Chill!

[stumuzz]

A dream come true for all the climate change fanatics!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk

[clv101]

Uh.. "exhausted" and "bored" is more relevant. Look, I want do discuss the (in)accuracy of the IPCC computer simulations, but are faced with a complete mess of assumptions. Including Fox News which I have never watched more than 3-4 seconds in a row.

In case you haven't realised yet, there are no GCM developers posting on PowerSwitch. If you really are interested in how the models work I suggest (as I have a couple of time before) you take up your concerns with the people responsible directly, or at the very least find an online community where model developers do post.

I merely find it interesting that people can show such an agressive mob behaviour over an issue they dont have any deeper insights in.

Okay, now we have established your line of questioning is purely provocative or... illustrative we can move on?

I don't see why you associate 'deep insights' with mob behaviour? The vast majority of people in the world don't have a deep insight into how anything works. That doesn't mean they aren't allowed to hold strong positions. One doesn't need to understand a weather model to pay very close attention to tomorrow's forecast, one doesn't have to understand how their computer works to literally entrust their livelihood to its correct operation and one doesn't have to understand how their prescription drugs work to entrust their lives to them.

Like we trust our doctor's diagnosis and prescriptions from a position of ignorance, we can also trust the climate scientist's output without personally understanding every equation and parametrisation in their model.

Sure there's a lot of uncertainty associated with climate science - there's also a lot of uncertainty with medical science. I find it interesting how we trust our doctor's uncertain diagnoses but doubt the climate scientist's similarly uncertain diagnosis.

[UndercoverElephant]

Uh.. "exhausted" and "bored" is more relevant. Look, I want do discuss the (in)accuracy of the IPCC computer simulations, but are faced with a complete mess of assumptions. Including Fox News which I have never watched more than 3-4 seconds in a row.

In case you haven't realised yet, there are no GCM developers posting on PowerSwitch. If you really are interested in how the models work I suggest (as I have a couple of time before) you take up your concerns with the people responsible directly, or at the very least find an online community where model developers do post.

I merely find it interesting that people can show such an agressive mob behaviour over an issue they dont have any deeper insights in.

Just because you don't understand this, it does not follow that nobody else does, MacG. You have already expressed doubts that there is a greenhouse effect in operation on Venus, which has an atmosphere made up almost entirely of greenhouse gases. Why, if this is the case, should you be the slightest bit interested in IPCC computer simulations designed to investigate the possible consequences of greenhouse warming on Earth? Make your mind up please. Is there such a thing as the greenhouse effect (anywhere) or is it a pseudoscientific myth?

[MacG]

In case you haven't realised yet, there are no GCM developers posting on PowerSwitch. If you really are interested in how the models work I suggest (as I have a couple of time before) you take up your concerns with the people responsible directly, or at the very least find an online community where model developers do post.

I merely find it interesting that people can show such an agressive mob behaviour over an issue they dont have any deeper insights in.

Okay, now we have established your line of questioning is purely provocative or... illustrative we can move on?

I don't see why you associate 'deep insights' with mob behaviour? The vast majority of people in the world don't have a deep insight into how anything works. That doesn't mean they aren't allowed to hold strong positions. One doesn't need to understand a weather model to pay very close attention to tomorrow's forecast, one doesn't have to understand how their computer works to literally entrust their livelihood to its correct operation and one doesn't have to understand how their prescription drugs work to entrust their lives to them.

Like we trust our doctor's diagnosis and prescriptions from a position of ignorance, we can also trust the climate scientist's output without personally understanding every equation and parametrisation in their model.

Sure there's a lot of uncertainty associated with climate science - there's also a lot of uncertainty with medical science. I find it interesting how we trust our doctor's uncertain diagnoses but doubt the climate scientist's similarly uncertain diagnosis.

Your comparisons are a bit hilarious, and completely irrelevant. How come that you warmists can never stick to the subject?

[UndercoverElephant]

I merely find it interesting that people can show such an agressive mob behaviour over an issue they dont have any deeper insights in.

Okay, now we have established your line of questioning is purely provocative or... illustrative we can move on?

I don't see why you associate 'deep insights' with mob behaviour? The vast majority of people in the world don't have a deep insight into how anything works. That doesn't mean they aren't allowed to hold strong positions. One doesn't need to understand a weather model to pay very close attention to tomorrow's forecast, one doesn't have to understand how their computer works to literally entrust their livelihood to its correct operation and one doesn't have to understand how their prescription drugs work to entrust their lives to them.

Like we trust our doctor's diagnosis and prescriptions from a position of ignorance, we can also trust the climate scientist's output without personally understanding every equation and parametrisation in their model.

Sure there's a lot of uncertainty associated with climate science - there's also a lot of uncertainty with medical science. I find it interesting how we trust our doctor's uncertain diagnoses but doubt the climate scientist's similarly uncertain diagnosis.

Your comparisons are a bit hilarious, and completely irrelevant. How come that you warmists can never stick to the subject?

It's bang on-topic, MacG. At issue here is the status of scientific knowledge. Science is not like an other sort of knowledge-generating activity, and because of this the results it produces in the form scientific consensus carry a greater epistemic authority than other types of knowledge claim. Put simply: people like you do not apparently understand how science works and why scientific results should be taken seriously, and not argued with from a position of ignorance or political/religious dogma. That's why I compare climate change denialism and creationism: they both amount to attacks on science itself, one motivated by religious dogma and the other by politics, ignorance and the natural human unwillingness to accept really bad news.

[biffvernon]

You can go out and measure what is actually happening:

Deep ocean heat is rapidly melting Antarctic ice

[MacG]

You can go out and measure what is actually happening:

Deep ocean heat is rapidly melting Antarctic ice

Another blogger, eh? You see, the problem is that you warmists can not be trusted. You will only look at "evidence" supporting your case and ignore or dismiss anything against it.

[MacG]

Okay, now we have established your line of questioning is purely provocative or... illustrative we can move on?

I don't see why you associate 'deep insights' with mob behaviour? The vast majority of people in the world don't have a deep insight into how anything works. That doesn't mean they aren't allowed to hold strong positions. One doesn't need to understand a weather model to pay very close attention to tomorrow's forecast, one doesn't have to understand how their computer works to literally entrust their livelihood to its correct operation and one doesn't have to understand how their prescription drugs work to entrust their lives to them.

Like we trust our doctor's diagnosis and prescriptions from a position of ignorance, we can also trust the climate scientist's output without personally understanding every equation and parametrisation in their model.

Sure there's a lot of uncertainty associated with climate science - there's also a lot of uncertainty with medical science. I find it interesting how we trust our doctor's uncertain diagnoses but doubt the climate scientist's similarly uncertain diagnosis.

Your comparisons are a bit hilarious, and completely irrelevant. How come that you warmists can never stick to the subject?

It's bang on-topic, MacG. At issue here is the status of scientific knowledge. Science is not like an other sort of knowledge-generating activity, and because of this the results it produces in the form scientific consensus carry a greater epistemic authority than other types of knowledge claim. Put simply: people like you do not apparently understand how science works and why scientific results should be taken seriously, and not argued with from a position of ignorance or political/religious dogma. That's why I compare climate change denialism and creationism: they both amount to attacks on science itself, one motivated by religious dogma and the other by politics, ignorance and the natural human unwillingness to accept really bad news.

You have a very... eh... "romantic" view on science. Such romantic views are only found in people on the outside. We on the inside know that we function just as everybody else - if there are funds to apply for, we will apply!

[Andy Hunt]

And then you make up some bogus science and get it approved by corrupt colleagues as part of a bogus peer review process, in order that you can continue getting funding.

Thanks MacG, I see where you are coming from now.

[emordnilap]

Is there such a thing as the greenhouse effect (anywhere) or is it a pseudoscientific myth?

Did you get an answer, UE?

[MacG]

Is there such a thing as the greenhouse effect (anywhere) or is it a pseudoscientific myth?

Did you get an answer, UE?

The choice of methaphore in the form of "greenhous effect" is not very suitable. In a man-made greenhouse, there is a physical boundary in the form of glass walls and a glass roof which physically isolate the atmosphere inside the greenhouse from the surrounding atmosphere. That is not the case in the various atmosphere models people juggle with. I dont expect any of the warmists to understand the difference though.

[MacG]

And then you make up some bogus science and get it approved by corrupt colleagues as part of a bogus peer review process, in order that you can continue getting funding.

Thanks MacG, I see where you are coming from now.

Another romantic. Well, that is the world we live in, and I have to love it as it is.

[Blue Peter]

And then you make up some bogus science and get it approved by corrupt colleagues as part of a bogus peer review process, in order that you can continue getting funding.

Thanks MacG, I see where you are coming from now.

Another romantic. Well, that is the world we live in, and I have to love it as it is.

You're sort of right, except that science does also seem to have some mechanisms which balance out the bogus factors, since, in general, science does seem to work.

To bring things slightly back on topic, in this respect, climate science is no different than any other science. As Chris has said, why is climate science singled out as being bogus because of these factors while no other science is?


Peter.

[Andy Hunt]

And then you make up some bogus science and get it approved by corrupt colleagues as part of a bogus peer review process, in order that you can continue getting funding.

Thanks MacG, I see where you are coming from now.

Another romantic. Well, that is the world we live in, and I have to love it as it is.

No, you missed my point. I said that I see where YOU are coming from. Thanks for describing your work ethic

[MacG]

And then you make up some bogus science and get it approved by corrupt colleagues as part of a bogus peer review process, in order that you can continue getting funding.

Thanks MacG, I see where you are coming from now.

Another romantic. Well, that is the world we live in, and I have to love it as it is.

You're sort of right, except that science does also seem to have some mechanisms which balance out the bogus factors, since, in general, science does seem to work.

To bring things slightly back on topic, in this respect, climate science is no different than any other science. As Chris has said, why is climate science singled out as being bogus because of these factors while no other science is?


Peter.

I see it the other way around. Why is climate science singled out as absolutely pure, honest and almost divine when all other science is ruled by dirty realities of politics and funding?

And yes, science has always won over religiosity, but in many cases it has taken quite some time. In the really nasty cases it takes a generation. People rarely change opinion, so for a new idea to win the carriers of the old idea simply have to die first.