And of Judith Curry;
“With regards to climate science, the biggest concern that I have is the insistence on ‘the facts.’ This came up during my recent ‘debate’ with Kevin Trenberth. I argued that there are very few facts in all this, and that most of what passes for facts in the public debate on climate change is: inference from incomplete, inadequate and ambiguous observations; climate models that have been demonstrated not to be useful for most of the applications that they are used for; and theories and hypotheses that are competing with alternative theories and hypotheses.
I particularly like Dyson’s clarification on facts vs theories:
Facts and theories are born in different ways and are judged by different standards. Facts are supposed to be true or false. They are discovered by observers or experimenters. A scientist who claims to have discovered a fact that turns out to be wrong is judged harshly.
Theories have an entirely different status. Since our understanding is incomplete, theories are provisional. Theories are tools of understanding, and a tool does not need to be precisely true in order to be useful. A scientist who invents a theory that turns out to be wrong is judged leniently. Mistakes are tolerated, so long as the culprit is willing to correct them when nature proves them wrong.
The loose use of ‘the facts’ in the public discussion of climate change (scientists, the media, politicians) is enormously misleading, damaging to science, and misleading to policy deliberations.
I would also like to comment on the ‘good loser’ issue. I wholeheartedly agree with Dyson. In the annals of climate science, how would you characterize Mann’s defense of the hockey stick? Other good or bad losers that you can think of in climate science? The biggest problem is premature declaration of ‘winners’ by consensus to suit political and policy maker objectives.”
Speaking of The Hockey Stick…
The narrative fits my favorite song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Simply facts:
1. Humans will never have the intellect to predict future climate.
2. Pollution is bad news for everybody and that is the real issue. So we better park our cars and get on our bikes or our world will end up like China’s world and I mean this symbolically in all our actions.
3. Corporations only concern is with profits today so we better not rely on them to path our future.
4. Safe nuclear power is the only viable long-term solution so we better start spending the time and money on doing the research to make it work.
5. And lastly, growth is a lazy stupid way to sustain our economy and lifestyle, we better get smarter about relying on future population growth to pay our current bills. Its time to stop trying to make our cities bigger and start making them better,simply grade 3 fruit fly economics is not going to work.
“”3. Corporations only concern is with profits today so we better not rely on them to path our future.””
so russia and china (no corps) led/lead the way to the future??
perhaps you could expand on your vision for them..
and us..
the current greenies want to cull the population
making the earth safe for their selected few
1. Humans will never have the intellect to predict future climate.
Humans can predict anything but the future.
2. Pollution is bad news for everybody and that is the real issue. So we better park our cars and get on our bikes or our world will end up like China’s world and I mean this symbolically in all our actions.
You have one with snow tires and a good heater for use in Canada and other cold places?
3. Corporations only concern is with profits today so we better not rely on them to path our future.
That is what corporations do …. generate profits … what other role could that have … don’t say social justice … that is not what they are for.
4. Safe nuclear power is the only viable long-term solution so we better start spending the time and money on doing the research to make it work.
Agreed!
5. And lastly, growth is a lazy stupid way to sustain our economy and lifestyle, we better get smarter about relying on future population growth to pay our current bills. Its time to stop trying to make our cities bigger and start making them better,simply grade 3 fruit fly economics is not going to work.
Agreed … but there is not much chance of global sanity … too many psychopaths and fools achieve leadership for that.
Judith Curry is fantastic.
And on the same subject, here is an absolutely fantastic column by Conrad Black:
http://spectator.org/articles/58774/gospel-according-mark-steyn
A theory has a lot of evidence to support it. Most “climate science” claims about AGW and climate disruption are only hypothesis, with evidence against rather than in support of their claims.
If only the climate modellers would play minecraft instead…
There is nothing of science about the “Climate Change”debate, any more than there is about the gun control debate. It is purely a propaganda war being waged by political operatives for political purposes. It always has been, it always will be.
This particular propaganda war is being fought using the respect that has formerly been given scientific institutions as a weapon.
Good summary. This situation won’t change, it’s all about social engineering, not truth.
I hope Mark Steyn gives this goof Mann, a face check with his own hockey stick in court.
Next will be the cold fusion guy suing people for not believing him.
I’m not saying corporations are evil, what I’m saying is the propaganda they serve us is for their purpose of profits, and so when x company says y product is good for me and our future I call bullshit. For example, clean coal burning power plants, oil sand development and car manufactures. These business are all about now, and are important for jobs now, but they are not good for our future well being. Ask the people in Detroit or Windsor about the benefit of relying on corporations to provide a rosy future.
I’ve lived in Calgary all my life. This city is stressed to the max with people flooding into this place wanting everything now. They all want a new house with 3 new schools in their neighborhood and a fast commute to work. Our social housing system is full and the new immigrants in it all complain that they need bigger subsidized units to house their 6-7 kids. Our provincial budget is a joke, if Alberta can’t balance it now with all the taxes and royalties they collect what are they going to do when the oil business is done.
Keystone will provide some more jobs and make the rich richer, but long-term, all it does is empty a resource quicker and leave an over populated city like Calgary struggling just like Detroit is struggling now.
We need politicians with vision not corrupt ones in bed with corporations or ones drunk with power like socialist or communists.
Climate change is all about greens trying to push their cause which I think is ultimately going to discredit them. They should stick to the core problems, making sure we regulate people, companies and cities to be as environmentally responsible as we can possibly afford.
An excellent indictment by Black of the American so-called justice system.
“says y product is good for me and our future I call bullshit.”
So what would your solution be to a prosperous society Matt ? A society that needs half the population to support the other half that are certified drones. Inquiring minds want to know.
And so worth the read for lines like this:
“At this point, Steyn took the tompions out of his heavy-gage guns and bombarded the serried ranks of be-robed sacred cows on the American bench.”
I had to look up tompions…actually similar to tampons, but classier.
Bingo!!
The old soviet mentality has found a new method to attempt to subjugate the proletariat. Unfortunately many are buying the utopian illusion.
PeterJ, “Inquiring minds want to know.” I agree. There seems to be a mixed message there.
Matt said: ” So we better park our cars and get on our bikes”
Then: “I’ve lived in Calgary all my life.”
Yeah? So how was bicycling this winter? Fun, yeah?
I stumbled on this the other day over a WUWT…..a definite point to ponder….
IMHO a much more robust theory than that CO2 silliness…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/24/an-alternate-theory-for-the-terrestrial-ice-age-trigger/#more-108060
discuss….
Large corporations are all for lots of regulation. It tends to keep out smaller, more efficient, competition.
It’s to the point of being ridiculous, spending thousands to clean up a few litres of oil while local and provincial gov’t dump thousands of gallons of the stuff on roads every year.
Not to mention the safety game of who can build the largest bureaucracy to document who’s the safest.
The green game is just more of the same.
‘So we better park our cars and get on our bikes’
Everyone’s for a cleaner environment and less pollution, but that’s not realistic. We’ve been driving cars for the better part of a century with little impact on the environment. Forest fires used to rage for weeks on end in places so remote that we didn’t even know they were happening, now we extinguish them. Natural gas and clean electricity has all but replaced burning raw coal and wood. Improved technology has made the internal combustion engine cleaner and more efficient. I remember when the air in cities always had a smokey smell to it. I consider those to be ‘offsets’.
“The loose use of ‘the facts’ in the public discussion of climate change (scientists, the media, politicians) is enormously misleading, damaging to science, and misleading to policy deliberations.”
A PhD in earth science (AGW) just means that they have attended the same 3 week seminar as “Mary Kay” sales reps. One may think that M.Mann has an advanced degree in Mathematics, but NO he doesn’t.., it’s the “Mary Kay” sales modeling.
If this is a summary of the scientific process, I am all
for it. I am withholding judgment on Dyson for the time
being, but I remember Carl Sagan and Bill Nye selling
pseudo scientific crap like nuclear Winter and global
warming horse feces.
If this guy is going to do straight up science, I will
be his biggest fan.