How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Tonington]

How were they not mainstream findings?

Well first off, they were not mainstream findings because they were not findings reproduced broadly in the field. If you want to use a blanket statement like, "Scientists find X', well then it helps if it's more than one scientist who has come to the same conclusion.

Second, and this is an afterthought after I thought I was finished this entire response, but the language used matters. Something will happen in a discrete period of time? That's not the sort of language used by scientists. That is the sort of language used in the media.

You want to see what a mainstream conclusion is? Don't rely on what is in popular print, check out what scientific organizations with broad membership in the community have to say. It's going to be a lot more conservative.

They were broadcast globally as the pitfalls of the AGW model. The dire predictions or our not so glorious future.

Claiming that 9/11 was a false flag operation by the US government, that the planes were holograms, etc. etc. those claims were broadcast all around the world and still is to this day. It's not a mainstream finding though. It doesn't have the broad support of evidence.

One model that produces results more extreme than the rest of the modelers in the field? That's not very convincing, but it sure does fit the model for popular media.

Neat, so in the mean time, what are you guys doing about it?

Investigating. Trying to replicate the results of others. Presenting results.

To you, a scientist, it's bullsh*t.

You know, there's lots of different specializations one can have. I don't know much about welding, but if someone tried to claim that one welder who had different and demonstrably wrong ideas about how something works, I wouldn't lump that welder in with all other welders.

It's inconvenient to the pushers.

Sure, I think this and the previous quote above demonstrates the difference in this conversation. I read your comment about inconvenience relating to 'Actual Climate Change pronouncements by scientists' as being inconvenient to scientists publishing in that arena. Changing it to pushers like you mention here, that changes the discussion for me. Yes, it is inconvenient for the pushers.

Though it's not clear to me that others make such a distinction.

 

[petros]

Are geophysicist done creating a working ocean model yet?

 

[waldo]

How about the last 18 years of warming?

you don't know what you're talking about. Member 'Tonington' put together an informative post a short-while back that spoke to actual surface-temperature warming... which, of course, was conveniently ignored by you (and your denier brethren). Notwithstanding, of course, your purposeful isolation on surface temperature (avoiding ocean warming) and... your purposeful cherry-pick starting date to align with the 97/08 significantly anomalous ENSO event.

 

[Zipperfish]

you failed on sunspots/solar irradiance... can we have more of another of your pet-plays.... geothermal, right? :mrgreen:

Magnets!

 

[petros]

CO2.

Magnetosphere. Since you don't know what it is, you might want to look it up.

 

[CDNBear]

Well first off, they were not mainstream findings because they were not findings reproduced broadly in the field.

That's not how it was sold to the general population.

If you want to use a blanket statement like, "Scientists find X', well then it helps if it's more than one scientist who has come to the same conclusion.

I'm not in disagreement.

Second, and this is an afterthought after I thought I was finished this entire response, but the language used matters. Something will happen in a discrete period of time? That's not the sort of language used by scientists. That is the sort of language used in the media.

Again, no disagreement. But you do realize the unwashed masses don't huddle around the water cooler at the local atom mill, or university, right?

You want to see what a mainstream conclusion is? Don't rely on what is in popular print, check out what scientific organizations with broad membership in the community have to say. It's going to be a lot more conservative.

Of course, I don't buy the MSM line on small issues.

But again, it is a significant source of information, right or wrong, that drives policy change. You can not deny that.

Claiming that 9/11 was a false flag operation by the US government, that the planes were holograms, etc. etc. those claims were broadcast all around the world and still is to this day. It's not a mainstream finding though. It doesn't have the broad support of evidence.

An Inconvenient Truth was played in schools.

Claims were bolstered with "Study finds", "Scientists say", etc.

So how does the layman differentiate between hyperbole and real science?

One model that produces results more extreme than the rest of the modelers in the field? That's not very convincing, but it sure does fit the model for popular media.

And who reaches more homes than alternative media, or people like yourself?

Investigating. Trying to replicate the results of others. Presenting results.

That sounds wise. Are you making sweeping changes to policies, causing market swings and hitting the pocket books of end users yet?

You know, there's lots of different specializations one can have. I don't know much about welding, but if someone tried to claim that one welder who had different and demonstrably wrong ideas about how something works, I wouldn't lump that welder in with all other welders.

Neither would I. But we don't look to welders for intel that can change the way we live and provide for our families. And as you can tell, I'm not lumping all scientists either.

Sure, I think this and the previous quote above demonstrates the difference in this conversation. I read your comment about inconvenience relating to 'Actual Climate Change pronouncements by scientists' as being inconvenient to scientists publishing in that arena. Changing it to pushers like you mention here, that changes the discussion for me. Yes, it is inconvenient for the pushers.

And the end users. The pushers, the nutters the AGW truthers are the ones that get the media ear. The ones that rattle cages and stir public involvement.

Which in turn leads to policy changes, drastic measures, that have long reaching affects on real people. While taking focus off the broader picture.

Though it's not clear to me that others make such a distinction.

In their defence, it's not always clear or easy to separate pusher from scientist.

 

[Locutus]

heh...'pushers'...pretty spot-on descriptor there buddy.

 

[CDNBear]

heh...'pushers'...pretty spot-on descriptor there buddy.

Thanks, seemed fitting.

 

[JLM]

All this talk about global warming!!! Back when I was a kid the summers were twice as hot as they are now and the winters were twice as cold and that's just the way it was and that's official!

 

[waldo]

Back when I was a kid the summers were twice as hot as they are now and the winters were twice as cold and that's just the way it was and that's official!

please... general location and related years? Thanks in advance.

 

[petros]

How old are you? 20?

 

[CDNBear]

How old are you? 2?

fify

 

[JLM]

please... general location and related years? Thanks in advance.

Duncan.......1948- 1957!

 

[taxslave]

We always spelt it DRUNKEN

Expect a nice graph proving you are wrong.

 

[Tonington]

That's not how it was sold to the general population.

Really? I'm not so sure about that. Let's just take a look at that famous modeling result that projected in 2013 an ice-free Arctic. Here's what the BBC article from 2007 said:

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

Real world

Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.

Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.​

To me, that clearly is placing these results in context. Nobody else was projecting the disappearance of summer ice in the Arctic that early. Maslowski was an outlier.

Again, no disagreement. But you do realize the unwashed masses don't huddle around the water cooler at the local atom mill, or university, right?

Of course.

But again, it is a significant source of information, right or wrong, that drives policy change. You can not deny that.

I'm definitely not denying that. In fact I'm lamenting it. Most writers these days don't have the background they used to have. I would expect someone writing about science to have a good grasp of it's language and conventions. Just like I would expect a food critic to have some knowledge of the food industry.

An Inconvenient Truth was played in schools.

Claims were bolstered with "Study finds", "Scientists say", etc.

So how does the layman differentiate between hyperbole and real science?

Well that's the million dollar question! Having better access to the scientists doesn't guarantee it, having better education doesn't guarantee it. There's been a lot of ink spilled on that question amongst scientists from all sorts of disciplines.As a group scientists tend to be great communicators when talking to their peers. Not so many are great at communicating with the public. Guys like Sagan, and now de Grasse Tyson are very effective, but they don't necessarily have the broad coverage of a newspaper headline.

And who reaches more homes than alternative media, or people like yourself?

That sounds wise. Are you making sweeping changes to policies, causing market swings and hitting the pocket books of end users yet?

Sweeping changes? We are making changes, not sure I would call them sweeping. Though I'm not sure what you would call a sweeping policy change either. Do you have a Canadian example you can point to?

Neither would I. But we don't look to welders for intel that can change the way we live and provide for our families.

I like safe buildings. I'm sure welders have an opinion on what makes structures safe. Farmers have an opinion on food safety. There's all sorts of people with different tool kits that make differences in our lives. That's besides the point though, as the point was, you don't need to be a scientist to know that lumping groups of people together without knowing their opinions isn't logical. Which is what the graphic was doing, and is no different than your objection to Al Gore's film and the use of 'scientists say'.

The pushers, the nutters the AGW truthers are the ones that get the media ear.

Yes, that's how the media works. Paint it as he said she said, just reporting two sides, no context about where the preponderance of findings are. That's Bull $hit. It's not right, just how it is.

So then my question is, is it valid to use these methods when we know they're doing more harm then good, when we know they're not good practice? I'm now talking more about the pushers of ideas, and the skeptics in forums like this. There's lots of smart people here. Maybe some are more lazy though.

In their defence, it's not always clear or easy to separate pusher from scientist.

Sure it is, and here's a handy motto I like to use. RTFR. Read the ƒucking report. What does it actually say? To do otherwise, well that's similar to calling tech support before you read the ƒucking manual.

If you care enough or are interested enough about a subject to question things you read, then question them. Read the report. Go to the source.

 

[waldo]

And as you can tell, I'm not lumping all scientists either.

of course you are! As an immediate and timely example, simply look no further than that same graphic from a short while back; the one you suddenly want to distance yourself from. The 70's Global Cooling meme... the Arctic Ice Free meme, etc.. Neither of those were/are positions/statements that reflect upon mainstream science, on scientists at large; yet, they're forever trotted as as some measure of collective derison applied to all scientists supportive of the AGW theory.

The pushers, the nutters the AGW truthers are the ones theat get the media ear. The ones that rattle cages and stir public involvement.

I already spoke to the failings of mainstream media in the earlier post you chose to label as "Gish Gallop". Typically, media runs what the loudest barkers are championing... there has also been a history of purposeful "false-balance" portrayed to project a sense of "fairness" in coverage... regardless of how little scientific foundation some crap actually has. And then there's the Media types like Rupert Murdoch purposely running a denier slant through his media reach.

 

[CDNBear]

Really? I'm not so sure about that. Let's just take a look at that famous modeling result that projected in 2013 an ice-free Arctic. Here's what the BBC article from 2007 said:

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

Real world

Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.

Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.​

To me, that clearly is placing these results in context. Nobody else was projecting the disappearance of summer ice in the Arctic that early. Maslowski was an outlier.

That's one example, dude.

I can literally google a threads worth of extreme examples of hyperbole that made the press.

I'm definitely not denying that. In fact I'm lamenting it. Most writers these days don't have the background they used to have. I would expect someone writing about science to have a good grasp of it's language and conventions. Just like I would expect a food critic to have some knowledge of the food industry.

But of course, so I lament along with you.

Well that's the million dollar question! Having better access to the scientists doesn't guarantee it, having better education doesn't guarantee it. There's been a lot of ink spilled on that question amongst scientists from all sorts of disciplines.As a group scientists tend to be great communicators when talking to their peers. Not so many are great at communicating with the public. Guys like Sagan, and now de Grasse Tyson are very effective, but they don't necessarily have the broad coverage of a newspaper headline.

That's a shame. Thankfully though, people like myself have someone like you to turn to for honest commentary on the subject.

Sweeping changes? We are making changes, not sure I would call them sweeping. Though I'm not sure what you would call a sweeping policy change either. Do you have a Canadian example you can point to?

Ontario hydro's green tax.

I like safe buildings. I'm sure welders have an opinion on what makes structures safe.

I like them to, which is why I follow building codes. Metallurgists, structural engineers dictate them.

That's besides the point though, as the point was, you don't need to be a scientist to know that lumping groups of people together without knowing their opinions isn't logical. Which is what the graphic was doing, and is no different than your objection to Al Gore's film and the use of 'scientists say'.

LOL, you completely missed my point. That being, the message in the media is what it is. I'm not the one doing the lumping, it just works out that way.

Yes, that's how the media works. Paint it as he said she said, just reporting two sides, no context about where the preponderance of findings are. That's Bull $hit. It's not right, just how it is.

So how does the average Joe make heads or tails of it.

So then my question is, is it valid to use these methods when we know they're doing more harm then good, when we know they're not good practice? I'm now talking more about the pushers of ideas, and the skeptics in forums like this. There's lots of smart people here. Maybe some are more lazy though.

Maybe, or maybe some people are tired of trolls like waldo.

Sure it is, and here's a handy motto I like to use. RTFR. Read the ƒucking report. What does it actually say? To do otherwise, well that's similar to calling tech support before you read the ƒucking manual.

Makes sense, especially if we're talking about something people understand. I understand metal penetration, adhesion, the properties of certain metals, and how they react to heat. I understand the manuals for my welders. Just like the mechanic down the street understands all the intricacies of the modern automobile.

That doesn't mean we are capable of disseminating the science and determining what is real, and what is not.

If you care enough or are interested enough about a subject to question things you read, then question them. Read the report. Go to the source.

See above. Thankfully I had someone like you to ask to explain it to me.

of course you are! As an immediate and timely example, simply look no further than that same graphic from a short while back; the one you suddenly want to distance yourself from. The 70's Global Cooling meme... the Arctic Ice Free meme, etc.. Neither of those were/are positions/statements that reflect upon mainstream science, on scientists at large; yet, they're forever trotted as as some measure of collective derison applied to all scientists supportive of the AGW theory.

I already spoke to the failings of mainstream media in the earlier post you chose to label as "Gish Gallop". Typically, media runs what the loudest barkers are championing... there has also been a history of purposeful "false-balance" portrayed to project a sense of "fairness" in coverage... regardless of how little scientific foundation some crap actually has. And then there's the Media types like Rupert Murdoch purposely running a denier slant through his media reach.

Liar.

 

[Zipperfish]

I don't get the focus on 2013. Well, I do. Obviously it was spectacularly wrong. But, it's clear that arctic sea ice is disappearing extremely quickly. Which is pretty strong evidence of warming in that area, at least.

 

[waldo]

Liar.

no - I"m not dishonest and I didn't lie. Answer the questions you refuse to answer... put an end to your silly-buggar routine. Why are you so hesitant to answer a few questions that will simply identify your personal position on warming and the principal causal tie that you understand has/is causing warming? Why foster and perpetuate your own lying dishonesty in this regard? You must have a position, if only to suggest you don't hold a position..... answer something, answer anything to identify your position. C'mon, put an end to your charade! Do it know... sure you can!

 

[waldo]

I don't get the focus on 2013. Well, I do. Obviously it was spectacularly wrong. But, it's clear that arctic sea ice is disappearing extremely quickly. Which is pretty strong evidence of warming in that area, at least.

the running sham being played out here is for the 'usual suspects' to ignore/deny the long-term Arctic sea-ice melting trends for both extent and volume... ignore/deny those long-term trends while fixating on predictions made by a few scientists. And, of course, while doing that, adamantly state "I'm/we're not grouping all scientists together"!