Guest Post by Scott Adams
Today I declare the climate science “debate” to be mostly an illusion.
You think you live in a world in which there are climate science skeptics on one side of the debate, and climate scientists, plus their believers, on the other side. And you think they are talking about the same thing.
That isn’t what’s happening. It’s mostly an illusion.
I mean this literally. You perceive a debate, but that is mostly a shared hallucination.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Most of you think there are two competing opinions on climate science and the two camps are arguing about the scientific details. There is a some of that happening. But for the most part, the two sides are literally imagining they are debating each other. They are actually talking about related but different things.
As a perfect example, I give you this fresh tweet history from Rex Tillerson and Chelsea Clinton.
If it is not immediately obvious to you that Chelsea and Rex are on different topics – and not in disagreement over one topic – you are experiencing an illusion. I’ll give you a minute to see if you can work your way out of it on your own. Look at the two tweets and see why they are not the same topic.
Okay, that’s enough time. Back to me.
Rex is talking about climate models that predict the future. Chelsea is talking about the scientific method. Those two things are not the same topic. Scientists would not claim that their models are “science.” They are simply tools that scientists built. Rex is talking about tools. Chelsea is talking about the scientific method. You can’t reach agreement if you aren’t even on the same topic.
Chelsea’s tweet exchange is representative of the debate illusion around the country. It goes like this:
Believer: Climate scientists are correct because the scientific method is reliable over time, thanks to peer review. The experts are overwhelmingly on the same side.
Skeptic: The prediction models are not credible because prediction models with that much complexity are rarely correct.
Believer: You troglodyte! You know nothing of science! The scientific method is credible!
See what happened? The believer was discussing science and the skeptic was NOT discussing science. These are different conversations. The prediction models are designed by scientists, but they are not “science” per se, any more than a microscope is “science.” Both are just tools that scientists use.
If you are a climate skeptic, and you want to make your case in the strongest possible way, start by agreeing with all of the “science” of climate science. Make sure you specify that your skepticism is outside the scientific realm, and limited to the prediction models that are not science.
That will explode some heads. (I’ve tested this.)
I should pause here to tell any new readers of this blog that I don’t know the truth about climate science, and I don’t have any way of knowing whether the models are accurate or not. My interest in this debate is to get both sides out of their illusions. The science is not the models, and the models are not science. You can trust the science and still question the prediction models without being a troglodyte.
For the sake of completeness, some skeptics also point to alternative hypotheses for warming, including orbital variations and solar flares. That is a genuine case of science versus science. And at the moment, the scientific community has a strong preference for the Co2 explanation.
Now that I’ve outlined the illusion, watch how often you see it play out. It’s the sort of thing you don’t notice until you are first alerted to it. Now you’ll start to notice how often the Chelseas of the world conflate the science of climate change with the prediction models as if they have similar credibility.
On a related topic, do you know why climate scientists have not succeeded in selling their views to the climate skeptics? Part of the problem is that their communication on this topic ignores everything science has learned about how to change people’s minds. The climate scientists should talk to some cognitive scientists.
To put this in simpler terms, if a climate scientist believes minds can be changed with facts and logic, the scientist is ignoring decades of cognitive science.
Update: Here’s an example of how scientists can use science to communicate about climate science.
Sorry Scott, you are way off on this.
The two topics between Rex and Chelsea ARE related.
In good science, before scientists became prostitutes to Gov’t Grants, the Scientific Method was followed. Under CAGW, the IPCC defined its role to determine the cause of human induced Global Warming. It did not seek to review and provide possible causes for Global Warming and then to determine which one was the cause, if any.
Thus, the IPCC does NOT follow the Scientific Method as previously practiced (like per Einstein). However, it uses the CMIP5 models in lieu of the Scientific Method to predict the future temp by tweaking thousands of variables – these models are an abject failure.
Scott – your entire post is BS, as you have remarkably little understanding of the CAGW process via IPCC.
Kokoka, you entire post may be correct, but when you start throwing around a fistful of acronyms without defining them my bullshit meter shoots off the scale. Which means I am forced to view everything you said as bullshit.
TiP, well then you should use the search function of your browser to educate yourself. If you are even mildly acquainted with the GloBULL Warming controversy, these acromyms should be old hat.
The internet…………it’s not just for porn.
If you do not know the acronyms associated with the whole Global Warming hoax, then you should start from scratch using the Internet search feature or bypass articles where your knowledge is zilch..
I am not here to give you or others a grammer school education on the subject.
Generally agreed, but it would be helpful if you gave the expanded titles for those of us who have short memories for alphabet soup. Still, I agree with your points.
I disagree kokoda (and to quote a legend, “your entire post is BS”). I think that Scott makes a valid point about the lack of clarity in the discussion of ‘climate change’. Contrary to what you said, Scott DID specifically state that the two topics between Rex and Chelsea were related, but about different things. (His point may have been made better without the use of Chelsea Clinton ’cause nobody gives a damn about what she says or thinks.) Anyway, the post is not BS as you say but makes a great deal of sense when discussing how to conduct the conversation. Try reading it again and forget about your acronyms and global warming arguments……the post is not about “the CAGW process via IPCC.”
FYI, after this quote from Adams, I stopped reading.
“Believer: Climate scientists are correct because the scientific method is reliable over time, thanks to peer review.”
Why did I stop reading? I explained it in my original comment but I don’t think you got it. The reason: In that quoted sentence, Adams is referring to Climate Scientists, obviously the Gov’t paid scientists, getting their results via the Scientific Method.
That is absolutely BullShit, as the IPCC does not follow the Scientific Method. Do any of the people that make comments on TBP on Global Warming articles have any idea of the Scientific Method process, besides me?
Good point. “Climate Science” IS political-science.
Models are a part of the Scientific Method. Gravity is a model. We still do not know for sure just what it really is (a wave of some sort, likely with an extremely long wavelength, galaxy size or greater-half the length of the universe-time.) Relativity is a model that will someday be found to be not totally accurate for all cases once we concur gravity.
The question is whether or not the models being used are actually based on scientific method that either verifies the predictions or invalidates them.
Add in whether or not the data being entered into them is scientifically valid by the same standard of scientific method as well.
There aren’t two different questions, just whether the model is scientifically valid by the standards of scientific method.
“Weather” or “Climate” science may well be the least accurate of the sciences, largely due to the large number of variables. There are many models depending on selected, valued input, none of them accurate all of the time. These tools are NOT fact. The trouble is that Leftist-Progs choose the one that promotes their agenda and then presents it as Fact. That is FALSE!
Is the problem communication or generalized corruption of the “expert class”? We can safely assume, I think, that most government employed (or sponsored) experts aren’t going to say anything contrary to their employer’s schemes. They are too well compensated riding the government gravy train to upset it.
There are some topics that are too complex to communicate effectively to the untrained. A topic like Quantum Mechanics is just not a part everyday conversation among the people.
That’s why we developed institutions that were supposed to appraise issues like this (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming), impartially and objectively, in service of the public. And the public used to have trust in these institutions – but not anymore.
By now, we should all know that discussion is futile with the libtard crowd. Their agenda is total social control and power. They’ll not let the facts on any subject get in the way of their plan. So-called “Climate Change” is a big part of that plan.
Science was politicized long ago the same as Unions, Education, and the Media.
There is a science of predicting the future? I dont think guessing at or about a half of a degree of average global temp change over the course of a hundred years in any way at all resembles science. I dont even think there is a scientific way to measure the global average temp over the mass and area of the planet. The entire discussion is religion and dogma, not science.
My conclusions regarding the data of climate change aka global warming are very simple. Yes, the average temperature of the planet is increasing, and CO2 levels are too. This is actually good for us overall except for those that have beach front property. The real reason for the push against it is that certain groups of people want to use it for control and money. Until that last point is addressed, we aren’t going to get anywhere on the debate.
It has been warming for 300 years (J. Curry) ever since the uinwinding of the Little Ice Age. The .5 or .8 degree F increase in the last 100 years is consistent with geologic averages – in other words, not unprecedented.
Additionally, how much of that was caused by humans vs natural change? The IPCC wings it with 50%. They don’t have any proof of the 50%, but it sounds good. I will admit that humans do cause the planet to warm, but that is due to deforestation and urban effects (cement, hardtop, bldgs, etc.)
Actually the warming has been occurring for over 15,000 years, enough to melt 1 mile deep glacial icecaps over NY & PA since then, but it was/is not caused by our SUV’s (which are driven by many Progs), lawnmowers, and refrigerators. Stealing our money and self-governing power, and severely reducing the world population is not the answer. It’s only a way for a oligarchy to rule the world.
As an engineer, I know lots of scientists and one characteristic of all good scientists is that they can never give you a straight answer to a question without adding qualifier upon qualifier. In fact I am more likely to hear my dog since the Star Spangled Banner then to hear a scientist answer a simple scientific question with a yes or no.
Thus, I agree with Scott Adams that the politically-correct view that practically all climate scientists think climate change is due to human activities is likely bullshit. That’s not to say that most scientists and people with a strong knowledge of science, me included, don’t suspect something bad is happening with the climate and man might be a good part of the cause. But we, the public, are not even allowed to ask such questions or debate the issues. Instead, if we question any of the prevailing orthodoxy we are labeled as knuckle draggers.
Until people in this country learn to debate issues and work toward mutually agreeable solutions we are doomed.
“…work toward mutually agreeable solutions we are doomed”
You mean like the new DNC Chairman Peres saying he would make Trumps Presidency a living Hell everyday (my paraphrase).
According to previous articles by Mr. Adams, to educate oneself is to be drawn into on or the other camp and therefore, just shrug ones shoulders and say it’s all an illusion. Unfortunately, we are not debating the sex life of the exotic tri-colored frog in the amazon, but a subject that has already damaged economies here and abroad. Although the head gaming is interesting, the bottom line is there are billions of dollars being tossed around by polititians depending on the outcome of the debate. There needs to be an effort to cut through the BS and just calling out “the illusion” is not cutting it.
Which graph below is true?:
[img
[/img]
[img
[/img]
” In recent years, these two very different ways of measuring global temperature have increasingly been showing quite different results. The surface-based record has shown a temperature trend rising up to 2014 as “the hottest years since records began”. RSS and UAH have, meanwhile, for 18 years been recording no rise in the trend, with 2014 ranking as low as only the sixth warmest since 1997.
One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.
But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth’s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 – and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the “urban heat island effect”, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
Garbage data in, garbage data out.
The discussion of whether there is or is not global climate change has progressed far beyond “yes” and “no”.
Therefore, I council patience. Much sooner than later, a hurricane storm surge will put New Orleans under 6 feet of water. Miami will have salt water running in the streets bye and bye. Should the East Antarctic shed another significant number of square miles of one mile thick ice, sea levels in general will rise 3-6 feet or so. Manhattan will start doing business at the second floor and the subways will be full of salt water.
All becomes clear with patience and we will not rely at all upon science.
Such a pity.
muck
Ice floats! And when it melts into water, it can evaporate! And re-precipitate ….
What is supposed to happen when your square miles of ice shelf drop off into the ocean? Is it supposed to stay ice, melt and never re-evaporate again, what? And given that the polar ice caps receive new snow from time to time, sublime some off (left that out earlier, sorry) as well, and are basically changing continuously, why should we care?
There is nothing new under the sun …
It’s just amazing just how many beaches have disappeared into the ocean the last 50 years.
Fact: The climate change has been occuring on this planet since it’s formation.
Fact: Generally, the planet has been warming for at least the last 15,000 years.
Opinion: Global warming is necessarily a bad thing, and cannot be adapted to like any other natural force.
Opinion: Current global warming is due primarily by human activities.
False Opinion: Man can and must, at this time, reverse the global warming trend. (Maybe someday.)
Politics: Individuals and nations must give up sovereignty, freedoms, power, wealth, and life to cool the planet.
I say NO to that.
Global warming (aka “climate change”) has been shown to be a fraud (climate is always changing) and has attracted the snake charmers (al gore) and hustlers out of the woodwork. The so-called “hockey stick” model has been shown to be fraudulent. The attempts to foist “carbon credits” and other scams on the public was unsuccessful. Once again FOLLOW THE MONEY.
It is known that NASA “scientists” placed temperature sensors in inappropriate locations in order to “skew” temperature figures in order to promote “global warming”. Temperature sensors were placed in cities, near buildings and on asphalt and concrete roads, contrary to the recommendations of the sensor manufacturers. Since cities are “heat sinks”, the placement of these sensors in these locations would not be an accurate representation of true temperature variations attributable to (honest) climate science. NASA was caught fabricating data…
Environmentalists have been some of the most dishonest people in their misguided attempts to “save the planet”. Our earth is much more resilient than they would have you believe.
Environmentalists see humans as a “pestilence”. They would like to see the human population reduced (by any means necessary) by around 90%. The survivors would be walled-off in soviet-style high-rise apartments, riding bicycles, taking trains and buses while the wilderness areas would be available only to the “anointed” environmentalists.
I, for one, have no use for these limp-wristed, birkenstock-wearing, prius-driving, tofu-eating poor excuses for human beings. I would suggest that environmentalists take their own advice and eliminate themselves first.
Environmentalists are like watermelons–green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside. It’s always been about control.
I CHEER when I hear a of a “greenpeace” ship getting blown out of the water. . .
P. S: It turns out that the rest of the planets are experiencing “climate change” as well. I guess we need to curtail the SUV drivers on Mars and other planets, as well.
}
It does seem as if this whole idea is a fraud. When one considers that those who push this meme the most [earth is cooling, no warming, no cooling] stand to make huge piles of cash off of the rest of us. Yet no one has been able to coherently explain to me how this newfound funding source is going to change anything. Just another grift for the elites and a way gain a tighter strangle hold around our throats.
Anarchyst: Yea, what you said! All should read, re-read, and read yet again.
Especially: “Environmentalists have been some of the most dishonest people in their misguided attempts to “save the planet”.”
It’s just amazing how many SUV’s, vans, and luxury cars have environmental and leftist political (Obama-Biden, Hillary, Bernie) bumper stickers. Hypocrites-extraordinaire all. Meanwhile, a very conservative, religious friend drives a Prius.
And, yes, astronomers have been “puzzled” by the warming of other planets with their denial of other worldly life.
True science falls into a few discrete categories.
Descriptive science deals with observation. We can dissect a dog and describe what we see, catalog the exceptions (anatomy isn’t any more identical than is external physical appearance) and accept what we see to the granularity of our methods. This has a lot in common with cartography, but is separate from navigation.
Predictive science requires us to isolate all but one variable and then, by changing that variable, observe changes in outcome.
“Climate Science” is the former, but claims to be the latter. In this regard, it is identical to modern economics.
Once “science” was elevated to the status of a religion, people became enamored of applying it to all manner of subjects for which it is inappropriate or inapplicable.
There are many, many aspects of our existence that are impossible to reduce to single-variable studies. Instead of accepting this, we’re told that our Betters can read the tea leaves and tell us all what to do based on “!Science!” (substituted for God’s Will nowadays.)
It’s a religion. And it’s far from limited to “climate science.”
Very well said.
Its not a debate for another reason Mr. Scott:
It takes two sides to have a debate. Right now the left wants to jail anyone who disagrees with them, and any reputable scientist who comes forward against the narrative has their funding cut off at the least, and will probably end up as a pariah.
The models are flawed. There are so many damned ways the models are flawed that its difficult to tackle the monstrosity all at once. Much like the “Government Spending” fixes all problems narrative, the “climate science is settled” piece of bull shit stinks to high heaven, and is hopelessly ingrained in 50% of our country.
BINGO!
Kokoda has it pegged. He believe in science and the scientific method. He does not believe in Al Gwhore and prostitutes who pretend to be scientists.
Here, here!
Far too many people are running around talking past each other, trying to equate things that aren’t equal, trying to relate things that are unrelated or tangential, and misrepresenting/misstating facts left and right. Simple, earnest discourse and debate have gone straight to hell in a handbasket. What’s left? A crock of BS for the shit-throwing monkeys to dispose of.