3 of 6
3
Examining the pretender’s meme “Don’t trust Scientific Consensus”
Posted: 21 August 2017 03:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4256
Joined  2014-06-20
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 28 July 2017 10:10 AM

The climate science contrarian community has mobilized the full spectrum of emotional appeals all intended to reject science and shut down critical thinking.
From the Alt-right Bannon and his Breitbart absurd fabrications, that the faithful embrace with uncritical passion.
To the voices appearing that present themselves as sober clear headed arbiter of scientific validity.
One of latter’s most misused memes is

“My choice is to choose factual science over consensual science.”

Doesn’t that sound good. 
After all isn’t consensual science something like consensual sex - all in the eyes of the perpetrator - er, I mean participant?
Or is it a red flag warning that we are dealing with a disingenuous deliberate misinformer?  blank stare

What this little contrarian meme leaves out is that scientific consensus is wholly built upon the body of evidence and facts.
It also ignores that the consensus is subordinate to the facts and that the consensus evolves according to the incoming FACTS.

WIKI: “Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.
Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review.

Although for a better introduction to the topic:

“Scientific Consensus: Why Should We Accept It?”
Robert Sanders, September 25, 2016
https://futurism.com/what-is-scientific-consensus/

REACHING A CONSENSUS ON CONSENSUS

A scientific consensus, in general, is what most scientists believe to be true about a certain issue based on their interpretation of all of the evidence that we have at our disposal. In other words, it is the collective answer of scientists to a particular question. ...

Hence, the birth of a scientific consensus isn’t subject to a majoritarian rule. It actually signifies the fact that a great many scientists from different backgrounds have considered the question at hand and have reached similar conclusions.

That doesn’t mean that science is a panacea—it doesn’t mean that science is perfect or always 100% correct. It is important to remember that science is adaption; it’s change. But what it does mean is that we have a pretty good understanding of how things work, and it will take a mammoth amount of evidence to change our current understanding.  ...

... In short, a scientific consensus tells us things that we have already learned, and it lets us know when things have stopped being debated in the sciences.

LETTER • OPEN ACCESS • IOPSELECT
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce
Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Here’s a change for the https://skepticalscience.com detractors to step up with their “facts” (not distracting hot air!) if they want to dispute this paper.

So can anyone explain what the gripe with the EXPERT’S COLLECTIVE UNDERSTANDING, that would be their consensus, is?

Here’s an example: Experts’ Collective Understanding is that the earth is spherical and revolves around the sun. Their understanding is not subject to unsupported claims to the contrary.

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 August 2017 07:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2133
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 21 August 2017 02:02 PM
MikeYohe - 20 August 2017 10:31 PM

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zk7Xfyv6k4

She’s an idiot.

Discuss the science, not the con artist’s line of handwaving bull shit.

Although, I dare you:
Pick any point she makes - and lets examine it.

Also, you ought to check out some of the links that are shared in the comments, for your edification.

Dr. Curry is part of your scientific consensus group on climate change. Now you are telling me that your scientific consensus group is a bunch of idiots and perpetrating a con. It looks like we better start with the creditability of your scientists. What was the vetting of the scientists? Were they all required to work in climate field?
 
Dr. Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee.
   
Dr. Curry is stating that the consensus group has over the last couple of decades become politicalized.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBjFjSZjv6w

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 August 2017 09:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1461
Joined  2016-12-24

A) you have no clue, or more honestly you do not want to know, about what the scientific consensus is or what it actually means.

B) Judith Curry no part of any scientific consensus!  She was once a scientist, but she has aged into a paranoid contrarian hatchet dame -
so don’t use her as any agent of authority.

Why don’t you bring up specifics?

Oh, and she’s the bitch that worked tirelessly to create this politicization,
just like you, doing your little part over here and who knows where else. 
It’s not the scientists.

As evidence; you never actually discuss the science or display any aspect of being interested in learning about how our climate machine operates.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2017 01:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2133
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 21 August 2017 09:04 PM

A) you have no clue, or more honestly you do not want to know, about what the scientific consensus is or what it actually means.

B) Judith Curry no part of any scientific consensus!  She was once a scientist, but she has aged into a paranoid contrarian hatchet dame -
so don’t use her as any agent of authority.

Why don’t you bring up specifics?

Oh, and she’s the bitch that worked tirelessly to create this politicization,
just like you, doing your little part over here and who knows where else. 
It’s not the scientists.

As evidence; you never actually discuss the science or display any aspect of being interested in learning about how our climate machine operates.

Sorry, but you don’t get to make stuff up.
Dr. Judith Curry was part of the scientific consensus on climate change.
As far as never actually discussing science. I ask you to confirm your agreements and disagreements we have on the science so that I can nail you down and have a real discussion on the science. Of course, you will not.
“She was once a scientist”. An unbelievable statement!

Who was the first person to debate that the Milankovitch Cycles had to be included in Climate Change on this site? I believe that was me, some years ago. Who agreed with me, basically nobody. The same with the sun cycles. Now these items are understood to be a part of the climate science. And you say I have no clue. I would have to guess that you are still a couple of years behind me in understanding climate science. I cannot get you to discuss the science of Lags and Jumps. Or get you to step into the real solutions for Climate Change.
 
You still seem to be pushing CO2 heating. Back in 2011 it was posted - “Our measurements indicate the massive amount of energy this thing gives off is able to travel 93 million miles and reach our planet is as little as eight and a half minutes,” said Professor Mitch Kivens, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. “While we can’t see them, we’re fairly certain these infrared rays strike Earth’s surface, become trapped by the atmosphere, and just heat everything up like a great big oven.” We, settled this six years ago. Well, “we” would not be correct. Most people understood this years ago, but you and Doug seem to see this as a political issue and keep spinning the CO2. You guys are proof of what Dr. Curry is saying about the politicization of Climate Change.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2017 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1461
Joined  2016-12-24

Judith doesn’t get to make up shit either.

But, she does it all the time.  That is why she is a totally discredited source. 

I notice you won’t stand behind anything in particular she says.

Plus you still refuse to learn and get the most basic shit right.

MikeYohe - 22 August 2017 01:05 AM

You still seem to be pushing CO2 heating.

There is no stupid CO2 heating!

That isn’t how the physics work you silly duck.  Buy ‘em books and buy ‘em books and all they do is eat the covers.  rolleyes
Oh, and what’s with your irrelevant Milankovitch dog-chasing tail game?  It appears you still refuse to absorb that bit information.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2017 10:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1461
Joined  2016-12-24

This really belongs under its own heading - but for now this will do.

Oklahoma State University Geology Professor Todd Halihan on Earthquakes Rattling The State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5_KhqZ2dic#t=19.737043358

at 2:00 and 3:00 (and beyond) he discusses uncertainty, ...

setting up your question in a manner that makes it impossible to answer appropriately (such as tricks Mike uses)

and more.  Good interview, would like to write more but not tonight

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 August 2017 07:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4256
Joined  2014-06-20
MikeYohe - 10 August 2017 08:30 AM

CC, the above post goes with the fist part of your beginning post. The spam would not let me post reply to your post. Sorry.

When that happens, go back and write something at the bottom of your post, such as “spam line”. When I do that the post always goes through. CFI’s Spam Nazi is easily disarmed. He’s overly sensitive and stupid.

[ Edited: 24 August 2017 11:19 AM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2017 09:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2133
Joined  2013-06-01
LoisL - 23 August 2017 07:43 PM
MikeYohe - 10 August 2017 08:30 AM

CC, the above post goes with the fist part of your beginning post. The spam would not let me post reply to your post. Sorry.

When that happens, go back and write something at the botton of your post, such as “spam line”. When I do that the post always goes through. CFI’s Spam Nazi is easily disarmed. He’s overly sensitive and stupid.

Thanks Lois. There are times I can get passed the Spam program and other times I just must give up. Right now, I give up on about half of my reply postings.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2017 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2133
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 22 August 2017 10:51 PM

This really belongs under its own heading - but for now this will do.

Oklahoma State University Geology Professor Todd Halihan on Earthquakes Rattling The State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5_KhqZ2dic#t=19.737043358

at 2:00 and 3:00 (and beyond) he discusses uncertainty, ...

setting up your question in a manner that makes it impossible to answer appropriately (such as tricks Mike uses)

and more.  Good interview, would like to write more but not tonight

Professor Halihan made this statement. I think it also applies to Climate Change.

The whole problem of dealing with earthquakes is by definition problematic to discuss with the public in a way the is effect on both the scientific and public access level. With risks for everybody involved on economy or scientific reputation levels. Because you got to say the statements correctly because you don’t want to panic people but you also don’t want to be overly complaceive. And it is a very fine line.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2017 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4070
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 22 August 2017 01:05 AM

“She was once a scientist”. An unbelievable statement!

What is so unbelievable about that statement? There isn’t even really a title “scientist” anyway. It’s not like a license that you maintain, it’s an evaluation of what you are doing. You could be a scientist during the week and baseball player on weekends for all I care.

Here, she states that she can no longer navigate the field.

If she contributed to data on climate science, that still means nothing, because scientific consensus stays with the data, not the person. It doesn’t matter who gathered it, it’s only legitimate if it has been reviewed and verified.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2017 11:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4256
Joined  2014-06-20
MikeYohe - 24 August 2017 09:33 AM
LoisL - 23 August 2017 07:43 PM
MikeYohe - 10 August 2017 08:30 AM

CC, the above post goes with the fist part of your beginning post. The spam would not let me post reply to your post. Sorry.

When that happens, go back and write something at the botton of your post, such as “spam line”. When I do that the post always goes through. CFI’s Spam Nazi is easily disarmed. He’s overly sensitive and stupid.

Thanks Lois. There are times I can get passed the Spam program and other times I just must give up. Right now, I give up on about half of my reply postings.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Stick in a whole paragraph of new text at the bottom of the post that’s been rejected. It could be the first paragrapph of the Gettysburg address, for example. My posts are seldom rejected again when I add something at the bottom. It sure beats writing something all over again or trashing it.

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2017 06:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2133
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 24 August 2017 10:53 AM
MikeYohe - 22 August 2017 01:05 AM

“She was once a scientist”. An unbelievable statement!

What is so unbelievable about that statement? There isn’t even really a title “scientist” anyway. It’s not like a license that you maintain, it’s an evaluation of what you are doing. You could be a scientist during the week and baseball player on weekends for all I care.

Here, she states that she can no longer navigate the field.

If she contributed to data on climate science, that still means nothing, because scientific consensus stays with the data, not the person. It doesn’t matter who gathered it, it’s only legitimate if it has been reviewed and verified.

JC did not drop out. She changed her working environment do to the reasons I was stating. She is still working as a scientist in the Climate Change field. By the way, great link.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2017 06:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4070
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 25 August 2017 06:38 AM
Lausten - 24 August 2017 10:53 AM
MikeYohe - 22 August 2017 01:05 AM

“She was once a scientist”. An unbelievable statement!

What is so unbelievable about that statement? There isn’t even really a title “scientist” anyway. It’s not like a license that you maintain, it’s an evaluation of what you are doing. You could be a scientist during the week and baseball player on weekends for all I care.

Here, she states that she can no longer navigate the field.

If she contributed to data on climate science, that still means nothing, because scientific consensus stays with the data, not the person. It doesn’t matter who gathered it, it’s only legitimate if it has been reviewed and verified.

JC did not drop out. She changed her working environment do to the reasons I was stating. She is still working as a scientist in the Climate Change field. By the way, great link.

She calls the scientific community “tribal” and says they “stonewall” review. That doesn’t sound like someone who wants to work with other scientists.  Her response is to start her own blog, so she can publish whatever she wants, review or not, again, unscientific. She wants social media to be recognized as part of the academic system. She is a promoter of uncertainty, even creating the term “Uncertainity Monster”. For these reasons, I don’t consider her a scientist.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2017 09:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1461
Joined  2016-12-24
Lausten - 24 August 2017 10:53 AM
MikeYohe - 22 August 2017 01:05 AM

“She was once a scientist”. An unbelievable statement!

What is so unbelievable about that statement? There isn’t even really a title “scientist” anyway. It’s not like a license that you maintain, it’s an evaluation of what you are doing. You could be a scientist during the week and baseball player on weekends for all I care.

Here, she states that she can no longer navigate the field.

If she contributed to data on climate science, that still means nothing, because scientific consensus stays with the data, not the person. It doesn’t matter who gathered it, it’s only legitimate if it has been reviewed and verified.

And if she lies about the science and misrepresents the science - what can we call here then? 
A fraud?  Yes, that would be it, Judith Curry has turned into a fraud.

One time serious scientists are known to occasional get lost and to get sucked down into the deep end because of personal not science related issues, just look at the ancient fart Dyson and his utterly disconnected comments regarding climate science, which he doesn’t know a damned thing about and never ever studies beyond reading a few contrarian missives.

How do you explain Judith Curry?
Posted by Greg Laden on August 20, 2015
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/08/20/how-do-you-explain-judith-curry/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry
Criticisms from climate scientists
Criticisms of outreach communication
Laundry list

Curry’s contrarian-leaning “public outreach” public communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for a propensity toward “inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the…absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact.”[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15].
...

Willingness to criticize based on second-hand info from contrarian, inexpert sources
...

Offering off-the-cuff, uninformed criticism of mainstream climate science
...

2011: Berkeley Earth Project “BEST” dissension, and widely publicized claims of “pause”
Curry was a member of the partially-Koch-funded Berkeley Earth Project temperature reanalysis project headed by former global warming skeptic Richard Muller, which reanalyzed existing weather station data and found yes, global warming was real. The project FAQ[2] (and a draft paper, which lists Curry among the authors[3]) reported there was no evidence to indicate the rate of global warming had changed in the last decade.

But despite Curry’s having agreed (as evinced by her coauthorship) with this conclusion, London Daily Mail contrarian (and oft-misrepresenting[4], [5], [6]) journalist David Rose portrayed a vigorously-disagreeing Curry saying, “This is ‘hide the decline’ stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.”[24].

Curry backtracked somewhat on her blog, saying “The article spun my comments in ways that I never intended”[24], but didn’t step back from “Our data show the pause”, and “There has been a lag/slowdown/whatever you want to call it in the rate of temperature increase since 1998.”[25] When pressed for the scientific basis for these statements, Curry admitted the time period was too short for a statistically significant difference to emerge. ...

Climate disinformer Judith Curry, “pragmatic ethicist” despicably perpetuates a lie….
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/07/climate-disinformer-judith-curry-and.html

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm

Here’s a windy article by Michael D. Lemonick “Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues”
and was first printed in the Scientific American.

Michael D. Lemonick
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html
He does his damnedest to be balanced and impartial, so much so that he makes no mention of deliberately misrepresenting the science being seen as some free speech right. But it does explain the Judith Curry Creepiness in rather more detail than others have.


Ironically, Mike refuses to understand what even causes current global warming, hell he even have the nerve to say Earth receives infrared radiation from the sun, and go on and on - I find it impossible to believe he’s are actually so oblivious, leaves me with thoughts of another fraudster in action.  One who is totally unwilling to absorb and learn from new information.

There isn’t even really a title “scientist” anyway.

Right and since she has stopped being, thinking or acting like a scientist, there’s no point in pretending that she is some shinning example of what a scientist is supposed to be, as contrarians like you keep doing.  She stands and falls on the validity of her statements and those damn her to the hell of Know-nothings.

Oh and you keep sharing what she “feels” and says, but how about focusing on the actual science questions???

Enunciate your skeptical points, clearly so that they can be responded to constructively - telling me that this bitch hates serious climate scientists and believes uncertainty is more important than all the rock solid evidence on hand, doesn’t say shit.

Oh but yeah, creating confusion is your thing.  Actual constructive learning doesn’t interest you so much - keep your taxes low, that’s what fires your intellect.  Yippy.

If I could do thee ‘ol cartoon teleportation I’d send you straight to Galveston for a close up of what warming can do.

Gulf of Mexico ‘Hot Tub’ Could Fuel Hurricane Season Toward Peak
By Jonathan Belles
Jul 20 2016
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hot-gulf-of-mexico-hurricane-tropical-storm-mid-june

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2017 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1461
Joined  2016-12-24
Lausten - 25 August 2017 06:46 AM
MikeYohe - 25 August 2017 06:38 AM

JC did not drop out. She changed her working environment do to the reasons I was stating. She is still working as a scientist in the Climate Change field. By the way, great link.

She calls the scientific community “tribal” and says they “stonewall” review. That doesn’t sound like someone who wants to work with other scientists.  Her response is to start her own blog, so she can publish whatever she wants, review or not, again, unscientific. She wants social media to be recognized as part of the academic system. She is a promoter of uncertainty, even creating the term “Uncertainity Monster”. For these reasons, I don’t consider her a scientist.

She certainly did drop out of the science and right into the lap of Morano and the GOP science bashing (for fun and profit) crowd.

Mike, dare you to mention one bit of serious science she’s done lately.

Bet you can’t smirk

Blog post and ranting don’t count!

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 6
3