We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, September 11. 2017
Neil DeGrasse Tyson has opened up science to a whole new generation, and has expanded interest in communities which previously hadn't shown much. For that, we're eternally grateful. But there are limits to intelligence, and he, like many others, crosses that limit when he wades into climate science.
Having studied Economics, I compare climate science, as a science, to Economics. The level of predictability, due to the number of unknowns and variables, is very low. You can model all you want, and you can know how different parts of the economy impact to a very large degree, but still be far off. The same is true with climate. The various elements involved in developing climate models are fairly well known, but it's the stuff they don't know that's causing problems. I have yet to see a model that is remotely close to predicting anything. This doesn't make climate science less scientific. Science is about explaining, not predicting. Predicting is a nice benefit in constrained systems.
But Tyson's tweet is lauded as "destroying" a key claim of "deniers" (we aren't deniers, we are SKEPTICS, which is what most good scientists are whenever there is a lack of evidence or an inability to replicate results). Problem is, it destroys nothing. No skeptic ever complains about scientists agreeing. That, in itself, isn't even an issue. The question is why are they agreeing? In fact, Tyson's tweet opens more questions than it answers. If a standard scientific conference is indicative of the amount of disagreement that takes place, then clearly the wide level of agreement on this particular issue is an anomaly and you should wonder why this is taking place? Well, of course, the answer is politics. But Tyson, in crafting his guilt bomb, realizes if he doesn't support the massive Appeal to Authority which is the entire Manmade Climate Change argument, then he loses the game. So he pours it on hot and heavy, because he is the authority!
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Actually, there's a LOT to compare between economics and climate "science". Remember that economics is often called "the dismal science", and climateism is pretty dismal as well.
Well, if you're going down that road, Economics was called the "Dismal Science" because of Sir Thomas Malthus' predictions, which were about doom and gloom for mankind. Climate Science, if you compare them in that way, are VERY similar.
Thank God for the optimists in both sciences. Hayek, Simon and Mises, even Friedman, saved Economics. Keynes was a hack.
In climate, we still have Ridley and Lomborg, as well as a few intelligent others.
"The real measure of a science is its ability to predict." ( Enrico Fermi )
Well not just make all kinds of predictions, but they must come true.
Economics and climate science both fail by this standard.
But economics does not call itself economics science.
"because of Sir Thomas Malthus' predictions"
Not according to Levy and Peart.
Tyson is just your average intellectual race hustler whose ethic extraction is the whole of his resume.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a huge, arrogant, overpowering and near-unbelievable fraud; a Left-leaning, fraudulent, blustering, virtually-always-wrong-though-never-in-any-(self-)doubt fake. He wouldn't know actual, authentic "science" if it ran up and bit him on his over-upholstered ass - which it does, quite regularly and recognizably, if you bother to fact-check him even minimally. The Prog-Tards love his silly ass; actual, for-real mostly-non-political scientistic types either snort and snicker with amusement or cringe with tooth-grating irritation every time he undertakes to pontificate on...just about ANYthing...He's an egomaniacal gas-bag and a know-near-nothing-but-spout-interminable-idiocies waste of good oxygen.
The depths of his ignorance are exceeded only by the utter lack of his actual intelligence in commentary, and the lunatic extent of his illogicality. He makes most fungus appear brilliant by contrast.
That was the most amazing use of words as a put down that I have ever seen! It was like the energizer bunny of put downs, it just keeps on going and going. Thoroughly enjoyed it, good job.
Well thank you!
Didn't realize this was a myth. I'd heard it long ago in class, and seen it repeated many times.
Would never try to take on Fermi, but that's just wrong.
There are plenty of examples where science can't predict (most of quantum physics is probability based).
The last class I took was in a field known as Economic Sciences, so I'd have to beg to differ on that point, too.
I have no problem with science being unable to predict. After all, as my father (a retired surgeon) used to say, even he couldn't predict how various people would react to different injuries, ailments or how well they'd recover from surgery. But I do believe medicine is a science.
Consensus, by definition, is opinion. It is not science, i.e.; fact, even when agreed to by a (large) group of scientists.
It is however scientism, which is actually the ideology so many scientists choose to follow.
You give Tyson too much credit, when did he ever do the things you cite in your first paragraph?
He's always been an affirmative action, leftist tool. Scientist? Not so much.
Bulldog: There are plenty of examples where science can't predict (most of quantum physics is probability based).
Quantum Mechanics is very much about prediction. That a prediction is probabilistic doesn't mean it isn't a prediction.
Bulldog: Keynes was a hack.
Keynesian theory is still a foundation for modern economics.
steve walsh: Consensus, by definition, is opinion.
However, it may represent expert opinion. For instance, if you visit several oncologists, and they all agree you have cancer, then you should probably consider a course of action consistent with the diagnosis.
steve walsh: It is not science, i.e.; fact, even when agreed to by a (large) group of scientists.
No. Science is the process of challenging expert opinion. However, a furious waving of the hands doesn't represent such a challenge.
An appeal to authority is valid when
• The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
• The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
• The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
• There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
• There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
Bulldog: If a standard scientific conference is indicative of the amount of disagreement that takes place, then clearly the wide level of agreement on this particular issue is an anomaly and you should wonder why this is taking place?
Every scientific conference is argumentative, but scientists don't argue about everything. They argue about what is still uncertain. So that the Earth moves is not a contentious issue among astronomers. Instead they argue about other things, such as the curvature of the cosmos.
There is little remaining scientific controversy concerning whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the climate, for which there is a general consensus. The largest uncertainty, the area of continued contention in climate science, is the climate sensitivity, which is estimated at about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.
In other words, Tyson is right. Scientists, including climate scientists, thrive on disagreement. But they don't generally don't argue about things that are well-established, unless there is some new evidence which undermines the consensus. They argue about what is still unknown or uncertain within their field.
I am not a skeptic. I don't care what the climate does as long as there is not the coming ice age in my lifetime/
IN order for an appeal to authority to be valid, the person should actually be an authority in the subject matter at hand. Dr. Degrasse-Tyson is an astrophysicist, IIRC, not a climate researcher. Yes he has experience with fluid mechanics and thermodynamics, but not with how the data being used in Climate research is being generated. I'm sure he understands the Magnus effect better than any member of the New York Yankees, but that doesn't mean he can hit a curve ball.
Give him a paper in astrophysics that purports to measure an effect below the resolution of the data gathering instruments and see if he thinks it passes muster.
He is a prime example of technocratic conceit: the idea the word would be better if only the smart people ran it. The problem is, the not-so-smart people seem to have a real problem with accepting them as a ruling class.
Normally I ignore you. In this case, I think it's worth noting there are many things in this world which are misunderstood, usually to our detriment, and remain a "foundation" for something.
That doesn't mean it is correct.
As for Tyson being "correct" because scientists generally don't argue about things that are well-established, that ignores the fact there is still quite a bit of argument taking place, but the big name scientists like Tyson have cornered the market on peer review and journalism. Assuming, as you do, that there is no longer argument, and (as Tyson assumes) that the 'lack' of argument is 'proof' that knowledge on this topic is complete or well-established is incorrect. And not even in a small way.
At the very least, and this is the primary standpoint of any good skeptic, there is no evidence that IF man-made global climate change is real, that it will cause any harm. That is a massive guess, far outreaching the very big guess that climate change is man-made.
The probabilistic nature of a quantum prediction in indeed a prediction - I never said it wasn't. But it's still not always precise. Just like the example I gave about my father. He can 'predict' how someone will recover after surgery. He'll be right sometimes. Those are the predictions people tend to remember and lean on.
Humans have a remarkable capacity for remembering the predictions that were accurate, and forgetting the 500 others which were not. The fact that Al Gore and his prediction machine are revisiting us and doubling down on his lies from 11 years ago, shows the arrogance of power that cornering the market in journalism provides.
An Astrophysicist is a climate authority? That's like saying a Good Humor man is a cardiac clinician.
Have an opinion - sure. Vocalize on the debate - okay.
Seems like grandstanding and supremacy projection.
Disagreement is not consensus - its debate of the hypothesis. Happens all the time.
The bottom line is, the unknown. We are told that the hypothesis IS AUTHORITY, and the debate is SETTLED. Not exactly scientific process. It seems more and more like $cienctifc proce$$.
Prof. Mann is a classic example - when asked for his datasets, methodology, and his research workings, he declined, saying it needed protected. From whom? It was gathered with public monies that funded the research, thus, should be public. But it hordes it like Methuselah's treasure. How can validation be done, without this, and blindly accepting his presentation? Good faith only goes so far in the real world...
He may or may not have decent credentials, who cares? As a TV personality, he's vapid and superficial. I've never understand his reputation for incisive intelligence. Usually a lot of politicized blather and mugging for the camera, a big "aren't I the smart guy" simpering.
I love to read and watch popularized science for information about areas outside my specialization and my formal education. I have high standards, though, and Tyson doesn't come close to meeting them. He's just a hack, about a "Discovery Channel" or TV morning talk show level.
Bulldog said, I am not a skeptic.
That's because you haven't done enough computer modeling. The so called climate scientists really believe their climate models (computer programs) are actually the climate. I'm an electrical engineer and we engineers use a computer program named SPICE to model electronic circuits. Spice models resistors, inductors, capacitors and transistors as idealized mathematical equations. These equations do not really behave like actual electronic components and we know it. Real components are not these idealized equations, consequently when we model a circuit we don't take the SPICE results as gospel. We know better. Climate scientist really believe their models are gospel. Do you remember the hole in the ozone? Heard anything about it lately? If you remember, Freon was banned 30 years ago based on computer models about the hole in the ozone. Did the hole go away the last 30 years. No it didn't. The hole in the ozone ignored the computer models and continued to do what ever it wanted to do. A hole in the ozone even opened up in the northern hemisphere. That wasn't supposed to happen. Be skeptical of computer models.
Ray, until fairly recently I modeled quite a lot of human political behavior with Structural Equation Models. They're pretty complicated as such things go, but not a patch on some of the Climate Models.
And the variables I had to use are way less precise, mostly, than even crappy temperature data. And even when I had lots of decent data and lots of cases the models were very rarely "well-behaved". And if you were willing to, you could make them sit up and whistle Dixie.
But at least they weren't modeling inherently chaotic processes as the Climate Models all are. Those are wildly Sensitively Dependent on Initial Conditions. Thus they have to be recalibrated every year. And to date we don't really have enough good data to see if there is some sort of repeating pattern.
And don't even get me started on Mann's obvious misuse of Factor analysis in a time series. That doesn't even rise to the level of pathetic.
Bulldog: As for Tyson being "correct" because scientists generally don't argue about things that are well-established, that ignores the fact there is still quite a bit of argument taking place,
There are many issues of contention, but as far as the reality of anthropogenic global warming, most of the arguing is social and political, not scientific.
Bulldog: but the big name scientists like Tyson have cornered the market on peer review and journalism.
[url=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html]Baez Crackpot Index[/ur] 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
Bulldog: At the very least, and this is the primary standpoint of any good skeptic, there is no evidence that IF man-made global climate change is real, that it will cause any harm.
That is certainly worth discussing, but it's best to start with what is known about anthropogenic global warming.
Bulldog: The probabilistic nature of a quantum prediction in indeed a prediction - I never said it wasn't. But it's still not always precise.
Probabilistic predictions can be very precise. If the prediction is that a phenomenon is to be observed 50.000% of the time, then that is a prediction that can be tested to the required degree of precision.
JJM: It is however scientism, which is actually the ideology so many scientists choose to follow.
No. Making decisions based on expert opinion, even while acknowledging that the experts may be wrong is not scientism.
scientism, an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.
The study of climate is clearly an area subject to scientific investigation.
Another guy named Dan: IN order for an appeal to authority to be valid, the person should actually be an authority in the subject matter at hand. Dr. Degrasse-Tyson is an astrophysicist, IIRC, not a climate researcher.
That is correct. Nor does Tyson claim to be an expert in climate science. Rather, he defers to experts in that field, just as he defers to those scientists who predicted the solar eclipse.
Another guy named Dan: Give him a paper in astrophysics that purports to measure an effect below the resolution of the data gathering instruments and see if he thinks it passes muster.
That would be many of them. Scientists are always teasing the data for evidence. One way is by using multiple observations with differing methodologies.
DrTorch: My point is proven.
Huh? Tyson has engaged in scientific research, including work on the Hubble, publishing in the Astronomical Journal, Astrophysical Journal, Astronomy & Astrophysics. That makes him a scientist, in particular, an astrophysicist.
Fred_Zeppelin: We are told that the hypothesis IS AUTHORITY, and the debate is SETTLED.
No. It's the scientific evidence that strongly supports anthropogenic global warming, and the lack of scientific evidence by skeptics that undermines their arguments. There is a huge effort to collect scientific data concerning the Earth's climate, and the more that is collected the stronger the evidence has been of support of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
Fred_Zeppelin: Prof. Mann is a classic example - when asked for his datasets, methodology, and his research workings, he declined, saying it needed protected.
Climate data is almost all publicly available. Methodologies are published with virtually every research paper.