Climate Change,

[PeanutButter]

17 hours ago, kzb said:

There's no reason I couldn't have been one.

I'm not even sure you can do a degree in Climate Science.  If you can it's a very recent invention.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/2022/sci/msc-climate-change-science-policy/

https://www.reading.ac.uk/ready-to-study/study/subject-area/climate-science-pg

https://www.durham.ac.uk/study/courses/f645/

https://www.gre.ac.uk/undergraduate-courses/engsci/climate-change-bsc

Yeah it's a real freaking mystery 🙉

12 hours ago, kzb said:

but true science is actually all about scepticism.

Skepticism. 

Ah a connoisseur of True science  Sir, please step right this way to the roped off area of the club. I can tell sir is a man of impeccable taste. Shall we start with a drop of our finest Words Don't Mean Anything, followed by some fresh Strawman? 

Very entertaining though, top marks - you could definitely do good work for the Flat Earth movement. 

 

 

[PeanutButter]

.

Edited October 13, 2021 by PeanutButter

[PeanutButter]

.

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by PeanutButter

[PeanutButter]

.

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by PeanutButter

[PeanutButter]

.

Edited October 13, 2021 by PeanutButter

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

12 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/2022/sci/msc-climate-change-science-policy/

https://www.reading.ac.uk/ready-to-study/study/subject-area/climate-science-pg

https://www.durham.ac.uk/study/courses/f645/

https://www.gre.ac.uk/undergraduate-courses/engsci/climate-change-bsc

Yeah it's a real freaking mystery 🙉

Skepticism. 

Ah a connoisseur of True science  Sir, please step right this way to the roped off area of the club. I can tell sir is a man of impeccable taste. Shall we start with a drop of our finest Words Don't Mean Anything, followed by some fresh Strawman? 

Very entertaining though, top marks - you could definitely do good work for the Flat Earth movement. 

 

 

Most qualifications in climate related science are relatively new as Kzb points out.

I doubt whether many of the people regarded as experts in the field currently have "climate specific" related qualifications.

I would have thought physics, chemistry and meteorology are the most common qualifications at the BSc level, probably with a PhD in some climate related study or atmospheric physics/chemisty.

Obviously climate change is a big issue atm, so you'd probably expect more specialization into courses that cater for that, but probably only over the last 10 years or so.

 

[PeanutButter]

Just now, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Most qualifications in climate related science are relatively new as Kzb points out.

I doubt whether many of the people regarded as experts in the field currently have "climate specific" related qualifications.

I would have thought physics, chemistry and meteorology are the most common qualifications at the BSc level, probably with a PhD in some climate related study or atmospheric physics/chemisty.

Obviously climate change is a big issue atm, so you'd probably expect more specialization into courses that cater for that, but probably only over the last 10 years or so.

 

Hm yes I know Peter Kalmus is a climate scientist. According to his wiki:

He is a data scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory as an associate project scientist at UCLA's Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science & Engineering.

 

Kalmus attended Harvard University, where he received his Bachelor of Science in physics in 1997. At Harvard, he used Fourier-transform spectrometry to discover and categorize the quantum-mechanical rotational spectra of several cyanopolyynes which were subsequently found in interstellar clouds.^[4] He then taught high school physics in Massachusetts and wrote software in New York City.^[5] In 2004 he enrolled in graduate school at Columbia University and received his PhD in physics in 2008. His PhD work involved searching for gravitational waves as a member of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (thesis: "Gravitational Waves Associated with Soft Gamma Repeater Flares").^[6] He continued his work with LIGO as a postdoctoral scholar at the California Institute of Technology, leading major full-collaboration searches for gravitational waves from magnetars,^[7][8][9] gamma ray bursts^[10] and supernovae^[11] and contributing to the precise calibration of the world's gravitational wave observatories.^[12]

 

And Michael Mann is another prominent one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

In August 1984 he went to the University of California, Berkeley, to major in physics with a second major in applied math. His second-year research in the theoretical behaviour of liquid crystals used the Monte Carlo method applying randomness in computer simulations. Late in 1987, he joined a research team under Didier de Fontaine which was using similar Monte Carlo methodology to investigate the superconducting properties of yttrium barium copper oxide, modelling transitions between ordered and disordered phases.^[13] He graduated with honors in 1989 with an A.B. in applied mathematics and physics.^[1]

 

Seems as if physics may be a common starting point?

It just seems so very unlikely that people with these backgrounds would deliberately convene with hundreds or even thousands of other academics in order to pull off what must surely be the most audacious con of all time. The sheer logistics involved in a worldwide deception network designed to convince millions of people that oil creates pollution, spring is coming earlier, glaciers are melting sooner, polar bears are starving to death, coral reefs are dying. Whoever is the leader of this gang must surely be a billionaire from all the green money he or she has accumulated. 

It makes Oceans 11 look tame.  

 

 

[kzb]

4 hours ago, byron78 said:

Why?

What is motivating you?

Who is motivating you?

No-one is paying me.  I just like educating people.  Or more likely I have a psychological defect which means I can't stand by and see incorrect stuff without challenging it.  I should use my time more profitably to be honest.

[smash]

44 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Most qualifications in climate related science are relatively new as Kzb points out.

I doubt whether many of the people regarded as experts in the field currently have "climate specific" related qualifications.

I would have thought physics, chemistry and meteorology are the most common qualifications at the BSc level, probably with a PhD in some climate related study or atmospheric physics/chemisty.

Obviously climate change is a big issue atm, so you'd probably expect more specialization into courses that cater for that, but probably only over the last 10 years or so.

 

Yeah, it's a big issue at the moment, but give it a couple of years and this new invention of climate science will all be gone away.

Maybe another 10 years or so, and anyway what's wrong with climatic disruption, human beings come down with the rain don't they?

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

49 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Hm yes I know Peter Kalmus is a climate scientist. According to his wiki:

He is a data scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory as an associate project scientist at UCLA's Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science & Engineering.

 

Kalmus attended Harvard University, where he received his Bachelor of Science in physics in 1997. At Harvard, he used Fourier-transform spectrometry to discover and categorize the quantum-mechanical rotational spectra of several cyanopolyynes which were subsequently found in interstellar clouds.^[4] He then taught high school physics in Massachusetts and wrote software in New York City.^[5] In 2004 he enrolled in graduate school at Columbia University and received his PhD in physics in 2008. His PhD work involved searching for gravitational waves as a member of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (thesis: "Gravitational Waves Associated with Soft Gamma Repeater Flares").^[6] He continued his work with LIGO as a postdoctoral scholar at the California Institute of Technology, leading major full-collaboration searches for gravitational waves from magnetars,^[7][8][9] gamma ray bursts^[10] and supernovae^[11] and contributing to the precise calibration of the world's gravitational wave observatories.^[12]

 

And Michael Mann is another prominent one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

In August 1984 he went to the University of California, Berkeley, to major in physics with a second major in applied math. His second-year research in the theoretical behaviour of liquid crystals used the Monte Carlo method applying randomness in computer simulations. Late in 1987, he joined a research team under Didier de Fontaine which was using similar Monte Carlo methodology to investigate the superconducting properties of yttrium barium copper oxide, modelling transitions between ordered and disordered phases.^[13] He graduated with honors in 1989 with an A.B. in applied mathematics and physics.^[1]

 

Seems as if physics may be a common starting point?

It just seems so very unlikely that people with these backgrounds would deliberately convene with hundreds or even thousands of other academics in order to pull off what must surely be the most audacious con of all time. The sheer logistics involved in a worldwide deception network designed to convince millions of people that oil creates pollution, spring is coming earlier, glaciers are melting sooner, polar bears are starving to death, coral reefs are dying. Whoever is the leader of this gang must surely be a billionaire from all the green money he or she has accumulated. 

It makes Oceans 11 look tame.  

 

 

The thing is that when you take that approach, you are already politicising the debate.

The quality of science shouldn't be judged on the number of people who support a particular theory or consensus, or belief in global conspiracies. It should be judged on its merits as to whether it is correct and makes sense.

Science actually moves forwards from the minority people who dissent. Because if the dissenters have a strong case, the consensus opinion actually has to make its case stronger in order to refute the claims of the dissenters.

The problem with climate science is that now dissent is seen as politically unacceptable. This actually weakens the case because it means it is less likely to be tested.

I guess it is unreasonable to expect something with as potentially a huge impact on climate change not to become highly politicised, but in general politics and the suppression of dissenting viewpoints does science no favours.

[kzb]

49 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Seems as if physics may be a common starting point?

It just seems so very unlikely that people with these backgrounds would deliberately convene with hundreds or even thousands of other academics in order to pull off what must surely be the most audacious con of all time. The sheer logistics involved in a worldwide deception network designed to convince millions of people that oil creates pollution, spring is coming earlier, glaciers are melting sooner, polar bears are starving to death, coral reefs are dying. Whoever is the leader of this gang must surely be a billionaire from all the green money he or she has accumulated. 

It makes Oceans 11 look tame.  

Granted, I knew that physics connection anyway.  Also it does not surprise me that universities have recently started offering degrees called climate science.  As GPS and I have said though, that is a recent development.

But the next stage is how PhD physicists (or other subjects) then get the title of Climate Scientist.  How does that work?

Being a successful academic is all about number of publications and the amount of research grant money you bring in.  If there is a tap supplying large numbers of research grants in global warming it will attract people and they will become successful.  The taps supplying other areas of science are usually much less generous, so less attractive.

[smash]

4 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

The thing is that when you take that approach, you are already politicising the debate.

The quality of science shouldn't be judged on the number of people who support a particular theory or consensus, or belief in global conspiracies. It should be judged on its merits as to whether it is correct and makes sense.

Science actually moves forwards from the minority people who dissent. Because if the dissenters have a strong case, the consensus opinion actually has to make its case stronger in order to refute the claims of the dissenters.

The problem with climate science is that now dissent is seen as politically unacceptable. This actually weakens the case because it means it is less likely to be tested.

I guess it is unreasonable to expect something with as potentially a huge impact on climate change not to become highly politicised, but in general politics and the suppression of dissenting viewpoints does science no favours.

What on earth are you on about? Of course science is and should be politicised. Have you not heard about things like bio-ethical committees and such?

[kzb]

9 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

The thing is that when you take that approach, you are already politicising the debate.

The quality of science shouldn't be judged on the number of people who support a particular theory or consensus, or belief in global conspiracies. It should be judged on its merits as to whether it is correct and makes sense.

Science actually moves forwards from the minority people who dissent. Because if the dissenters have a strong case, the consensus opinion actually has to make its case stronger in order to refute the claims of the dissenters.

The problem with climate science is that now dissent is seen as politically unacceptable. This actually weakens the case because it means it is less likely to be tested.

I guess it is unreasonable to expect something with as potentially a huge impact on climate change not to become highly politicised, but in general politics and the suppression of dissenting viewpoints does science no favours.

Agreed, true scientists should be happy that consensus theories are continually challenged.  You can't do that with climate science, not if you expect a scientific career anyhow.

As an outsider I can see the science is not settled, without being a paid expert in the field.  There is a big question mark over the climate sensitivity factor.  The models consistently over-predict the temperature.  All this is well known and can be seen by those bothering to find out.

[smash]

5 minutes ago, kzb said:

Granted, I knew that physics connection anyway.  Also it does not surprise me that universities have recently started offering degrees called climate science.  As GPS and I have said though, that is a recent development.

But the next stage is how PhD physicists (or other subjects) then get the title of Climate Scientist.  How does that work?

Being a successful academic is all about number of publications and the amount of research grant money you bring in.  If there is a tap supplying large numbers of research grants in global warming it will attract people and they will become successful.  The taps supplying other areas of science are usually much less generous, so less attractive.

Stop this stupifying sh1t ffs.

[PeanutButter]

2 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I guess it is unreasonable to expect something with as potentially a huge impact on climate change not to become highly politicised, but in general politics and the suppression of dissenting viewpoints does science no favours.

Dissent in this context costs lives, unfortunately. I've yet to encounter a skeptic whose house has burned, crops repeatedly flooded, water table evaporated, or other negative impact. 

Personally I enjoy reading oppositional views. I'm a landlord on HPC  

But when say, 330 US scientists sign a letter warning Biden about climate impacts, I don't respect the counterpoint of one retired Prof Ray. Show me 330 US scientists of equivalent experience signing a letter to say Dear Biden, nothing to see here! Yours, Science, PS here's our accumulated body of evidence. 

But there's never any such offering, for the simple reason that it's pure clownery. 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

20 minutes ago, smash said:

What on earth are you on about? Of course science is and should be politicised. Have you not heard about things like bio-ethical committees and such?

Bio-ethical committees aren't forums for debating science. They are forums for debating the consequences of science.

[smash]

2 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Bio-ethical committees aren't forums for debating science. They are forums for debating the consequences of science.

Not just that but ethical issues also, inseparable from philosophy and human values.

Both you and kzb are performing the usual tedious as feck distraction tactic of presenting climate science as not "true science" by presenting a notion of science that is purely objective and separate and distinct from adopted values. It's the same sh1t I've been hearing for a quarter of a century.

[Riedquat]

4 minutes ago, smash said:

Not just that but ethical issues also, inseparable from philosophy and human values.

Both you and kzb are performing the usual tedious as feck distraction tactic of presenting climate science as not "true science" by presenting a notion of science that is purely objective and separate and distinct from adopted values. It's the same sh1t I've been hearing for a quarter of a century.

You realise that you're advocating dogma in science?

Not for nothing do I regard a lot of attitudes these days as the modern equivalent to Puritanism. That I also think they're a bit closer to reality is by the by; the attitudes, open-mindendness and dogmatic outlook speak of very similar minds.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

8 minutes ago, smash said:

Not just that but ethical issues also, inseparable from philosophy and human values.

Both you and kzb are performing the usual tedious as feck distraction tactic of presenting climate science as not "true science" by presenting a notion of science that is purely objective and separate and distinct from adopted values. It's the same sh1t I've been hearing for a quarter of a century.

Yes, but not science.

Science is about establishing how we do X.

Ethics is about how once we know how to do X, under what circumstances do we feel it is appropriate to do X ?

Ethics can inform what science we chose to undertake, as if the science is unlikely to be ethically approved, there may be no point undertaking it in the first place.

But it can't tell us whether that science is correct and is practically of no use in establishing whether the science we perform is correct or consistent. In fact it's nearly always a hinderence rather than a help.

I'd also like to point out that I'm not talking specifically about "climate science" but science in general.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Gigantic Purple Slug

[smash]

7 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Yes, but not science.

Science is about establishing how we do X.

Ethics is about how once we know how to do X, under what circumstances do we feel it is appropriate to do X ?

Ethics can inform what science we chose to undertake, as if the science is unlikely to be ethically approved, there may be no point undertaking it in the first place.

But it can't tell us whether that science is correct and is practically of no use in establishing whether the science we perform is correct or consistent. In fact it's nearly always a hinderence rather than a help.

I'd also like to point out that I'm not talking specifically about "climate science" but science in general.

Are you suggesting that science, completely separate and distinct, from values should be the ethical?

Also, please ffs stop putting quote marks around climate science. It just looks like you wish to sow doubt in the most crude and infantile fashion.

[Riedquat]

6 minutes ago, smash said:

Are you suggesting that science, completely separate and distinct, from values should be the ethical?

The only area where science, as opposed to the application of it, should be considered from an ethical perspective is in situations such as designing experiments, i.e. the means of gaining knowledge. The knowledge itself, the debate about what is and is not most likely, should not be shaped at all by ethical considerations since that path leads to believing a guide to fact is what we would like it to be rather than what it actually seems to be.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Riedquat

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

8 minutes ago, smash said:

Are you suggesting that science, completely separate and distinct, from values should be the ethical?

Also, please ffs stop putting quote marks around climate science. It just looks like you wish to sow doubt in the most crude and infantile fashion.

Science should be amoral or aethical if there is such a word.

And no, I don't use quotes to sow doubt and I'll carry on using them as I see fit thanks.

[smash]

4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The only area where science, as opposed to the application of it, should be considered from an ethical perspective is in situations such as designing experiments, i.e. the means of gaining knowledge. The knowledge itself, the debate about what is and is not most likely, should not be shaped at all by ethical considerations since that path leads to believing a guide to fact is what we would like it to be rather than what it actually seems to be.

Thank you Riedquat, I read it several times and still can't understand it, another one of those "I have meticulously thought about every single thing imaginable and formulated a conclusion and opinion" style posts.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

1 minute ago, smash said:

Thank you Riedquat, I read it several times and still can't understand it, another one of those "I have meticulously thought about every single thing imaginable and formulated a conclusion and opinion" style posts.

So if you can't understand that, what makes you think you are even intelectualy equipped to be in the debate in the first place, let alone throwing swear words around and behaving aggressively ?

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, smash said:

Thank you Riedquat, I read it several times and still can't understand it, another one of those "I have meticulously thought about every single thing imaginable and formulated a conclusion and opinion" style posts.

Ah, sneering at what you don't understand. Figures.

Although I'd be interested to know whether you don't understand it because it's not explained clearly enough, or whether you're just rejecting anything that doesn't say what you want to hear - "It doesn't make sense because I can't make it fit my preconceptions."

Edited October 13, 2021 by Riedquat