- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Scott Adams on Climate Change
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:16 pm
quote:
There are plenty of examples where the majority of experts were wrong. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong. Let’s dig into that question.
It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:
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.
2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.
One of the things that always fascinated me about jury trials is that attorneys from both sides can sound so convincing even though the evidence points in only one direction. A defendant is either guilty or innocent, but good lawyers can make you see it either way. Climate science is similar. I’ve seen airtight arguments that say climate science is solid and true, and I’ve seen equally credible-looking arguments that say it is bunk. From my non-scientist perspective, I can’t tell the difference. Both sides look convincing to me.
As I have described in this blog before, I’m a trained hypnotist and I have studied the methods of persuasion for years. That gives me a bit of context that is different from the norm. In my experience, and based on my training, it is normal and routine for the “majority of experts” to be completely wrong about important stuff. But in the two-dimensional world where persuasion isn’t much of a thing, it probably looks to most of you that experts are usually right, especially when they are overwhelmingly on the same side and there is a mountain of confirming evidence.
We like to think we arrived at our decisions about climate science by using our common sense and good judgement to evaluate the credibility of experts. Some of you think you have superior sources of information as well. But both sides are wrong. No one is using reason, facts, or common sense to arrive at a decision about climate science. Here’s what you are using to arrive at your decision:
1. Fear
2. Unwarranted trust in experts
3. Pattern recognition
On the question of fear, if you believe that experts are good at predicting future doom, you are probably scared to death by climate change. But in my experience, any danger we humans see coming far in the future we always find a way to fix. We didn’t run out of food because of population growth. We didn’t run out of oil as predicted. We didn’t have a problem with the Year 2000 bug, and so on. I refer to this phenomenon as the Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters. When we see a disaster coming – as we do with climate science – we have an unbroken track record of avoiding doom. In the case of climate change danger, there are a number of technologies under development that can directly scrub the atmosphere if needed.
On the question of trusting experts, my frame of reference is the field of influence and persuasion. From my point of view – and given the examples of mass delusion that I have personally witnessed (including Trump’s election), I see experts as far less credible than most people assume.
And when it comes to pattern recognition, I see the climate science skeptics within the scientific community as being similar to Shy Trump Supporters. The fact that a majority of scientists agree with climate science either means the evidence is one-sided or the social/economic pressures are high. And as we can plainly see, the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist.
While it is true that a scientist can become famous and make a big difference by bucking conventional wisdom and proving a new theory, anything short of total certainty would make that a suicide mission. And climate science doesn’t provide the option of total certainty.
To put it another way, it would be easy for a physicist to buck the majority by showing that her math worked. Math is math. But if your science depends on human judgement to decide which measurements to include and which ones to “tune,” you don’t have that option. Being a rebel theoretical physicist is relatively easy if your numbers add up. But being a rebel climate scientist is just plain stupid. So don’t expect to see many of the latter. Scientists can often be wrong, but rarely are they stupid.
To strengthen my point today, and in celebration of my reopening of the blog commenting section, please provide your links to pro and con arguments about climate science. This might be the only place in the world you will see links to both sided. If you want to be amazed, see how persuasive BOTH sides of this debate are.
As I said above, I accept the consensus of climate science experts when they say that climate science is real and accurate. But I do that to protect my reputation and my income. I have no way to evaluate the work of scientists.
If you ask me how scared I am of climate changes ruining the planet, I have to say it is near the bottom of my worries. If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed. We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers. And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts.
LINK
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:22 pm to GumboPot
Climate Change, formerly known as global warming before the world started getting cold as frick, is nothing but a play to strengthen the role of government in the Democratic Party. They'll control healthcare through their goal of single-payer, they'll tax carbon and numerous of other things, and they'll claim they can control the fricking weather.
It's all an objective to make themselves even more controlling and to take away your freedoms, just as Clinton openly stated she wanted the second amendment gone and wants to able to decided who can get a knee surgery or not.
We all know that the all knowing and powerful government has powers beyond our mortal capabilities.
It's all an objective to make themselves even more controlling and to take away your freedoms, just as Clinton openly stated she wanted the second amendment gone and wants to able to decided who can get a knee surgery or not.
We all know that the all knowing and powerful government has powers beyond our mortal capabilities.
This post was edited on 12/5/16 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:24 pm to GumboPot
I try to tell people about how evil republicans are killing Mother Earth and causing climate change and all I get is that fluoride stare
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:26 pm to GumboPot
Climate has been changing since the worlds been turning. Only way to actually change the climate is to keep it from changing
Humanity's influence on the rate is up for debate I guess. Who knows... If cavemen were smart enough to implement carbon credits on their cave fires maybe we'd still have the Beiring land bridge
Humanity's influence on the rate is up for debate I guess. Who knows... If cavemen were smart enough to implement carbon credits on their cave fires maybe we'd still have the Beiring land bridge
This post was edited on 12/5/16 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:29 pm to GumboPot
I just wanted one of our resident AGW "Scientists" to explain to me how the planet getting warmer, could make it colder, THAT'S ALL THE frick I WANT TO KNOW.
Not one of them can do it, and so, from this point on, I will maintain my stance, which is:
Man made global warming/climate change is 100% complete and utter bullshite.
Not one of them can do it, and so, from this point on, I will maintain my stance, which is:
Man made global warming/climate change is 100% complete and utter bullshite.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:31 pm to Deuces
quote:
Climate Change, formerly known as global warming
Formerly known as Global Cooling
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:32 pm to Vols&Shaft83
Modeling is not science
Models that can't even predict what has already happened aren't good models
Models that can't even predict what has already happened aren't good models
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:33 pm to Deuces
Climate change is a scam to brainwash Americans into wanting government to control every aspect of life.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:33 pm to Deuces
Climate change wouldn't be such a big deal if it didn't involves so much money.
1. Climate scientists see university grants.
2. Governments see a way to tax carbon based energy (which is most of all energy) and redistrubute those tax dollars to a growing voter base.
3. Wall Street wants to play broker between the federal government and carbon emitting corporations buying and selling carbon credits.
Those are three very big and powerful institutions that stand to make a lot of money and gain a lot more power over the people if only those said people would fall in line and put people in charge to carry out their money making scheme.
1. Climate scientists see university grants.
2. Governments see a way to tax carbon based energy (which is most of all energy) and redistrubute those tax dollars to a growing voter base.
3. Wall Street wants to play broker between the federal government and carbon emitting corporations buying and selling carbon credits.
Those are three very big and powerful institutions that stand to make a lot of money and gain a lot more power over the people if only those said people would fall in line and put people in charge to carry out their money making scheme.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:34 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I’m a trained hypnotist
maga
Posted on 12/5/16 at 3:42 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
Modeling is not science
Models that can't even predict what has already happened aren't good models
Modeling in of it self is not science however modeling can be used as a tool in science. F=ma is a model. It's a model that has been proven and repeated over and over again as long as the experiment takes place in a Newtonian world (not a quantum world). Specifically where climate scientists fail in the scientific method using climate models is answering the "Procedure Working?" question properly. That's where scientists are under a lot of pressure to answer "yes" when they should be answering "no" or "yes" with a lot of caveats.
The process is further corrupted when the "Analyze Data and Draw Conclusions" step is not completed with a high level of integrity.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 4:07 pm to Deuces
quote:
Climate Change, formerly known as global warming before the world started getting cold as frick
You mean, before the Bush administration changed the terms...
"It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation…“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”…While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge".
- Source: Republican Political Consultant Frank Luntz, 2003
Many media outlets use the terms interchangeably, and both terms have become politicized. In 2002, Republican strategist Frank Luntz suggested that the George W. Bush administration use the words "climate change" rather than "global warming," because climate change seemed less emotional, and more controllable. Now, however, conservatives tend to use the words "global warming" more, while liberals prefer "climate change," according to a 2011 analysis published in the journal Public Opinion Quarterly. LINK
The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.
The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation. LINK
Frank I. Luntz (born February 23, 1962) is an American political consultant,[2] pollster, and "public opinion guru"[3] best known for developing talking points and other messaging for various Republican causes. His work has included assistance with messaging for Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, promotion of the terms death tax instead of estate tax and climate change instead of global warming, and public relations support for pro-Israel policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. LINK
Posted on 12/5/16 at 4:13 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
What's the point of your post? To show that people can come to believe in something through persuasion if the messaging and issue is branded properly (not necessarily based on science)?
Posted on 12/5/16 at 4:13 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
How does the planet getting warmer, make it colder? THAT'S ALL THE frick I WANT TO KNOW
Posted on 12/5/16 at 4:17 pm to GumboPot
quote:
What's the point of your post?
Just read the very first two lines:
quote:quote:
Climate Change, formerly known as global warming before the world started getting cold as frick
You mean, before the Bush administration changed the terms
The term "global warming" was changed to "climate change" during the Bush administration, as part of a concerted strategy - not because "the world started getting cold as frick".
Posted on 12/5/16 at 4:31 pm to biggsc
All the oil in the Middle East is in the desert. This land used to be lush and teaming with all kinds of plant and animal life. That's where the oil came from. But the climate changed severely. With no human input. I am a skeptic on global warming.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 4:42 pm to zeebo
quote:
All the oil in the Middle East is in the desert. This land used to be lush and teaming with all kinds of plant and animal life. That's where the oil came from. But the climate changed severely. With no human input. I am a skeptic on global warming.
Just because things can change without human input, doesn't mean that they can't change due to human input.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 4:55 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
The tipping point for me was when you could no longer be skeptical of the science of AGW. What is scientific method but skepticism.
Posted on 12/5/16 at 5:04 pm to goatmilker
quote:
The tipping point for me was when you could no longer be skeptical of the science of AGW. What is scientific method but skepticism
Agreed, but it feels like it's gone too far the other way now. Try making a case for it, and the monkeys all just start slinging shite.
The damn topic has become so politicized, it's virtually impossible for the casual observer to draw any conclusions.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News