BewaConsensus Science

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"

> > Unfortunately, I don't
> > hold the environmental sciences in the same high regard. I'm not
> > sure why the field has become rampantly political and
ideologically
> > rigid and intolerant of dissent but the evidence of all these
> > characteristics is plainly before us.
>
> I don't know about environmental sciences in general, but I know
> personally a few atmospheric physicists and chemists whose
> devotion to science above other matters is unimpeachable.
Unfortunately
> to many of them it seems the deniers of human causation of global
warming
> can't be debated rationally - every time they debate, they lose,
> just like the old creation vs. evolution debates. Or with
physicists
> who I know have tried arguing with people who claim to have
> perpetual motion machines, or who have disproved Einstein, etc.
It's not
> worth it, the scientists would rather spend their time studying
the science.
> Of course there are still a few who can't resist debating about
> it, and not making any headway.

There's not much to disagree with here. I'm not sure if you're
implying that I'm a global warming denier despite my repeated
statements of my position to the contrary.

> > The researchers are saying that there are many unknowns in their
> > forecasts and they don't even know if the computer models
accurately
> > reflect numerous global environmental processes and their
> > interactions and their conclusion is that their prediction could
> > come to pass but their prediction is built on speculation.
>
> If you're expecting certainty from science, you're barking up
> the wrong tree.

No, I'm expecting more substance to be attached to what is published
and then dissemenated. Sloppiness like this feeds the very deniers
that more solid arguments and presentations would suppress.

> Certainty comes from religion. Science brings
> only measurements and tentative explanations of those measurements,

What measuresments are recorded from running a computer model that
doesn't accurately correspond to the actual climatic process? What
are they measuring? GIGO.

> That's why scientific consensus is critically important - it
> tells you what the likelihood of a particular model (and its
> associated predictions) being accurate.

How's that again? Correctness is determined by popular vote! Hmm, I
must have missed that in my studies. I always thought evidence,
method and falsifiability were more central to accuracy and
understanding rather than political posuturing.

Oh well, I guess because I'm not a scientist I really don't know the
secrets of the temple.

> > This is science? You'll note that the editors of "Nature" weren't
> > forced to resign for publishing speculation but the editors
> > of "Climate Research" were forced to resign for publishing an
> > article that many criticized for poor methodology.
>
> Uh, more like, were embarrassed into resigning, from what I heard.

Oh, I'd be interested in reading this account for it would allow me
to partially revise my opinion on the intellectually stagnant state
of the discourse within the environmental field. Do you have a cite
you can provide?

> Speculation is par for the course, but out-and-out lying and
> misrepresentation, which seems to be what happened in the Climate
> Research article, is rather a bit worse.

I agree, and as I stated I'm not setting out to defend the authors
of the Climate Research article, but I hadn't heard that there was
outright lying. Can you provide me with a citiation that alleges
this and demonstrates that this was indeed the case?

I'd also be interested in news of other editor resignations that
resulted from publishing scientific papers that contained lies and
misrepresetnation. I don't recall these witch hunt tactics being so
visible to the public before.

As I hope is evident, my concern about healthy debate is what drives
my commentary. For those who are anti-Global Warming, simply refute
their case and don't overstate yours. Let the evidence do the work.
Let the models withstand falsifiability. If they can't, then do not
claim the moral high ground.

I don't like monoculture. I don't like rigid perspectives. I want to
see vigorous debate and let the chips fall where they may.

> Calling computer models "speculation" is akin to calling
> evolution only a "theory", or claiming Einstein was wrong.

Ah, no. Perhaps you want to expand on this statement and actually
make a case for it.

> Most of physics these days is heavily dependent on computer
> models.

Yes, I know.

> Models are simply an aid to pencil-and-paper thinking - the issue
> is how widely supported are the assumptions the model is based on;
> that's where the scientific consensus comes in.

Consensus backed by evidence is one thing. Consensus in place of
evidence is another thing. There is a substantive difference that
you seem to be ignoring.

I try to write in detail to convey the nuance of my concern and
instead I find myself responding to caricatures of my positions on
the basis for scientific consensus, the issue of anthropogenic
causation of global warming, and now the use of computer modeling in
the sciences.

There is a reason why we're not seeing nuclear testing anymore.
Computer modeling of the test process is sufficiently sophisticated
to replace the need to actually detonate bombs underground.

Why is the computer modeling sufficient? Because the models have
been tested against reality and the results and the operation of the
model accurately reflect reality.

Furthermore, the aging nuclear stockpile is modeled by computer.
There is already a call starting that there should be some future
limited testing to verify the accuracy of the models, for the error
of the models increases over time.

Bravo.

Bravo to other scientific disciplines that verify their models
against reality.

Run for the bomb shelter if the quality of environmental models is
substituted for the nuclear testing models.

The environmental models don't follow the same rigor as described
above and models aren't subjected to the same criteria of
falsification. Yes, the climate is a very complex system and it is a
daunting task to accurately model it, and if we're not up to the
task, then don't pretend that the rigor is there when it's not. Yes,
do your modeling runs and then embark on an experiment to see how
well the results reflect reality and then publish your results.
Don't just publish results of a modeling run.

I fully understand the use of models within sciences and I can
ascertain the difference between good models and poor models. If you
wish to label me a global warming denier and someone who doesn't
understand the utility of computer models, there is little I can do
to dissuade you. I simply hope others can see the point, which seems
to be lost on you, that I am trying to make without caricaturizing
it.

> Fine if you disagree, but do you really think policy makers should
> listen to you,

Nice rhetorical trick, but I've never sought to influence policy
makers on this matter.

> Time to give up the fight, tango,
>
> Arthur

Why? As I see it I'm upholding the right of free inquiry and healthy
debate. I'd rest easier if I saw healthy debate in the field and if
the deniers weren't suppressed and lynched but rather humiliated
through refutation. Biologists were able to do it with respect to
creationists because they could marshall the evidence rather than
invoking the tactics I've witnesses recently.

I see the same tactics used when I visit leftist blogs and websites.
Dissent and inquiry are suppressed and everyone is expected to get
with the program. That type of mentality scares me to the core.

TangoMan