The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate
If you want to change that consensus, there is only two possible explanations for that:
You are one of those rare humans that has the courage to go far into unknown terrain, where none will follow you, to discover what other did not see, and you did see something of interest to all of us.
You are one of many climate denialists
As always, the simplest explanation is the best explanation.
**Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments, Justin Kruger and David Dunning, Cornell University, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 77, no 6, p 1121-1134 (1999)
-- jo "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Hanlon's Razor
You must understand the difference between any random scientist disagreeing with the contents of a potential draft paper, and the publicly-stated disagreement of one of the scientists that partook in the work and then expressed highly critical doubts about the science (her terminology). Otherwise you are comparing oranges and lemons.
Of course, once the paper is published it will then be liable to criticism and challenge, as is standard in science.
Criticising and challenging published papers is *not* being a 'denier' no matter how much non-scientists might wish it so.
It 'really takes off' is dependent on where it is said it takes off from. One professor in the game published a graph of the Temperature Anomaly for the last 1000 years, and all the points lie below the zero line. That includes the data from 1970. It could be argued that the slope of the regression line is negative - that is, the anomaly is increasing and therefore the planet is cooling, terms that are closer to the geologic than the wishful.
Only in certain sections of the scientific community.
And this at a time when 8 out of 12 forcing mechanisms are known only to to degree of scientific understanding described by a major player, namely the Met Office, as 'very low'.
The simplest explanation is that very little is understood, and some scientists (those forming the consensus) are pinning their faith on being right about the only mechanism that they think they understand with any level of confidence.
The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. *** Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.[b] ***
Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's razor:[1][2][3][4][5][6] shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] *** In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result. ***
Or the context in which it is used by people who actually have studied a little philosophy.
AS I said, do you want 20 million books on physics, or three words, to provide your simplest 'explanation' of the world?
You are a stereotype of someone who talks the talk without the faintest idea of what the talk actually means. Hanging on to the coat tails of men who seem to you to actually know what they are talking about, but lacking even sufficient understanding to assess whether or not in fact they do.
which makes you, to the con men, nothing more than a useful and amusing tool.
What Occam actually seems to have said - and there are various versions, is that '(hypothetical) entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (in the construction of equivalently explanartory abstract hypotheses).
That is for example, given epicycles or a heliocentric model of the solar system, one picks heliocentric because it makes the model simpler. It dopes not, repeat not, give any hint as to the final truth content of the hypothetical entities so proposed.
The key here is the use also of the word 'necessity' If the simple model that all climate change is overwhelmingly due to CO2 in the air fails to accurately predict the (lack of accelerating) global warming, which it seems is not happening any more, at this point applying Occam's razor we should simply junk the AGW model and look for other things that affect climate. But no, the warmists don't do Occam. Or Science. They do Faith,and Marketing, and Profit, and Power, and therefore they are having to 'multiply entities' layer upon layer upon layer to keep the myth of AGW going.
I really would avoid dragging philosophy into the AGW debate, because frankly if AGW is shaky scientifically, its a pile of turds from the point of view of philosophy. It certainly fails Occams test. It is right on the edge of Karl Poppers criteria for separating pseudo science from science, and the more the data rolls in that fails to conform to its precepts the more it reveals itself as a metaphysical religion, one whose credos are simply *a priori*, not open to question..
Why else would it divert attention by using pejorative terms like 'denier' and tarring anyone who expresses doubt in its absolute certainty with the brush of commercial contamination,
Applying Occam's Razor the simplest explanation is that the theory cannot stand on its own merits, and must, perforce be backed up with emotional appeals to moral rectitude. And in so doing - so keep at it - it reveals itself for the faith based metaphysics that it actually is.
Not the science it always claimed it was. AND Joe Public is increasingly understanding this..
When one of its greatest proponents - the UK met office - is forced to choose between falsifying the data or admitting that 'things don't look quite as bad as we predicted' you know the writing is on the wall. When the argument switches from WHY the world warms or cools to mere evidence that it HAS warmed or cooled, and uses that to 'support' a theory that claims unremitting warming ONLY. ..even the stupidest person whose career and ego is not indissolubly tied to the AGW hypothesis is forced to admit that the simplest theory, is that the AGW theory is wrong.
Extreme weather? how else does thirty years of warming end? with a shitload of rain and a lot more energy in the air as the water vapour boils off the oceans, cooling them down. And modifying global winds as a result.
You can make a better case for extreme weather being the result of a global warming cycle that is finished, than one that is continuing unabated. But the problem with a priori entities multiplied beyond scientific necessity, but definitely necessary to allow a climate of fear that will guarantee a steady stream of taxpayer money into the pockets of its proponents, is that they start to multiply exponentially in order to preserve the tenets of the original credo.
The simplest explanation is that whatever AGW once was, it long ceased to be science, supported by science, and instead is a religion, sold for profit and supported by fanbois, of whom you are the prime example. You believed it because you wanted to believe it, it suited your anticapitalist green paranoia because that is what it was designed to do, and it suited your over inflated ego to make you feel like your were in the vanguard of a New Age, and Understood Real Science, when its patently obvious you are completely clueless, you simply parrot it all off some web site.
That is what Occam's Razor tells people who understand what it means.
Swinburne was totally wrong. But then he isn't a philosopher of metaphysics or science. He is of course a philosopher of RELIGION. The one discipline that BELIEVES that not only is there an ultimate Truth, but that we can know for sure what it is.
Occam's razor and indeed all science is not ultimately about truth content. Its about models of reality that produce accurate consistent and testable predictions about the future, which turn out to be correct. AGW has not turned out to give accurate testable predictions on the future, which have turned out to be correct. Its given such woolly variable and imprecise predictions (but SCARY) about the future, that it almost fails to be testable at all. And the current data is on the cold side of even the woolliest possibilities it predicts
In short is is almost failing to be science, at all. And if it is, its on the very edge of total refutation. Hoisted by its own petard of being made to give a simple clear message of 'the world is getting warmer, no more cold winters, hot dry summers', to give an on message simple statement, it has been shown to be simply wrong.
I dont have a problem with your religion. I do have a problem with you calling it science, and casting aspersions on my motivations and character, when I point out that it is not a science, but a religion, and that every bit of philosophical evidence you think you are dragging out to make your point is, when properly understood, actually making mine.
You may think it makes you look smart, but actually it simply makes you look a bit of a dick...
Like all warmists, He only cherry picked what he wanted to see. The difference between a warmist acolyte and a real scientist, is that whilst the scientists wants to arrive - if not at the truth - at least at a model which is functional and effective and allows more or less accurate prediction of the future, the warmist wants to be RIGHT so he can claim the moral high ground when telling other people what they MUST do.
It's becoming clear that the alarmist messages that came from 'the models' have been undermined by the growing perception that the models were insufficient (I'll put it no more strongly than that) for the task in hand, and in fact are now increasingly not being mentioned at all. The alarmist messages are now supported by 'science' that supports (for example) a graph purporting to show warming (from some chosen level) supported by statistical analysis - which as far as the public is concerned, is just as hard to understand as the models were. Doubtless this too will lead to debate with those who can challenge the methods involved. And never forget how little scientific knowledge is available concerning the majority of the forcing effects that are currently known.
However, the underlying flaw with this graphical/statistical approach is easy enough to see: correlation is not causation.
Galileo was in fact wrong when he insisted that the sun was at the centre. He should have realised as the church said, that that was simply a mathematical convenience.
And the church should have equally realised that putting the earth there was equally untenable.
However lack of correlation is proof of no causation.
Having given up on massaging the facts to fit the theory, they are now loading up the theory with so many extra elements it seems hardly relevant to leave the CO2 in there at all :-)
Consider: almost no warming at all (depending on which side of the bitch fight you stand) in the last ten years.
To keep AGW on track they have to introduce at least 10 years worth of something equally capable of stopping global warming as CO2 is all3eged to be at causing it.
In itself, that refutes AGW as 'the only significant major driver of modern climate change'. (as opposed to the only significant driver of politics and corporate profit).
But consider also with reference to the likes of Jo Stein and Java Jive. the implications of Greenpeace. FOE, the IPCC, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat party, the Tory party, the Greens and David Hansen and Al Gore doing a Lance Armstrong and saying 'yes, we were on drugs the whole time, we cheated, we lied because it made us look more important than we actually are. Sorry. WE made it all up for money for political influence and because we could.'
The very existence of these pressure groups and the careers of men who would be kings, rests on sustaining the religion as long as possible 'Pope denies existence of God' isn't likely to go down well with the faithful..
Reminds me of Cambridge Pet Crem - whenever I passed it at night, there would be a plume of smoke coming from it, but nothing during the day. I assume they were cheaping out and didn't want the owners seeing Rover go up the chimney.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.