of brilliant scientists and engineers.
But I did have occasion to discuss the finer points of feedback with Bell Labs engineers back in the 60s, I’ve had numerous occasions since to deal with that topic as well as linear systems, and I’m confident that despite their credentials Lord Monckton and his co-authors made some extremely elementary errors in linear systems and feedback.
Thanks much for the clarifications, Joe. It’ll take me a few days to work through the math, and I’ll get back to you.
Finally, I know your work has been discussed at other websites. Have any of them agreed with your claims about the errors? I ask because if I can read them it will help me understand your ideas.
w.
First comment. You say:
Actually, Equation 1 in the first paper (“Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model”) is
What am I missing here? Your Equation 1 is totally unlike theirs.
Regards,
w.
My apologies to any interested lurkers for failing until just now to notice Mr. Eschenbach’s question about the relationship between my simple conventional notation
and Lord Monckton’s more opaque 
.
Briefly, Lord Monckton’s
is the stimulus 
, his 
is the system’s response 
to that stimulus 
, and his 
is what the system’s response 
to a unit step function would be.
(Incidentally, I actually sent Mr. Eschenbach a detailed explanation of that relationship through a different channel a few days ago without realizing that I was thereby answering a question he had asked.)
I’m afraid none will be of much help. Steve McIntyre did wave readers off from discussing Lord Monckton on his site, and Roy Spencer’s piece called “Climate F Words” was critical of Lord Monckton’s work, but neither blogger explicitly agreed with me (and my emphasis would be different from Dr. Spencer’s anyway).
Now, I believe insightful commenter kribaez (aka “Paul_K”) did explicitly agree with me at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/08/feedback-is-not-the-big-enchilada/#comment-2724185 about the “irreducibly simple climate model,” and maybe you’ll find something about Lord Monckton’s “grave error” theory in kribaez’s comments elsewhere on that thread. Also, I think commenter Bernie Hutchens probably agreed somewhere with my take on Lord Monckton’s electronics errors, although I can’t put my finger on his comments just now.
Mostly, though, I don’t think many readers grasped the math, so although I admire your courage in attempting it I question your judgment. And, frankly, I’m not interested in the subject much myself now that the danger of Lord Monckton’s adversely affecting an important law suit has passed. Still, I’ll be happy to answer questions if any arise.
Joe Born:
You are correct, WUWT is NOT impartial. I have experienced its partiality multiple times. Although I am generally no longer being moderated, my replies in an on-going “conversation” are not announced in an email, but instead are buried in the comments, where the other party is unaware that I have replied. For others, even one-line replies show up in an email
The same applies to comments that I have initiated. No email announcement, but, again, usually found buried somewhere within the comments. A very subtle discrimination. ,
Burl, I have no direct evidence, but I doubt that greatly. Neither Anthony nor Charles are underhanded like that. If they ban someone, it’s for violating the site rules, and they are banned entirely. But I can’t imagine the scenario you envision.
Also, I note that you haven’t even attempted to answer my questions about the Dronning Maud data I posted above …
w.
PS–You may not be aware that in the past you had to subscribe to each particular post that you want email notifications from, and then when an email is sent to you, you have to verify the subscription …
Also, I never get an email announcement regarding my own comments, only those of others. So I’m not clear what you mean when you say “my replies in an on-going “conversation” are not announced in an email”. My replies are never announced in an email—I figure that the assumption is since it’s my reply, I’d know about it …
Willis:
Your replies DO show up in an email on my computer!.
I have replied to your “Droning Maud” data on two previous threads, but you never responded to them, apparently because you had no idea that I had replied.
Which I see as a problem affecting my posts. But others DO get email announcements..
You stated in this essay that WUWT “is a place where scientific ideas of all kinds can be most critically examined and publicly peer-reviewed in a modern, efficient manner”
As you know, I have maintained that SO2 aerosols are the sole driver of Earth’s climate, changes ,and the corrected link which I have sent you will take you to my paper titled “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”
I believe that it will convince even YOU that Earth’s climate is extremely sensitive to the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and that CO2 can have no climatic effect.
So let’s have a “critical examination and peer review” of my conclusions..
Burl, you say:
Yes, and just like you, I get an email when you comment.
But your complaint was that you don’t get an email when you comment … and neither do I when I comment.
w.
Willis:
I have to concede that your are correct. An email shows up only when i have replied to someone.
Have you had an opportunity to read my “Graphical Proof” paper?.
It addresses your “Dronning Maud essay.
Burl,
The subscription mechanism has changed. Scroll up and look just above the comment box – click on the down-arrow by “Subscribe” and you can subscribe to all future comments on the article.
Willis,
I mentioned elsewhere that there is no longer a mechanism (that I can see) to subscribe to the blog in its entirety, i.e. to be notified of new articles. I’m changing my email soon and will thus lose my existing subscription. Perhaps you can bring this up to someone?
Grrr … I wrote up an entire answer to your “Graphical Proof” paper, but it appears I didn’t push the “Post Comment” button. So here I go again. I attempted to replicate your Figure 1. Here it is:
Now, there are several problems with this. You’ve claimed that SO2 is the secret climate control knob—the same claim the CO2 folks make, just with SO2. Your claim is that the more SO2, the more cooling.
In that context, look at the period from 1910 to 1915 — 4 eruptions in 5 years, and it’s one of the faster warming periods in the record.
Same thing from 1870 to 1877 — seven eruptions (darker lines show two eruptions in the same year), but the warming is the fastest and the largest in the record.
Sooo … I’m not finding what you found.
My best to you,
w.
Willis:
The Hadcrut4 1850-2019 graph which I annotated shows increased temperatures whenever there is an American business recession/depression, due to decreased levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
It also shows that most of the temperature increases result in an El Nino..
It also shows that whenever there is a VEI4 or higher volcanic eruption, temperatures decrease.
Thus,Earth’s temperature changes are driven solely by changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, which attenuates the sun’s rays by greater or lesser amounts…
Regarding your graph, at NO time do I make any claim as to the AMOUNT of temperature decrease caused by volcanic eruptions, just that it always happens. However, the amount of decrease is easily determined from the scale on the graph.
I find it very strange that you are unable to understand what the graph is telling you.
.
I would add that the biggest volcanic eruptions we have recorded in recent times where we have a temperature record, show that a large eruption can reduce the temperatures in the atmosphere by about 0.5C for about two or so years.
All the SO2 human beings have produced in human history would amount to a very small volcanic eruption, and that’s if all of it was injected into the atmosphere at the same time, which can’t happen, so human-derived SO2 is a minor player in determining the Earth’s temperatures.
I know some of these claims are about natural SO2 but Burl also claims human-derived SO2 caused the temperature decline from 1940 to 1980, but that’s not possible considering how little SO2 effects the temperatures and how large the change was from 1940 to 1980.
Human-caused Global Cooling is a theory that should be put to bed. The facts don’t support it.
Tom Abbott:
The nearly simultaneous eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo (Jun 15, 1991) and Cerro Hudson (Aug 9) injected ~ 22 Megatons of SO2 into the stratosphere, and cooled the climate by about 0.5 deg. C.
Annual global Anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere ,for the years 1940 to 1980 rose from 57 Megatons in 1940 to 135 Megatons in 1980, dwarfing the amount of SO2 from the volcanic eruptions.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018-supplement.
SO2 affects planetary temperatures by about .02 deg. C of cooling (or warming) for each net Megaton of change in global SO2 aerosol emissions, either volcanic or man-made.
And since 1980, global Clean Air efforts have reduced the amount of cooling human-derived SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere, and temperatures have necessarily risen
Contrary to your statement, the FACTS do support the theory.
Have you viewed the graph that Willis was commenting on? It shows temperature changes whenever SO2 emissions into the atmosphere change..
Tom Abbott:
I was wondering whether you received my Jan 2 reply to your Jan 2 post. It’s an important issue for both of us.. ,
Bad Link……..
404!
The requested page cannot be found
JWurts:
Finally corrected
see above
Let me add my appreciation for all of WUWT contributors, and here is hoping for a happy and prosperous 2021.
Willis: don’t forget the Talk page,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watts_Up_With_That%3F
Also interesting is “Talk+View History” tabs where you select two distant dates to see what has appeared (and disappeared) on the Talk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWatts_Up_With_That%3F&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=958851275&oldid=685422116
From this you can learn that someone tried to invoke the venerable AP Style Guide to revise the smear to AP-recommended “climate doubter” but the request was denied because it wasn’t deniey enough.
Willis, I endorse your description of WUWT and I compliment you and Anthony Watts, Charles The Moderator, and the various moderators for making this the go-to site for just about everything to do with the modern mess which claims to be ‘main-stream’ climate science.
I visit WUWT regularly, comment very infrequently because I am here to learn, not criticise, I enjoy your articles and I like your “Skating Under the Ice” blog.
My <s>denial</s> skepticism of the “science” began with the unscientific CAGW. That hasn’t changed one iota since they changed from CAGW to AGW to climate change.They are still touting catastrophe and blaming humans for the earths climate.
Then there is the emotional demands to acknowledge the virtuousness of the CAGW position as having to save the planet. I can’t swallow that either so, I’ll happily wear the badge of denialist.
Happy denialist 2021 🤗
Years ago I was deeply involved in arguing religion and science online, in what were then called Bulletin Boards. Bulletin Boards were dedicated to certain topics, and one could go there to find topical friends, opponents, and debates.
Eventually a group of defenders of evolutionary theory recognized one another. We became virtual friends, and the explication of science — what it actually is in fact — was a topic of intense exploration.
Among the group was Thomas H. Ray and David Pun. Tom is a mathematician and David is a physicist. I’m sure they don’t mind their names mentioned here. At the time, I was relatively naive about science, even though I’d practiced it professionally for 15 years already. At the time I figured one had to assume the physical universe. Wrong.
Tom and David engaged my ideas, and reamed me out intellectually. I was a better person for it. So, here’s the deal. Tom and David had science down to its very basics. Tom’s essential formulation of science is Theory and Result. Both present together is necessary. Either alone is insufficient.
Theory is the Popperian standard: monosemous (one and only one meaning), predictive (a specific observable is deduced), and falsifiable (disprovable by experiment or observation).
Result is an unambiguous and repeatable observation or experimental outcome. The result must be so specific as to test the prediction from theory. If the experiment does not conform to the prediction from theory, the theory is wrong. Experimental test is a mortal threat to theory.
Both working together,theory and result, define science. Theory predicts, result decides.
So, in practice, someone gets an idea about how some part of the universe works and produces a hypothesis. The hypothesis looks just like a physical theory. It has one and only one meaning. It is analytically terse and specific. From it, one can deduce that certain phenomena must be observable.
The hypothesizer publishes the hypothesis. The new hypothesis provides detailed explanations for phenomena that were til then unexplained, or shows how diverse and previously disconnected phenomena can be unified under a single physically causal system. The hypothesis explains physical phenomena in some novel way, and deductively predicts that certain further phenomena should be observed.
In steps experiment and observation. Here comes the judge. Others and perhaps the hypothesizer, go out and do the experiment and/or make the observation and perhaps even build new instruments to do it. Are the predicted phenomena observed, or are they not? The hypothesis stands or falls on the result.
If it stands after repeated tests of prediction and result, the hypothesis graduates to theory status. But it is never safe. The ugly experiment, the unexpected observation, can kill the most beautiful and elegant theory.
And so it goes.
The adversarial part of science-in-practice emerges with the humans who practice it. Adversativity is not part of science itself. No theory gets angry or defensive when disproven. No experiment is ever out for blood. But humans do and some are.
And assuming the physical universe? Not necessary.
Science is possible even if we are all just brains in vats hallucinating our experiences.
Science is a way of organizing and describing phenomena in a systematic, causal, and predictive way. One need not assume a physical universe to do that. One need only experience impinging phenomena, over which one has no control.
Whether hallucinations or something else, independent phenomena arriving to our attention are subject to examination and — so far — to explanation by physically causal and predictive theory; theory subject to mortal test.
Science is methodology: theory and result. It is the same methodology in every culture in every corner of Earth (and, I’d hazard, every corner of the observed universe). Anything else is not science. We presently know of no other method that produces objective culture-free knowledge.
Cultural Studies are famous for their many “Critical Blah Theory” which are neither critical nor theory. Exegesis of politically sacred assumptions is not an equivalent of science nor is it a route to alternative ways of knowing.
By the way, Karl Popper derived his view of science on learning of and extrapolating a statement of Einstein’s he heard second-hand, about an experimental disproof of theory. Popper describes this event — this fundamental insight, really — in his The Unended Quest.
One may say that Popper’s view of science is empirically based, which makes it something other than philosophy. If science did not work the way Popper described, then his system is disproved. Popper’s view is better described as a science of science.
Thanks, Pat, always a pleasure when you post. Clear, well written, logical.
Kudos,
w.
The feeling is mutual Willis. 🙂
I’ve always found Popper’s and Kuhn’s ideas valuable but incomplete. Neither seem to have considered a very important avenue of scientific progress which is the introduction of new instruments and techniques.
I’ve been re-reading Kuhn, and realized he used equivocal language in describing science.
Applying his criteria, one cannot differentiate the work of Newton from Aquinas. This is evidently why post-modern pseudo-scholars so love Kuhn. He muddies the waters, allowing them to claim science is just one more sort of cultural textual.
In my revised view, Kuhn is just plain wrong about science.
It seems unlikely that Popper would disagree with you about new instruments and techniques, Graeme. He seemed more vitally concerned with the intellectual methodology than with the practicalities.
Pat,
Few seem to appreciate the progression from speculation, to formal hypothesis, to theory, and ultimately to a law. Not unexpectedly, you show that you understand the nuances.
Thanks, Clyde. Evidently, you do, too. 🙂 It came to me relatively late.
Brilliant Willis, thank you.
Happy New Year, and Happy New Brexit.
Let’s look forward to the 6th.
Wikipedia is worthless for anything remotely political. There is an organized legion of unemployed people with worthless degrees who sit in there parents basement hoping to make a few bucks editing wikipedia. They have one agenda, it is not the truth.
If you follow the telecoms supporting the NSA to spy on americans you know who dennis mountgomery is. Go look at the wiki hatchet job on him.
I’m not disagreeing that articles in Wikipedia for political articles are problematic, but I’m puzzled at the people hoping to make a few bucks editing Wikipedia. How does that happen? (I am familiar with paid editing, but it doesn’t match what you are discussing.)
I just finished reading a really interesting and well written book. “Hot Hand” by Ben Cohen. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062820729/ It was well written and very entertaining. The subject of the book is the controversy over whether or not there is such a thing as a hot hand in basketball. In 1985, Gilovich, Vallone and Tversky published “The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences”, which argued that the “hot hand” is a cognitive illusion, our minds impose a pattern on random events. That idea became “established science”. But, like real scientists, other social scientists and mathematicians did not accept it and move on. They picked at the idea, and eventually proved that the paper had deep seated flaws.
The point here is that the core of science is doubt. Nothing in science can be accepted as “established”. Everything must be doubted and and picked at.
This is true in every part of science. Let us take an example from a core subject of physical science: gravity. Newton’s Principia explained gravity in 1687. It was the beginning of the separation between empirical science and speculative philosophy. Surely, gravity is established science.
Well, not really. Newton’s theory was revised and expanded for two centuries after it was propounded. But, eventually there were problems. In the 19th Century, they found that the orbit of Mercury around the sun could not be explained by Newtonian theories, unless there was another large planet nearby, which nobody could see.
Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity in 1915. The theory refined Newton’s law of universal gravitation, and provided a unified description of gravity as a non-Euclidian geometric property of four-dimensional space-time. It could explain the orbit of Mercury. But, it also opened up a whole new vista of astronomical phenomena that are uncanny, at best, such as the bending of light by gravity, the dilation of time by gravity, the collapse of stars into their own gravitational fields that produce Black Holes, and even stranger yet — gravitational waves, that were first directly observed only recently.
Game over, we have the answer. Gravity is now established science. Right? Not exactly. There are known and real problems with General Relativity as an explanation for life, the universe, and everything. For instance, the Black Hole Information Loss Paradox. I won’t try to explain it. If you want a good understandable explanation go to “The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolved. Because it’s unsolvable.” http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-black-hole-information-loss-problem.html has an explanation and a video. It is by a German theoretical physicist named Sabine Hossenfelder. She has a lot of videos and explanations about basic issues in modern physics.
The point here is very simple. There is no such thing as “established science”, nor can there ever be such a thing. The core of science is doubt. As the Royal Society, to which Newton reported his results, has it: Nullius in Verba. “Take nobody’s word for it”. The only way to prove statements about science is an appeal to facts determined by experiment. https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
Galileo made the separation between empirical science and speculative philosophy, when he made experiment the basis for theory. Stillman Drake points this out in his excellent book, Galileo, a very short introduction.
Galileo told a confidant he understood not one word of Kepler’s book. Today many like Galileo understand not one word of Einstein. Newton did not discover universal gravitation, only alchemy as biographer Keynes reported.
Einstein did not just “refine”, he threw out simultaneity, space and time for spacetime, energy and mass for e=mc**2. Not to mention quanta…
Leibniz threw out Descartes “quantity of motion” for vis viva, today labelled kinetic energy.
Asked by PBS why he kept searching, Einstein said theories were like diamonds found in a mine, to be thrown out – he was searching for the thoughts of God.
What is the source relating that Galileo understood nothing of Kepler, bonbon?
Given Galileo’s undoubted expertise in physics and math, that claim is unbelievable on its face.
I’m part way through Mario Livio’s biography of Galileo. While I haven’t explicitly heard support or refutation, like Pat, it doesn’t remotely ring true.
“The point here is very simple. There is no such thing as “established science”, nor can there ever be such a thing. The core of science is doubt.”
Thanks, Walter.
We should be skeptical of just about everything. 🙂
WUWT is the world’s premier (and fairest) marketplace of ideas. My best wishes for the New Year to you, to Anthony, to Charles the Moderator and to all the other elves in Santa’s workshop. As the world slides into totalitarianism, WUWT remains a beacon of light.
It would be a sad, stupid world without the free exchange of ideas. Sheep anyone. Thank you Anthony Watts. For decent intelligent conversation I’m here. May 2021 be a better safer year for everyone.
A simple point, maybe to clarify Willis a bit-
Science is made up of ideas that have shown some clarity or evidence but have yet to be disproved.
In any field that progresses some or all of the ideas are gradually disproved and displaced by other ideas that have yet to be disproved.
Willis:
It’s a long link, and I kept making typos.
The link in my last post is correct, And here,too, if I type it correctly
http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/
This is a publication from the OMICS group.
https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/journal/14071
Omics is on the Beall list of predatory journals.
https://beallslist.net/
https://www.skeptic.com/insight/scam-science-journals-and-the-simpsons/
Beware!
Ed Zuiderwijk:
Any paper submitted to any of the “non-predatory Journals” will be rejected by the Editor, if it in any way expresses a contrarian view of the current “Greenhouse Gas Warming” meme . It will not be sent out for peer review (I speak from experience).
For articles published in those Journals, the peer review process for many papers is essentially worthless, with the reviewers all having the same anti-CO2 bias.
The “Predatory Journals” provide an opportunity to get contrarian views published, and their papers should not be simply rejected out-of-hand. Where else can they go for publication?
My referenced paper was subjected to peer review, and the reviewers suggested changes, which I made. It is also posted to Google Scholar.
It is well worth your reading!
I take your point and are considering doing as you did myself. However, one is in a catch 22. No one trying to get a paper in a ‘mainstream’ journal will dare to put a reference to any journal on the Beall list because it would be a default no-no. But perhaps you get read.
Willis, and all others –
The late Thomas Gold is one of my favorite authors. In his writings, any rational thinker will understand his points. His most controversial idea is that there is no such thing as ‘fossil’ fuels – his book ‘The Deep Hot Biosphere’ explains why. I believe him. How else could oil wells refill all over the world? Still dinosaurs down ‘there’ turning into oil? But that’s not the real point I’m making. It is about peer review.
I hope every one will read the following link with their mind open, as Gold fought the peer review system most of his scientific life. Some of his ideas eventually were proven correct – such as how human hearing works, for one.
I would hope at least a few folks would pick up a copy of the Deep Hot Biosphere and read it with an open mind. His ideas are challenging – and the Russians do believe his hypothesis, and operate differently than the US in where they explore for oil. (How do you find oil in the basement rocks below where any sediment has ever been?)
But on to the Peer Review system – and the ‘herd Instinct’:
New Ideas in Science, Thomas Gold 1989 (amasci.com)
Enjoy, and think about the peer review system, where only those that believe as you do are called upon to offer their opinions, or your idea will not be published unless they believe as you do.
Thanks, John. Me, I think that there are two kinds of oil—biogenic and abiogenic. I say this because most of the oil fields do NOT refill, although there are a few that do. There’s a good article on the question here.
w.
Maybe later than Gold’s work : ALMA research :
Complex Organic Molecules Discovered in Infant Star System
https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1513/
Looks like there is severe carbon pollution around new stars, vast quantities.
Like anything from the NYT…
Anthony Watts has earned a place in the evolving history of the Internet with his enduring and consistent impact on debated social and scientific issues. In the future history books about the evolution of the blog, surely WUWT will be there to show how diverse views, sometimes opposing The Establishment, are both appropriate and needed.
Thank you again, Anthony.
Readers are also fortunate that Willis Eschenbach found this WUWT site and started to contribute articles. Willis has an unusually high skill in distilling large masses of data into easily-understood patterns and adding concise commentary. Few of us have this skill. I, for one, appreciate it greatly. Thank you, Willis.
I shall not continue with the mods and down the line – they know the appreciation that I feel.
All the best for 2021 onwards. Geoff S
Amen to that!
Have a look at H. G. Wells’ The World Brain :
https://archive.org/details/worldbrain00wells/page/n21/mode/2up
Contents Chap 1 : World Encyclopedia
Here is the blueprint for Wiki.
H.G. Wells, MI6 chief, and a prolific writer.
In this book, Wells states that “thinkers of the forward-looking type whose ideas we are now considering, are beginning to realize that the most hopeful line for the development of our racial intelligence lies rather in the direction of creating a new world organ for the collection, indexing, summarizing and release of knowledge, than in any further tinkering with the highly conservative and resistant university system, local, national and traditional in texture, which already exits. These innovators, who may be dreamers today, but who hope to become very active organizers tomorrow, project a unified, if not centralized, world organ to pull the mind of the world together.”
Full analysis of Wells’ work here :
https://canadianpatriot.org/2020/12/29/hg-wells/
Tinkering with the resistant University system seems to have gone on all along. Mind pulling, ouch!
Happy New Year to Anthony Charles Willis and every one else!!;-)
may you all be here for many more, fighting for truth
Finally, in modern times, in some cases, we’ve gone back to the original, pre-peer-review method. And THAT is what WUWT is.
I would take issue with the phrase “gone back”. Instead, I would suggest that transparent online peer review that WUWT engages in is the future, not the past. Instead of just 2 or 3 selected reviewers who are highly likely to have a conflict of interest (a scientific rival so they’ll block it or a political ally so they’ll wave it through) you will quickly get hundreds of informed assessments and comments.
Yes some of these will be unruly and invalid, or irrelevant (or irreverent!) or with various biases. The commentary will be imperfect of course. But the strength of the process is that overall, in the bigger picture, a very effective assessment of the posted study will be made. And there will be sharing of knowledge in multiple directions as part of the process. And included in the comments will be those from scientists intimately acquainted with the subject matter giving an authoritative review. From the mutual interaction and chat between commenters a new dimension of review will be gained that is constructive and emergent.
So scientific journals would do well to note this model. One could use an analogy with song contests like the ghastly European Song Contest. There are appointed individuals who give a judgement, but in addition there is the open popular vote. Both contribute to the assessment. I see no reason why scientific journals should not invite open online review of papers. Except for one possible problem – confidentiality of research that might be sensitive for various reasons including scientific competitiveness. But this could be addressed by doing the open review as the last step before publication.
Arxiv.org is exactly that…. Moderated as well…
Thanks – good to know. I understand there is a bioarxiv also?
Here for example is information about a treatment for COVID-19 as it is implemented around the world. Because this medication is FDA approved for treatment of parasitic infections it may be used ‘off-label’ to treat COVID-19. I was wondering if Willis had experience taking it in the Solomon Islands. I think this needs to be discussed and people need to be informed.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/i-mask-prophylaxis-treatment-protocol/epidemiologic-analyses-on-covid19-and-ivermectin/
Thanks, Dr. Moore. I lived for eight years in the Solomons. When I first lived there I took chloroquine as a prophylactic dose to prevent malaria, 500 mg once a week. However, after a while I realized that chloroquine was also used to treat malaria in the Solos … so if I was taking it to prevent malaria and I still got it, it might no work to cure it.
Also, I wasn’t thrilled with the idea of taking a drug once a week for some years. So I decided to stop taking it. Of course, I got malaria. It’s endemic there, everyone gets it. It’s particularly bad when the kids come back from the boarding schools on holidays.
It’s funny … I’d never had malaria, but I knew immediately that I had it.
Anyhow, the first time I got it they tried chloroquine, but it didn’t work. So I took quinine … man, that is one hardcore drug, worse than the disease. Well, not worse, I had a friend about 35 years old who died of malaria. But quinine made my whole body hurt bad. I remember trying to sit up in bed and it took an eternity, with lots of autogenerated sound effects. I thought “Man, it can’t be that bad.” Next time I went to sit up, it took two eternities …
Anyhow, after that my mad mate Mike, who was married to an island woman and had been there a while, told me what he used. He advised me that at the first sign of malaria, take three chloroquine tablets that day, then three the next day, then three the third day. So the other three times I had malaria, I used that regimen. You still get the chills and the fever, and both are bad, but it doesn’t last like if you take other drugs. After three days, it’s gone.
I remember thinking that people’s teeth only chattered from the chills in the movies and comic books … not true.
The final time I got malaria I’d moved to Fiji, where they don’t have malaria. I knew it had to be a recurrence. Those tricky suckers set up residence in your liver, and go into hibernation … only to wake up when you get stressed and knock you back on your okole. They go by the lovely name of “hypnozoites”.
After the three days of three tablets, I went to the doc and took the drug that kills the hypnozoites, primaquine from memory, and I haven’t had it since.
So I’ve been a human experiment in the toxicity of chloroquine, I’ve taken it at a dosage off the charts with no ill effects. The lethal dose is between 30 and 50 mg/kg. And 20 mg/kg is considered “toxic”. For me, that figures out to “toxic” being about 1450 mg … and three different times I took 1500 every day for three days with no problems. Lethal for me would be 2200 to 3100 mg. Plus it’s contraindicated if you are taking one of a host of other drugs.
Finally, the drug usually recommended for COVID is hydroxychloroquine. It’s a weaker form of chloroquine, just chloroquine with a hydroxyl group added to one part of the chloroquine molecule. It’s not used for malaria, mostly for rheumatoid arthritis. Less is known about the toxic and lethal doses of hydroxychloroquine, so they are assumed to be the same as chloroquine.
And that’s about what I know about chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. Hope this is of use to you.
w.
Hydroxychloroquine sulfate: LD50 1240 mg/kg for mice
https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AC263010250&productDescription=HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE+SULF+25GR&vendorId=VN00032119&countryCode=US&language=en
“It’s funny … I’d never had malaria, but I knew immediately that I had it.”
Could you describe the effects of your illness, Willis.
I got deathly ill in Vietnam in 1968, and I didn’t go to a doctor because there wasn’t one nearby, although I was sick enough that I should have been hospitalized.
What I’m wondering about is whether I had malaria or the Hong Kong flu.
It was the sickest I have ever been. I had a very high fever, shivering constantly. I had three wool army blankets on me and couldn’t get warm. I also soaked the think mattress I was on, along with the blankets is sweat.
This went on for about three days, to the point that I was considering going to a base hospital. Then, on the third day, the fever finally broke, and I recovered quickly after that.
So are those the symptoms of malaria or was it the Hong Kong flu? I suppose both diseases could cause those symtoms, but I don’t know.
I had stopped taking my malaria medicine around that time. It tasted very bad.
Sounds like my experience with malaria … alternate sweats and fever. That occurs in the final stage of the parasite.
Malaria is a curious creature. It changes form totally, metamorphosing into a new form.
It starts in one form in the mosquito. Then when it enters your bloodstream, it streaks for your liver. Along the way it is shedding parts of its skin, so your antibodies end up attacking the skin bits.
When it gets to the liver, it changes form. After a bit of time there, it changes into a new form … and this form enters the bloodstream and enters the red blood cells.
In the red blood cells, it reproduces rapidly, to the point where the red cells rupture and dump this new form into the bloodstream.
It is this rupturing of the blood cells that cause the familiar (at least to me) chills and fever. You alternately sweat so hard that the blankets end up wet. Then come the chills, shaking your whole body, making your teeth chatter.
So yeah … sounds like malaria.
w.
Yes, I guess it does sound like malaria. I didn’t have any respiratory problems or coughing with the illness I had, so that’s probably another sign that I had malaria instead of the Hong Kong flu.
It was definitley the sickest I’ve ever been, before or since.
Thanks for the reply, Willis.
With all due respects, I take Planck’s and Einstein’s views on science to be relevant.
There seems to be lot of dogma here on this issue, using the “climate” crowd straw dog.
The “climate” crowd’s utter hubris in usurping this will be their downfall, as Prometheus told Zeus and the Titans. And Titanic financial resets are planned right now with full MSM cover. They must not be allowed to bring the entire physical economy down with their green sinking ship…
Regarding Wiki, look up the British Army 77th Brigade, with the “rapid response” policy. It is said up to 20,000 are involved, going over blogs, etc… Not just “bots”.
Notice Twitter’s rapid response adding content – Section 230 must be revised.
Not just simple censorship, but as Cass Sunstein proposed, active intervention seeding blog threads. Citing the arch British agent, and godfather of George Soros, Sir Karl Popper, Sunstein advocated direct government intervention in internet chat rooms in the form of “cognitive infiltration,” suggesting that the resulting cognitive dissonance would render any political danger from conspiracy theories politically impotent. Sunstein proposed that private individuals fed with government information systematically intervene in internet conspiracy forums.
Strange that so many here admire Popper.
So tax dollars paying for direct intervention to cause “cognitive dissonance” is the game. Exactly the British Integrity Initiative and 77th Brigade M.O.
Not sure how mods handle that….
Thanks, bonbon. As with many scientists, myself included, our views on society and what might be of benefit are totally divorced from our scientific views. So Popper is (rightly in my opinion) admired for his scientific thoughts, and doesn’t do himself much credit with his views on society.
No surprise there. For example, J.B.S Haldane and Julian Huxley were big supporters of eugenics … yoicks.
w.
Soros has absconded Popper’s name to promote ideas to which Popper was utterly opposed.
Popper’s “Open Society and It’s Enemies” and his “Poverty of Historicism” are directed against totalitarianism and the supposed historical inevitability of socialism.
Popper is no more responsible for George Soros than Darwin was responsible for Margaret Sanger.
Thanks, Willis. All the best for 2021 and keep on, please!