login
The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change (Page 2)
-
No new posts
| Other Resources | My Cup of Joe » The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change | Rss Feed  |
|
 2013-05-01 2:25 PM in reply to: #4722434 |
Champion  9407    Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia |  Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate changetuwood - 2013-05-01 1:30 PM I know I probably come across as a anti GW nut job, but I'm really not. I don't think so; I don't bother talking to nut jobs about this - I know that is a no win proposition. I just tend to take a skeptical view on most things, and even more so when the government is involved and want me to pay more money. Which I encourage except that at some point we need to accept that there isn't a conspiracy of experts (or maybe there is  ) because we can't be experts at everything. I know enough to do some basic reading into climate science and can look at the data far enough to know that we are warming but beyond that, I cannot stay abreast of all AGW research and know enough to be critical of it. As a non scientist, I read an article like what I linked in earlier in the economist and it has this diagram: According to the scientist's quoted in the article if temperatures stay flat for the next couple years the actual data falls out of bounds for pretty much every climate prediction model that assumes the man made component of GW. Here is the plot I was talking about before:  If, and I know this is an if, the temperatures do stay flat or go down the next couple years and the data falls out of all the models, what happens then form a science standpoint? Then the scientists say our models were wrong, continue to revise them and build better models. Also looking at the recent IPCC AR5 draft the actual data has already fallen out of every AGW model range and this year doesn't seem to be shaping up to help. Climate modeling is incredibly difficult and I'm not surprised at all that the models are failing, especially as we run them for longer and longer periods of time. It is "easy" to model what the climate will do one year out; significantly harder to do 10, 20 or 50 years. I know people like to say consensus is fact, but from a science standpoint it's just the most logical conclusion based on the facts at hand if I understand it correctly. I don't think I've ever heard scientific consensus is fact but for the rest I would agree. More data, better (although possibly different) models and theories. Science is supposed to remain fluid and not become static. It was scientific consensus at one point that the universe was static, the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. Obviously the consensus has changed since then, so consensus isn't fact. However, the consensus changed because of the collection and analysis of data; just the way climate scientists are continually collecting data to test and modify climate models. As mentioned, I'm genuinely trying to understand this stuff, but the more I try to read both sides the more skeptical I become. A problem with this for the lay person is that while the "two" sides can both appear to be valid, in reality only one is supported by the data and the other through misinformation and/or cherry picking data. So, I have a question. The earth has obviously warmed and cooled pretty much since it was formed. Is there no scientific possibility being considered that the warming trend the last century could be natural? Yes and this has been tested and refuted. I know the hypothesis/consensus is that it's related to man, but what caused all the other warming and cooling throughout history then? There are warming and cooling cycles but according to the data, the rate of change has never been this great since the natural cycles argument has been tested, what remains is the huge increase in CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels. Also, if the data continues to fall out of all the climate change models then at what point does the consensus stop being the consensus? The consensus is that the average temperature is warming. That is what we clearly see if we look at more than a couple decades of temperature readings. But, if we suddenly saw cooling (or even constant temperatures) for a few years, the climate scientists would be busy trying to figure out why and adjust the models to account for why the warming trend had stopped. Shane |
| 2013-05-01 3:04 PM in reply to: #4722805 |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change Great post gsmacleod. That graph is a keeper. |
| 2013-05-01 3:18 PM in reply to: #4722434 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change tuwood - 2013-05-01 10:30 AM I know people like to say consensus is fact, but from a science standpoint it's just the most logical conclusion based on the facts at hand if I understand it correctly. It was scientific consensus at one point that the universe was static, the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. Obviously the consensus has changed since then, so consensus isn't fact. As mentioned, I'm genuinely trying to understand this stuff, but the more I try to read both sides the more skeptical I become. So, I have a question. The earth has obviously warmed and cooled pretty much since it was formed. Is there no scientific possibility being considered that the warming trend the last century could be natural? I know the hypothesis/consensus is that it's related to man, but what caused all the other warming and cooling throughout history then? Also, if the data continues to fall out of all the climate change models then at what point does the consensus stop being the consensus? One thing Tony, I'm pretty sure in the dark ages when they thought the world was flat and the center of the universe it was not based on science. As far as the trend being natural... well all those things that us lay people know about warming and cooling cycles... were told to us by all those scientists that you choose to believe or not. they already know about Sun orbits, and solar activity, and glacier periods and volcanoes and dust and all that other stuff. It was already studied, and all those things have not been found to be enough to cause what is going on. So just take that for what it is worth. I think it is legit to ask how much is that stuff responsible for, and what else could be contributing... but in general, they have already looked at that stuff, and what is going on is over and above all that stuff. If you really look into this stuff and look at the data of what is out there, you will find that all those questions have already been answered... it isn't like they failed to realize there are other factors involved. But the "consensus" thing is very interesting. It speaks to the "politics" of "Climate Change". Because "consensus" isn't how any other scientific topics is handled. I mean, what is the percentage of scientists that agree with the "Big Bang"? Well nobody knows that answer because nobody ever thought to ask the question. That's not how science runs, but that is how politics work. We always need a poll to tell us the answer right? |
| 2013-05-01 3:22 PM in reply to: #4722914 |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change powerman - 2013-05-01 3:18 PM tuwood - 2013-05-01 10:30 AM I know people like to say consensus is fact, but from a science standpoint it's just the most logical conclusion based on the facts at hand if I understand it correctly. It was scientific consensus at one point that the universe was static, the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. Obviously the consensus has changed since then, so consensus isn't fact. As mentioned, I'm genuinely trying to understand this stuff, but the more I try to read both sides the more skeptical I become. So, I have a question. The earth has obviously warmed and cooled pretty much since it was formed. Is there no scientific possibility being considered that the warming trend the last century could be natural? I know the hypothesis/consensus is that it's related to man, but what caused all the other warming and cooling throughout history then? Also, if the data continues to fall out of all the climate change models then at what point does the consensus stop being the consensus? One thing Tony, I'm pretty sure in the dark ages when they thought the world was flat and the center of the universe it was not based on science. As far as the trend being natural... well all those things that us lay people know about warming and cooling cycles... were told to us by all those scientists that you choose to believe or not. they already know about Sun orbits, and solar activity, and glacier periods and volcanoes and dust and all that other stuff. It was already studied, and all those things have not been found to be enough to cause what is going on. So just take that for what it is worth. I think it is legit to ask how much is that stuff responsible for, and what else could be contributing... but in general, they have already looked at that stuff, and what is going on is over and above all that stuff. If you really look into this stuff and look at the data of what is out there, you will find that all those questions have already been answered... it isn't like they failed to realize there are other factors involved. But the "consensus" thing is very interesting. It speaks to the "politics" of "Climate Change". Because "consensus" isn't how any other scientific topics is handled. I mean, what is the percentage of scientists that agree with the "Big Bang"? Well nobody knows that answer because nobody ever thought to ask the question. That's not how science runs, but that is how politics work. We always need a poll to tell us the answer right? :) Yeah, and then we can argue about who did the poll, the polling mechanism, who answers the phone, who still has a land line, etc. |
| 2013-05-01 3:30 PM in reply to: #4722805 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change gsmacleod - 2013-05-01 1:25 PM A problem with this for the lay person is that while the "two" sides can both appear to be valid, in reality only one is supported by the data and the other through misinformation and/or cherry picking data. And I am not a supporter of all things AGW Tony... but when I looked at stuff, Shane's observation above stands out. That you look at the data, and all the data points to two things, the planet is warming, and the CO2 concentration is increasing. You can see the exact same "flat spots" on your own trend for the same decades pointed out in Shanes graph. Temps are flat at various points, but the trend is the same. When you look for data that refutes that... you don't find any. What you find is assumptions, guesses, and maybes. The "other side" basically throwing crap at a wall and seeing what sticks... which is another very popular political ploy used today. So they do not really have a leg to stand on in that area. |
| 2013-05-01 3:33 PM in reply to: #4722918 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change switch - 2013-05-01 2:22 PM
See... you know.... and then I have to go all over the web and set every one straight. It's a never ending job. |
| 2013-05-01 3:42 PM in reply to: #4722932 |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change powerman - 2013-05-01 3:33 PM switch - 2013-05-01 2:22 PM :) Yeah, and then we can argue about who did the poll, the polling mechanism, who answers the phone, who still has a land line, etc. See... you know.... and then I have to go all over the web and set every one straight. It's a never ending job. So much to do, so little time... It looks like you've caught up on your sleep though;) |
| 2013-05-01 3:48 PM in reply to: #4722918 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change switch - 2013-05-01 3:22 PM powerman - 2013-05-01 3:18 PM tuwood - 2013-05-01 10:30 AM I know people like to say consensus is fact, but from a science standpoint it's just the most logical conclusion based on the facts at hand if I understand it correctly. It was scientific consensus at one point that the universe was static, the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. Obviously the consensus has changed since then, so consensus isn't fact. As mentioned, I'm genuinely trying to understand this stuff, but the more I try to read both sides the more skeptical I become. So, I have a question. The earth has obviously warmed and cooled pretty much since it was formed. Is there no scientific possibility being considered that the warming trend the last century could be natural? I know the hypothesis/consensus is that it's related to man, but what caused all the other warming and cooling throughout history then? Also, if the data continues to fall out of all the climate change models then at what point does the consensus stop being the consensus? One thing Tony, I'm pretty sure in the dark ages when they thought the world was flat and the center of the universe it was not based on science. As far as the trend being natural... well all those things that us lay people know about warming and cooling cycles... were told to us by all those scientists that you choose to believe or not. they already know about Sun orbits, and solar activity, and glacier periods and volcanoes and dust and all that other stuff. It was already studied, and all those things have not been found to be enough to cause what is going on. So just take that for what it is worth. I think it is legit to ask how much is that stuff responsible for, and what else could be contributing... but in general, they have already looked at that stuff, and what is going on is over and above all that stuff. If you really look into this stuff and look at the data of what is out there, you will find that all those questions have already been answered... it isn't like they failed to realize there are other factors involved. But the "consensus" thing is very interesting. It speaks to the "politics" of "Climate Change". Because "consensus" isn't how any other scientific topics is handled. I mean, what is the percentage of scientists that agree with the "Big Bang"? Well nobody knows that answer because nobody ever thought to ask the question. That's not how science runs, but that is how politics work. We always need a poll to tell us the answer right?
lol, speaking of which... Consensus Among Scientists Crumbles btw, I in no way condone the article, I just thought it was funny. Earlier today I was googling trying to find data (on either side) about the consensus and found this article. Apparently only 36% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC. |
| 2013-05-01 4:31 PM in reply to: #4722914 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change powerman - 2013-05-01 2:18 PM I think I have to disagree with you there. Consensus is exactly how science works, I think the only reason it's called out so specifically in climate change is that groups which don't believe the evidence explicitly bring up to try and sow doubt, just like they did with research on the link bbetween cigarettes and cancer. It's a stalling technique - if there's no consensus, then research can't moveon. But in the end consensus is how science moves forward even if no one ever explicitly tries to measure it. There's a reason physicists aren't still performing experiments to figure out F=MA, and it's because there is a consensus on our understanding of it. Enough evidence has come in and no viable alternative hypotheses remain, so a consensus forms that the current understanding is strong enough to take that as a valid assumption and move on to researching other areas. If no concensuses were ever reached we'd still be performing basic research and never be able to move on. Scientists might not run a poll, say 'ok 98% of us believe F=MA, so now we can start researching friction', but that's essentially how it works.But the "consensus" thing is very interesting. It speaks to the "politics" of "Climate Change". Because "consensus" isn't how any other scientific topics is handled. I mean, what is the percentage of scientists that agree with the "Big Bang"? Well nobody knows that answer because nobody ever thought to ask the question. That's not how science runs, but that is how politics work. We always need a poll to tell us the answer right? If you look at the research on climate change the same has happened. There's not much research happening currently on the question of whether or not the earth is warming and whether we're causing it because there is a consensus within the scientific community that our current understanding is the best explanation for the observations we see. Most of the research has moved on to the 'what will happen' problem because there is much less of a consenus there. Edited by drewb8 2013-05-01 4:35 PM |
| 2013-05-01 4:36 PM in reply to: #4722957 |
Member 432 Calgary, AB | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change tuwood - 2013-05-01 2:48 PM lol, speaking of which... Consensus Among Scientists Crumbles btw, I in no way condone the article, I just thought it was funny. Earlier today I was googling trying to find data (on either side) about the consensus and found this article. Apparently only 36% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC.
Holy cow. This is based on a survey of members of APEGA (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta). Just to give you a sense -- *I* am a member of APEGA, and I know less about climate science than I do about evolution. APEGA is a fine organization, but the membership is (a) mostly employed by the oil & gas industry, and (b) mostly expert in drilling oil wells, building pipelines and taking pictures of the earth 5,000 feet below the surface. It is not a group of climate scientists. If there are more than 10 people who genuinely specialize in climate science in all of APEGA, I'd be surprised. And even at that -- the Forbes guy completely misrepresented the survey's findings. As the authors were quick to point out. And as anyone would easily discover if they skimmed through the original study. But you knew all that of course. Because you read both sides. |
| 2013-05-01 5:09 PM in reply to: #4722884 |
Member 432 Calgary, AB | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change switch - 2013-05-01 2:04 PM Great post gsmacleod. That graph is a keeper. Agreed. I've been known to apply the same logic to my weight. |
| 2013-05-01 5:17 PM in reply to: #4723027 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change drewb8 - 2013-05-01 3:31 PM powerman - 2013-05-01 2:18 PM I think I have to disagree with you there. Consensus is exactly how science works, I think the only reason it's called out so specifically in climate change is that groups which don't believe the evidence explicitly bring up to try and sow doubt, just like they did with research on the link bbetween cigarettes and cancer. It's a stalling technique - if there's no consensus, then research can't moveon. But in the end consensus is how science moves forward even if no one ever explicitly tries to measure it. There's a reason physicists aren't still performing experiments to figure out F=MA, and it's because there is a consensus on our understanding of it. Enough evidence has come in and no viable alternative hypotheses remain, so a consensus forms that the current understanding is strong enough to take that as a valid assumption and move on to researching other areas. If no concensuses were ever reached we'd still be performing basic research and never be able to move on. Scientists might not run a poll, say 'ok 98% of us believe F=MA, so now we can start researching friction', but that's essentially how it works.But the "consensus" thing is very interesting. It speaks to the "politics" of "Climate Change". Because "consensus" isn't how any other scientific topics is handled. I mean, what is the percentage of scientists that agree with the "Big Bang"? Well nobody knows that answer because nobody ever thought to ask the question. That's not how science runs, but that is how politics work. We always need a poll to tell us the answer right? If you look at the research on climate change the same has happened. There's not much research happening currently on the question of whether or not the earth is warming and whether we're causing it because there is a consensus within the scientific community that our current understanding is the best explanation for the observations we see. Most of the research has moved on to the 'what will happen' problem because there is much less of a consenus there. I can understand if something is "proven", scientists try to disprove it, find it is true... and move on. In what journal are "consensus" published. What method is used to reach consensus? How is consensus measured in the scientific community? The answer is is isn't. I agree with you on the general flow of discovery and proving, but... if we are talking such things as "consensus based decision making" or some sort of process like that... then show me where consensus is part of the scientific process. |
| 2013-05-01 5:28 PM in reply to: #4723034 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change Hoos - 2013-05-01 4:36 PM tuwood - 2013-05-01 2:48 PM lol, speaking of which... Consensus Among Scientists Crumbles btw, I in no way condone the article, I just thought it was funny. Earlier today I was googling trying to find data (on either side) about the consensus and found this article. Apparently only 36% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC.
Holy cow. This is based on a survey of members of APEGA (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta). Just to give you a sense -- *I* am a member of APEGA, and I know less about climate science than I do about evolution. APEGA is a fine organization, but the membership is (a) mostly employed by the oil & gas industry, and (b) mostly expert in drilling oil wells, building pipelines and taking pictures of the earth 5,000 feet below the surface. It is not a group of climate scientists. If there are more than 10 people who genuinely specialize in climate science in all of APEGA, I'd be surprised. And even at that -- the Forbes guy completely misrepresented the survey's findings. As the authors were quick to point out. And as anyone would easily discover if they skimmed through the original study. But you knew all that of course. Because you read both sides. Yeah, i absolutely knew the survey was junk when I read it. Even as a skeptic I absolutely know the scientific community in this area has at the very least a high percentage of people on board with AGW. I wasn't even going to post it, but switches comment forced my hand. I should have posted the whole link in sarc font, because it was pretty bad. |
| 2013-05-01 5:30 PM in reply to: #4722927 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change powerman - 2013-05-01 3:30 PM That you look at the data, and all the data points to two things, the planet is warming, and the CO2 concentration is increasing. Please don't make me bring up the correlation between ice cream sales and the rate of drowning analogy |
| 2013-05-01 5:44 PM in reply to: #4723106 |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change tuwood - 2013-05-01 5:28 PM Dude, don't you go blamin your cray cray post on me ;) I'd put that in sarc but can't figure it out on my "smart" phone.Hoos - 2013-05-01 4:36 PM tuwood - 2013-05-01 2:48 PM lol, speaking of which... Consensus Among Scientists Crumbles btw, I in no way condone the article, I just thought it was funny. Earlier today I was googling trying to find data (on either side) about the consensus and found this article. Apparently only 36% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC. :) Obviously this is just a poll and god knows who they talked to, and I know scientific consensus isn't formed by polls.
Holy cow. This is based on a survey of members of APEGA (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta). Just to give you a sense -- *I* am a member of APEGA, and I know less about climate science than I do about evolution. APEGA is a fine organization, but the membership is (a) mostly employed by the oil & gas industry, and (b) mostly expert in drilling oil wells, building pipelines and taking pictures of the earth 5,000 feet below the surface. It is not a group of climate scientists. If there are more than 10 people who genuinely specialize in climate science in all of APEGA, I'd be surprised. And even at that -- the Forbes guy completely misrepresented the survey's findings. As the authors were quick to point out. And as anyone would easily discover if they skimmed through the original study. But you knew all that of course. Because you read both sides. Yeah, i absolutely knew the survey was junk when I read it. Even as a skeptic I absolutely know the scientific community in this area has at the very least a high percentage of people on board with AGW. I wasn't even going to post it, but switches comment forced my hand. I should have posted the whole link in sarc font, because it was pretty bad. :) |
| 2013-05-01 5:51 PM in reply to: #4723095 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change powerman - 2013-05-01 5:17 PM drewb8 - 2013-05-01 3:31 PM powerman - 2013-05-01 2:18 PM I think I have to disagree with you there. Consensus is exactly how science works, I think the only reason it's called out so specifically in climate change is that groups which don't believe the evidence explicitly bring up to try and sow doubt, just like they did with research on the link bbetween cigarettes and cancer. It's a stalling technique - if there's no consensus, then research can't moveon. But in the end consensus is how science moves forward even if no one ever explicitly tries to measure it. There's a reason physicists aren't still performing experiments to figure out F=MA, and it's because there is a consensus on our understanding of it. Enough evidence has come in and no viable alternative hypotheses remain, so a consensus forms that the current understanding is strong enough to take that as a valid assumption and move on to researching other areas. If no concensuses were ever reached we'd still be performing basic research and never be able to move on. Scientists might not run a poll, say 'ok 98% of us believe F=MA, so now we can start researching friction', but that's essentially how it works.But the "consensus" thing is very interesting. It speaks to the "politics" of "Climate Change". Because "consensus" isn't how any other scientific topics is handled. I mean, what is the percentage of scientists that agree with the "Big Bang"? Well nobody knows that answer because nobody ever thought to ask the question. That's not how science runs, but that is how politics work. We always need a poll to tell us the answer right? If you look at the research on climate change the same has happened. There's not much research happening currently on the question of whether or not the earth is warming and whether we're causing it because there is a consensus within the scientific community that our current understanding is the best explanation for the observations we see. Most of the research has moved on to the 'what will happen' problem because there is much less of a consenus there. I can understand if something is "proven", scientists try to disprove it, find it is true... and move on. In what journal are "consensus" published. What method is used to reach consensus? How is consensus measured in the scientific community? The answer is is isn't. I agree with you on the general flow of discovery and proving, but... if we are talking such things as "consensus based decision making" or some sort of process like that... then show me where consensus is part of the scientific process. I think one big issue with the consensus word, is non scientists (aka politicians) use it out of context. For example I can go along with a consensus on the earth getting warmer the last 30 years, that's an easy one. I can go along with a consensus that the warming has been on the low end of the prediction models the last 10 years. I personally still have issues with CO2 being the cause of the warming, because of the slowdown in temperature versus the continued increase in CO2. Then you throw in the various alarmists hypothesis, which I think it's safe to say are not part of the consensus and they get lumped in with the overall scientific consensus. Think hydrate hypothesis published in 2007 that predicted 4.5B deaths from AGW by 2012. I think it's safe to say that one didn't pan out. |
| 2013-05-01 6:10 PM in reply to: #4723134 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change switch - 2013-05-01 5:44 PM tuwood - 2013-05-01 5:28 PM Dude, don't you go blamin your cray cray post on me Hoos - 2013-05-01 4:36 PM tuwood - 2013-05-01 2:48 PM lol, speaking of which... Consensus Among Scientists Crumbles btw, I in no way condone the article, I just thought it was funny. Earlier today I was googling trying to find data (on either side) about the consensus and found this article. Apparently only 36% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC.
Holy cow. This is based on a survey of members of APEGA (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta). Just to give you a sense -- *I* am a member of APEGA, and I know less about climate science than I do about evolution. APEGA is a fine organization, but the membership is (a) mostly employed by the oil & gas industry, and (b) mostly expert in drilling oil wells, building pipelines and taking pictures of the earth 5,000 feet below the surface. It is not a group of climate scientists. If there are more than 10 people who genuinely specialize in climate science in all of APEGA, I'd be surprised. And even at that -- the Forbes guy completely misrepresented the survey's findings. As the authors were quick to point out. And as anyone would easily discover if they skimmed through the original study. But you knew all that of course. Because you read both sides. Yeah, i absolutely knew the survey was junk when I read it. Even as a skeptic I absolutely know the scientific community in this area has at the very least a high percentage of people on board with AGW. I wasn't even going to post it, but switches comment forced my hand. I should have posted the whole link in sarc font, because it was pretty bad.  I'd put that in sarc but can't figure it out on my "smart" phone.lol, too late. ;-) |
| 2013-05-01 9:32 PM in reply to: #4723095 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change powerman - 2013-05-01 4:17 PM Consensus based decision making is part of the political process, not scientific, and that's why it's being utilized by the groups that don't believe in GW. There might not be an explicit measure for consensus or when it's ok to move on to the next research question, but make no mistake, it's an important part of the scientific process.I can understand if something is "proven", scientists try to disprove it, find it is true... and move on. In what journal are "consensus" published. What method is used to reach consensus? How is consensus measured in the scientific community? The answer is is isn't. I agree with you on the general flow of discovery and proving, but... if we are talking such things as "consensus based decision making" or some sort of process like that... then show me where consensus is part of the scientific process. |
| 2013-05-01 9:41 PM in reply to: #4723354 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change drewb8 - 2013-05-01 8:32 PM powerman - 2013-05-01 4:17 PM Consensus based decision making is part of the political process, not scientific, and that's why it's being utilized by the groups that don't believe in GW. There might not be an explicit measure for consensus or when it's ok to move on to the next research question, but make no mistake, it's an important part of the scientific process.I can understand if something is "proven", scientists try to disprove it, find it is true... and move on. In what journal are "consensus" published. What method is used to reach consensus? How is consensus measured in the scientific community? The answer is is isn't. I agree with you on the general flow of discovery and proving, but... if we are talking such things as "consensus based decision making" or some sort of process like that... then show me where consensus is part of the scientific process. I don't understand how... due to the fact that no other subject has "formal" consensus been reached signaling the time to "move on" to other research within the scientific community. Consensus means general agreement made by a group. What other agreements have the scientific group published? |
| 2013-05-01 10:30 PM in reply to: #4723367 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change powerman - 2013-05-01 8:41 PM Just because consensus isn't being formally measured in a poll and published doesn't mean it isn't occurring, in fact it''s happening all the time in every scientific field. Yes, it's generally an informal process and there are no written rules, but science does not proceed unless there's a consensus in the validity of a hypothesis, a general agreement that the current understanding is complete enough to move on. I don't understand how... due to the fact that no other subject has "formal" consensus been reached signaling the time to "move on" to other research within the scientific community. Consensus means general agreement made by a group. What other agreements have the scientific group published? |
| 2013-05-02 7:24 AM in reply to: #4723395 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change drewb8 - 2013-05-02 12:30 AM Just because consensus isn't being formally measured in a poll and published doesn't mean it isn't occurring, in fact it''s happening all the time in every scientific field. Yes, it's generally an informal process and there are no written rules, but science does not proceed unless there's a consensus in the validity of a hypothesis, a general agreement that the current understanding is complete enough to move on. Agreed; this can be seen in many fields and one great example is that of general relativity. When Einstein was working on the general theory, everyone thought that the universe was static so as he worked through the equations that form the foundations of GR, he was surprised to see that the theory predicted that the universe should be exapnding. Since he "knew" that this wasn't the case, he added the cosmological constant to GR in order to restore the universe to a static state according to the GR model. GR made many wild predictions that were not initially accepted by the general scientific community but as more and more experiments validated the theory, then GR started to be accepted a better model of gravity than Newton's version and it slowly gained widespread acceptance. However, as technology improved and we could take better measurements of surrounding galaxies, it turns out that every galaxy is actually moving away from us and therefore led to the empirical conclusion that the universe was actually expanding. Since this is what the original GR equations predicted, it was agreed that the cosmological constant was not required and it was removed as part of the theory. Consensus is an important part of the scientific process and it is why a free and open discussion of scientific processes and results is required in order for science to advance. Throughout the development of many theories, we see the constant refinement of a theory based upon what we "know" based on experimental evidence and as our ability to collect data improves, we often see that theories must be refined in order to match the behaviour of the universe. Shane |
| 2013-05-02 8:42 AM in reply to: #4723548 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change gsmacleod - 2013-05-02 6:24 AM Agreed; this can be seen in many fields and one great example is that of general relativity. When Einstein was working on the general theory, everyone thought that the universe was static so as he worked through the equations that form the foundations of GR, he was surprised to see that the theory predicted that the universe should be exapnding. Since he "knew" that this wasn't the case, he added the cosmological constant to GR in order to restore the universe to a static state according to the GR model. GR made many wild predictions that were not initially accepted by the general scientific community but as more and more experiments validated the theory, then GR started to be accepted a better model of gravity than Newton's version and it slowly gained widespread acceptance. However, as technology improved and we could take better measurements of surrounding galaxies, it turns out that every galaxy is actually moving away from us and therefore led to the empirical conclusion that the universe was actually expanding. Since this is what the original GR equations predicted, it was agreed that the cosmological constant was not required and it was removed as part of the theory. Consensus is an important part of the scientific process and it is why a free and open discussion of scientific processes and results is required in order for science to advance. Throughout the development of many theories, we see the constant refinement of a theory based upon what we "know" based on experimental evidence and as our ability to collect data improves, we often see that theories must be refined in order to match the behaviour of the universe. Shane Right. There was never any poll saying 'ok 90% of physicists are ok with GR', yet somehow they moved on. Even though the president of physics never banged his gavel, there's a consensus that E=MC2 and that there's not much to be gained from another study confirming that and the field moved on. The only reason consensus an issue at all in climate change is because groups opposed to doing anything about it made it an issue, although I do think Tony has a point about the aggregation of it at this point. There's not way you can say there's a consensus on climate change as a whole, it's just way too big of a topic. There's a consensus on aspects of climate change - such as that the earth is warming and that we are the cause of most of it - but other aspects such as what will happen, there is less consensus, and even within that area, different aspects have more uncertainty than others (for example, there is fairly good agreement on the amount of warming we can expect, but less in changes in precipitation patterns). I'll add for Tony that he's right that the atmospheric temperature hasn't shown much of a rise over the last decade, but that's only a part of the story. 70% of the earth is covered with water and something like 90% of the excess energy retained from GHGs goes into the ocean. Recent papers have found that over the last decade much of this extra energy has gone into warming the deep ocean, so when you account for all the warming, not just in the atmosphere there hasn't been any change. The planet is still warming at the same amount, it's just being allocated differently. At some point that heat will be released back into the atmosphere though. We've been in a cycles of La Ninas lately which tend to cool atmospheric temperatures overall, and I think the general expectation is that during the next El Nino cycle that some of that ocean heat will be released and we'll get an abnormally warm year as happened in 1998. |
| 2013-05-02 8:45 AM in reply to: #4723367 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change powerman - 2013-05-01 10:41 PM drewb8 - 2013-05-01 8:32 PM powerman - 2013-05-01 4:17 PM Consensus based decision making is part of the political process, not scientific, and that's why it's being utilized by the groups that don't believe in GW. There might not be an explicit measure for consensus or when it's ok to move on to the next research question, but make no mistake, it's an important part of the scientific process.I can understand if something is "proven", scientists try to disprove it, find it is true... and move on. In what journal are "consensus" published. What method is used to reach consensus? How is consensus measured in the scientific community? The answer is is isn't. I agree with you on the general flow of discovery and proving, but... if we are talking such things as "consensus based decision making" or some sort of process like that... then show me where consensus is part of the scientific process. I don't understand how... due to the fact that no other subject has "formal" consensus been reached signaling the time to "move on" to other research within the scientific community. Consensus means general agreement made by a group. What other agreements have the scientific group published? When a hypothesis has been independently tested and validated by a number of researchers, it becomes a theory. Gravity is a theory. DNA encoding genes and being responsible for inherited traits are theories.Sometimes a theory (lower case "t") is referred to as a Theory (upper case "t'") when no exceptions have been found after a long period of time and testing. This is what is meant by scientific consensus. |
| 2013-05-02 9:27 AM in reply to: #4723548 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change gsmacleod - 2013-05-02 7:24 AM Consensus is an important part of the scientific process and it is why a free and open discussion of scientific processes and results is required in order for science to advance. Throughout the development of many theories, we see the constant refinement of a theory based upon what we "know" based on experimental evidence and as our ability to collect data improves, we often see that theories must be refined in order to match the behaviour of the universe. Shane Do you feel that the scientific process is still free and open on the AGW debate? I know the anti crowd speaks of scientists being influenced by big government because if it's not real then they can't make us pay higher energy taxes and implement things like carbon credits. I've already said that most of my skepticism comes from the side of government taxation and higher energy costs to depress my demand for energy. I do trust science, but scientists are humans and we all know how humans are. I also know there's a lot of potential corruption/influence from the corporate side of the house. I read a really good report last year that was describing how corporate money was corrupting science and that regulations needed to be put in place. I agree with the report because scientists are human, however I also feel that the largest "corporation" in the world, the US Government, cannot be immune from the same corrupting influence on scientists. Corporations want certain science to go their way because it either saves them money or makes them money. The US Government gets to make more money as a result of the planet warming, and the more catastrophic the warming is the more control/revenue they can impose on the people. I know this gets into the political side of the debate a little which we both agree isn't science, but I'm curious to your thoughts on this effect. |
| 2013-05-02 9:59 AM in reply to: #4723801 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change tuwood - 2013-05-02 11:27 AM Do you feel that the scientific process is still free and open on the AGW debate? I know the anti crowd speaks of scientists being influenced by big government because if it's not real then they can't make us pay higher energy taxes and implement things like carbon credits. Yes; one of the things that most scientists hope for is to make a name for themselves with a huge discovery. Often a huge discovery is one that will go against the existing consensus (see the huge stir with the faster than light neutrino story from a couple of years ago). If someone were able to show that the science of AGW is in error, it would be a huge finding for the scientist or team that determined that and would definitely be discussed. I've already said that most of my skepticism comes from the side of government taxation and higher energy costs to depress my demand for energy. I do trust science, but scientists are humans and we all know how humans are.  Everything I've seen says the science is sound and while one may not agree with the policies or the doom and gloom that is used to push the policies, that doesn't mean that climate change isn't occuring. I also know there's a lot of potential corruption/influence from the corporate side of the house. I read a really good report last year that was describing how corporate money was corrupting science and that regulations needed to be put in place. How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense I agree with the report because scientists are human, however I also feel that the largest "corporation" in the world, the US Government, cannot be immune from the same corrupting influence on scientists. Corporations want certain science to go their way because it either saves them money or makes them money. The US Government gets to make more money as a result of the planet warming, and the more catastrophic the warming is the more control/revenue they can impose on the people. I know this gets into the political side of the debate a little which we both agree isn't science, but I'm curious to your thoughts on this effect. While people are often advised to "follow the money," the reality is that in order to conduct research, everyone needs to get money from somewhere. Further, while many of the organizations that encourage us to follow the money, only want us to follow the government's money and not notice that almost every piece of evidence presented that claims AGW is not happening has been done with research grants from industry. While governments have funded much of the research that confirms AGW, it is also worth bearing in mind that governments fund a great deal of research that is conducted in any field so this, in and of itself is not surprising to me. Further, while many governments are now sporting green industry and will state that AGW is occuring, this has not always been the case and many governments would have been very happy to maintain the status quo. That is not to say governments play no role as currently in Canada it appears that is a concerted effort by the ruling party to muzzle scientists. They need to jump through hoops in order to report and discuss their research and the government gets to decide whether or not they get to share their research. We have also seen departments (such as Environment Canada) have their research scientists downsized when findings consistently showed results that were contrary to the governments position (that the earth wasn't warming - they've since allowed for the fact that it may be warming but that's about as progressive as they are willing to be on the issue.) Shane |
| Other Resources | My Cup of Joe » The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change | Rss Feed |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK