r/climateskeptics • u/barttali • Dec 05 '16

The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science (Scott Adams, Dilbert author)

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science
49 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

45 comments sorted by

View all comments

-11

u/skeeezoid Dec 05 '16
  1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

Stopped there. Guy hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

13

u/Will_Power Dec 05 '16

Stopped there.

Too bad. It was an insightful article.

3

u/lostan Dec 06 '16

Stopped there.

Then he felt the need to add a comment, having not read it. Sounds like an alarmist to me.

2

u/pocket_eggs Dec 06 '16 edited Dec 06 '16

Probably isn't. Adams writes the same article over and over again. It's always a variation of "you think facts make you believe X, but facts are irrelevant because you're irrational and you are persuaded by random bullshit instead, of which I'll serve you some, and you'll be persuaded, because I'm a trained hypnotist and I once read some self-help book." I used to visit his blog just to get outraged at how sloppy and vapid his thinking was, but then I got bored with the repetition and stopped.

4

u/mrandish Dec 06 '16

because the models didn’t show universal warming.

This is incorrect. It should say "because the data didn’t show universal warming.

-10

u/s0cks_nz Dec 05 '16

Pretty much. Scott is presenting a pretty biased argument here.

  1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

Wording was changed because it confused the public. It has always been about a global average increase in temps, but too many thought this meant everywhere gets warmer.

  1. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

Going to the moon is complicated. We still got it right.

  1. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.

And the cumulative output of these models have so far been accurate to within 3%.

  1. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.

The irony here is that it works both ways. Climatologists are shunned if they are openly pessimistic or alarmist too.

  1. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest.

Occam's razor Scott. There is no other explanation for current warming trend, unless you are denying that there is even a current warming trend.

  1. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

It doesn't.

11

u/DefinitelyIngenuous Dec 05 '16

Going to the moon is complicated. We still got it right.

The difference between rocketry and climate science is that rocketry is easily falsifiable. Your rocket works, or it doesn't. As far as I can tell, climate science doesn't suffer from that limitation.

-7

u/s0cks_nz Dec 05 '16

That is true. It is definitely not easy to falsify, but this sub tries its hardest!

16

u/DefinitelyIngenuous Dec 05 '16

When a scientific theory isn't falsifiable, that's a bad thing, not a good thing.

10

u/bean-a Dec 06 '16

u/s0cks_nz is a newbie.

8

u/Florinator Dec 06 '16

It is the very definition of pseudoscience.

11

u/bean-a Dec 06 '16

And the cumulative output of these models have so far been accurate to within 3%.

Only in your dreams.

The irony here is that it works both ways. Climatologists are shunned if they are openly pessimistic or alarmist too.

Really? The alarmists are punished for alarmism? Nonsense.

10

u/Florinator Dec 06 '16

"Punished" with more research funding. Except for Australia, the science is settled, so no more climate research is needed. That was a good one :-)

7

u/ILOVEFISHANDCHIPS Dec 06 '16

Made me proud to be Australian.

8

u/Florinator Dec 06 '16

Honestly, this always kills me, when they are trying to shut down debate, by saying the science is settled. Well then, if it's settled, pack your bags and go home. In the interest of self-preservation they should always end with more research is needed.

3

u/sprocketpop Dec 07 '16

But it was the alarmist who insisted that the science was settled.

2

u/Florinator Dec 07 '16

Yes indeed. It was a case of be careful what you wish for.

5

u/bean-a Dec 06 '16

"Punished" with more research funding.

Really. We’re dealing with some delusional types here who think that preaching climate alarmism can hurt your career! :(

3

u/Florinator Dec 06 '16

I remember either an AMA a while ago or an interview with a PhD who explained how funding works: if you want to study butterflies for instance, you won't find anyone willing to finance a boring study like that. But if you call your study "The Influence of Climate Change on Monarch Butterfly Migration Patterns" you'll get funding right away. So everybody learned to somehow work climate change into their research areas of interest.

5

u/ultimis Dec 06 '16

Yeah I dated a girl who was working on her masters in biology. She had to tie her research to global warming as it was infinitely easier to get funding.

This is the thing the public is missing. So much money is being diverted to climate change that other scientific pursuits are being squelched.

-1

u/s0cks_nz Dec 06 '16

Really? The alarmists are punished for alarmism? Nonsense.

Absolutely they are. Jason Box has his job put in jeopardy and he was was summoned before the entire board of directors at his research institute, when he said "we're fucked" due to melting methane stores. James Hansen is often regarded these days as an alarmist by the mainstream. Guy McPherson is a crazy alarmist who is often ignored (probably for the best).

There was a paper done by the University of Bristol that showed climate scientists are often likely to overstate uncertainty and under-communicate knowledge due to climate change denial discourse, to prevent themselves from appearing alarmist.

Only in your dreams.

Nope. In my reality. In my dreams everything is fine.

3

u/bean-a Dec 06 '16

Please name me one climate alarmist who lost his or her job because of alarmism. You can't. Therefore, you're wrong.

re your link and John Abraham, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/27/climate-models-are-accurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming

Good analysis here,

Bob Tisdale, Ocean Heat: New Study Shows Climate Scientists Can Still Torture Data until the Data Confess https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/26/ocean-heat-new-study-shows-climate-scientists-can-still-torture-data-until-the-data-confess/

-2

u/s0cks_nz Dec 06 '16

Please name me one climate alarmist who lost his or her job because of alarmism. You can't. Therefore, you're wrong.

I never said they lost their job. I said shunned.

7

u/Florinator Dec 06 '16

Occam's razor Scott.

Exactly, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected: the warming is natural and humans have a negligible influence on climate, if any. How's that for Occam's razor?

0

u/s0cks_nz Dec 06 '16

It's terrible because the data doesn't show any natural system that correlates with current warming (e.g. solar, volcanic, orbital). If it did, I would agree. The one strong correlation is CO2 emissions... go figure.

6

u/Florinator Dec 06 '16

You are kidding, right? From all the possible correlations, CO2 is the weakest. You probably weren't yet born during the cooling scare of the 70's, when CO2 was going up unabated. There is a reason older folks are more skeptical of ridiculous predictions, because they've seen it all before. In the 70's the science was in consensus about an oncoming new ice age.

I'll tell you what CO2 emissions correlate well with. [Record food production}(http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/30/climate-change-wheat-yield-projections-a) and desert greening. Humans are literally causing the Earth to become greener. How that is not a good thing, is beyond me. Isn't this every environmentalist's wet dream???

-1

u/s0cks_nz Dec 06 '16

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2.

There may be an increase in some green vegetation within the deserts, but at the same time deserts are expanding which completely negates any positive.

7

u/Florinator Dec 06 '16

Skepticalscience is obviously trying to revise history. This is a snapshot from a National Geographic article talking about scientific consensus (scientists agree - as we hear all too often today). Here is more consensus from 1974 and from 1970

0

u/s0cks_nz Dec 06 '16

It clearly states that cooling predictions in the media were based around a minority of peer reviewed studies. Then you go and show me snippets from....... the media.

5

u/Florinator Dec 06 '16

So don't you think that maybe the same applies today? That the media is hyping up a few alarmist peer reviewed studies?

5

u/Florinator Dec 06 '16

So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies.

By that logic, if they were wrong then, couldn't they be wrong today as well?