Discussion > Split from Science is a tell : To Answer Raff's points
@Raff said
Peter Thiel has qualifications in philosophy and law. It is not clear to me why his views on the climate sciences should carry weight.
On the use of the word "science", do you see a difference between the colloquialism "climate science" and perhaps more formal "the climate sciences". There are clearly many components to the study of climate and the term climate science is a useful shortening of, or alternative to, the term "the climate sciences". Just as there are many parts in the study of natural science one of which is physical science (often referred to as the natural sciences and the physical sciences).
The only difference I see is for example when one hears that someone has a qualification in "climate science" as opposed to in "one of the climate sciences". In this case it seems very likely that said person has no traditional "science" qualification unless it is a second degree building on a degree in one of the "climate sciences".
I know for sceptics it is important to redefine words in ways that allows them to be used as hammers. But there is no milage in this deliberate misinterpretation of the use of these words. It just makes you look stupid. That won't stop people disagreeing with me here for the next week or so...
stewgreen
MJ answered
Not bad. One hour, two responses and the Troll is trying to derail the thread already.
Frankly, it is not clear to me why his views on the climate sciences should carry weight.
stewgreen
Stewgreen answered
@Raff said "Peter Thiel has qualifications in philosophy and law. It is not clear to me why his views on the climate sciences should carry weight."
That statement a logical fallacy of argument from authority
..It is the argument (The "views" themselves) that counts, it is irrelevant who makes it
@Raff what is the difference between "scientists say" and properly validated science ?
@Raff said "I know for sceptics it is important to redefine words"
.. I say in science it is very important that you clearly define your terms
@Raff Qn how do you define "Climate Change " ?
stewgreen
@MartinA said
"Peter Thiel has qualifications in philosophy and law. It is not clear to me why his views on the climate sciences should carry weight. "
Because he is *not* a climate scientist?
stewgreen
Raff replied
"It is the argument (The "views" themselves) that counts, it is irrelevant who makes it"
So why did "The Blaze" say "PayPal Co-Founder Is Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming for This Reason" and identify him (for everyone who has never heard of him) as "often considered one of the most influential people in Silicon Valley"? If it is what he says that matters they should say: "Man in California is Skeptical...". His trivial argument is worthless if expressed in that way, and we wouldn't be discussing it, that is why.
"what is the difference between "scientists say" and properly validated science"
The first is written by a reporter who probably knows little of relevance and the second is published research by the scientist in a recognised journal.
"in science it is very important that you clearly define your terms"
as it is in anti-science propaganda.
"Qn how do you define "Climate Change " ?"
How does that relate to "science is a tell"? And why should my definition be of any relevance?
stewgreen
I am only answering here cos you have made a fundamental error see point 2
1. I have answered the first point previously above
Raff you seem to moving the goal posts again - you said a persons qualifications means you can dismiss his argument..and then defend that by saying the mag used authority to introduce Thiel
2. "what is the difference between "scientists say" and properly validated science"
@Raff replied "The first is written by a reporter who probably knows little of relevance and the second is published research by the scientist in a recognised journal."
so you say "properly validated science" = " published research by the scientist in a recognised journal"
so you are saying that just by getting past peer review that makes the science PROVEN
is that true ?
NO, just cos something is properly peer reviewed published in a recognised journal it does NOT make it proven
"properly validated science"= something that works 100% of the time , make accurate predictions etc
whereas 50% of published science does not stand the test of time , (I can name the famous paper that tells us this.. but it's better you search for it yourself)
Now when it comes to climate science there are 2 parts
i. "properly validated science" like how CO2 works in a bell jar
ii. theories : many of which have been published in peer reviewed papers
it is important to see where the line between them is,
3. "Qn how do you define "Climate Change " ?"
@Raff replied "How does that relate to "science is a tell"? And why should my definition be of any relevance?"
That is a very important question that you avoided,
if you cannot define your terms, then how can we have a debate with you ?
It seems to me that you have a different definition of "Climate Change" to the skeptics here have.That is VERY relevant it's the whole centrepiece of the debate.. so please give us your definition
- It will help you and it will help us.
stewgreen
If we're talking Climate Science only then
2. "what is the difference between "scientists say" and properly validated science
Then neither is particularly good but perhaps climate scientists say that their models predict I wouldn't put it in the category of properly validated science.
Properly validated science is an interesting concept in itself. Perhaps a better definition would be science that, with our current knowledge, works so far
SandyS
As author of the original thread - very good idea stew. Thanks. I've only got a couple of minutes to look at BH this morning so no time to say more - but I notice the discussion over there at once seems more sensible.
Richard Drake
@SandyS How do you validate a theory ? You prove it works in reality
so "properly validated science" does mean science that works
clearly current climate predicton models don't work
It is not impossible that future improved models might work reliably, then that would be "properly validated science"
stewgreen
stewgreen
I think that any theory scientific or otherwise should carry the caveat with our current knowledge. Any theory may be subject to change with new data/information. The old theory may work perfectly well for many or even most applications but it is not correct in all circumstances. Wave theory of light and Newton's Laws of Motion for example. History suggests all theories/hypotheses will require modification, whether settled or properly validated science.
The general public isn't always aware of these uncertainties and takes settled or properly validated science.at face value.
SandyS
1. More precisely, it is his lack of suitable qualifications. But you maintain it is the argument that counts. Thiel has no argument beyond the banal - you are listening to him only because of his supposed authority.
2. You are like TinyCO2 elsewhere, proud of not knowing how science works. Scientists research, publish, discuss, criticise. Over the course of years, a field develops and ideas that have strength, prevail and those that don't, wither. Your preoccupation with the word "validated" (or even "properly validated", which seems to be the same thing as something that has not been "properly" validated has clearly not been validated) is just a means to reject those parts of science that don't fit your political bias. People here are keen to trumpet papers such as those from Nic Lewis that show their preferred sensitivity values but I never hear them saying that of course it is not validated (or properly validated if you prefer) and that sensitivity could therefore be much higher.
You or others might be interested in a podcast that explains Why Googling Doesn't Make You a Scientific Expert It touches on ClimateGate.
3. My definition of climate change is irrelevant. If you feel that you need to have one out in the open to discuss, give us yours.
Raff
Raff, there's one aspect of Thiel's argument that I don't think's the least banal and that's the very first thing he's quoted as saying:
Whenever you can’t have a debate, I often think that’s evidence that there’s a problem
Now you may deny that we can't have a debate, because you're debating us right now! But I'm thinking of something like Intelligence Squared's Global Warming is Not a Crisis in New York in March 2007. Since losing the audience vote then the 'consensus' has relied to a great extent on pseudonymous actors like you on the web. I think Thiel has called this exactly right. Given the policy importance it's a drastically bad sign.
Richard Drake
Name another scientific subject where there has been more discussion and debate. Evolution. Ok, name another.
The scientific debate goes on in the universities, journals and conferences. That is where the science is advanced, not in public debate. The public, including Thiel and his libertarians, know nothing or very little about the subject. Any scientific debate they have is like blind men debating the colour of the sky. The debate about policy has been raging for years and is poisonous. But then debate about pretty much any policy is poisonous in the US and that tends to set the pace for other English-speaking lands.
Raff
The debate about policy has been raging for years and is poisonous.
So when was the next debate between key figures after the one organised by Intelligence Squared on 14th March 2007? The bulk of the public, in many and different ways, has shown that it's not persuaded by the alarmist project. That's what you call poisonous I'm sure. I call it democracy in action. But show me when the next debate was after March 2007.
Richard Drake
1. "you are listening to him only because of his supposed authority." ..you are using distraction technique AGAIN of focusing on something else instead of answering my point, cos you don't to admit a rookie mistake of using the fallacy of argument from authority.
"you are listening to him only because" Rubbish, Articles with viewpoints from countless different types of people are put in front of us ..often trendy celebrity greens like Vivienne Westwood etc.
@Raff said "You are like TinyCO2 elsewhere, proud of not knowing how science works."
I disagree .you are projecting, itseems you are confused about how science works .and the evidence is the arguments I have previously made above .. you have made a number of rookie reasoning errors as I highlighted, but that is nothing to be frightened about. I always tell my students "please make errors, making errors is great ..it is the way we learn"
"3. My definition of climate change is irrelevant. If you feel that you need to have one out in the open to discuss, give us yours."
Rubbish I ask you a perfectly simple, civilised question and you refuse to answer it
- Over the years we have seen disruptionists come here and engage in debate in bad faith by continually sidestepping simple questions by firing off questions at others.
You won't answer ..and tell me to answer first .. Ha ha ha that's not how it works in fair debate is it ?
If you want to be respected then please give respect to others. So please give us the honour of answering the simple question. What are you afraid off ? I am not going beat you up or anything'. I just want you to define the terms so I know what you are talking/concerned about.
byee
stewgreen
Richard, I saw Lindzen debating Kerry Emmanuel and others some time back, but I have no link and am not about to look for one. Do you really think that because you or I cannot link to other debates from across the world that this proves there have been none? I don't have such conceit.
By poisonous, I mean that it is not a polite debate but an ideological slanging match unlike virtually any other.
stewgreen, 1. you keep on about argument from authority, but such argument is not necessarily a fallacy. If I want to know if my house wiring is safe, I could ask an electrician or I could ask Mr Thiel. The electrician has years of experience in what I am asking. Mr Thiel is a world class entrepreneur and his libertarian views fit my own. But he probably knows nothing about wiring regulations. Who should I ask, the authority or the PayPal founder? Clearly I would ask the electrician. It is not guaranteed that he will give me the best advice, but the probabilities favour that outcome. Similarly, if I want to know about climate change, the probabilities favour Richard Betts over Mr Thiel to give a useful answer. If you favour Thiel as a respondent for the latter, why not the former?
2. Listen to the podcast I linked to. And tell me why you people pay such heed to what Nic Lewis' results say but nobody here complains about his work not being "properly validated". Otherwise your complains about validation are purely political posturing.
3. Climate change is a change in the statistical properties of the climate system when considered over long periods of time, regardless of cause. See here.
Raff
Raff
3. Climate change is a change in the statistical properties of the climate system when considered over long periods of time, regardless of cause.
It seems very odd seeing as how you're on a ACC/AGW/ACD sceptical website and you come up with a pretty vague definition, which doesn't mention human influence. The link is hardly up to the minute either (Arctic Sea Ice 2010), or is it conveniently ignoring the latest situation?
For what it's worth here is my list of questions on how ACC could be detected. This doesn't imply that humans are in any way responsible. I have included CO2. not because I think it is relevant but because almost everyone else does despite evidence to the contrary. I have kept the questions short, although some could be longer for clarity.
1. Has the atmospheric CO2 content of the atmosphere been greater in the past?
2. Has the atmospheric CO2 content of the atmosphere been less in the past?
3. Have global sea-levels been higher in the past?
4. Have global sea-levels been lower in the past?
5. Has there been greater snow/ice cover in the past by N/S hemisphere?
6. Has there been less snow/ice cover in the past by N/S hemisphere?
7. Has the average global temperature been greater in the past?
8. Has the average global temperature been less in the past?
9. Has there been more dissolved CO2 in the oceans in the past?
10. Has there been less dissolved CO2 in the oceans in the past?
11. Has there been more volcanic activity in the past?
12. Has there been less volcanic activity in the past?
13. Has solar activity/TSI been greater in the past?
14. Has solar activity/TSI been less in the past?
15. Has the solar system pasted through greater interstellar dust concentrations in the past?
16 Has the solar system pasted through lower interstellar dust concentrations in the past?
17. Globally has the been greater desert extent in the past?
18. Globally has the been lower desert extent in the past?
19. Has range of habitable zones been further N/S in the past?
20. Has range of habitable zones been not as far N/S in the past?
21. Has range of habitable zones been at higher altitudes in the past?
22. Has range of habitable zones been at lower altitudes in the past?
23. Have there been mass extinctions in the past?
There will be many more questions such as these, when one of the answers is No* then one might start looking for a human cause otherwise the Earth is within previously encountered maximum and minimum and due to the fact it is chaotic multiple input system, many of the inputs being unknown, then attributing it (CC) to human activity is impossible.
*As far as I am aware currently all the answers are Yes
So what exactly would you put down as a directly attributable to human activity and how would you separate human from natural influence? At the moment from your definition you would fall into the Lukewarm/Sceptical camp.
SandyS
"It seems very odd seeing as how you're on a ACC/AGW/ACD sceptical website and you come up with a pretty vague definition, which doesn't mention human influence."
Who said anything about human influence? stewgreen threw his toys on the floor because I wouldn't define "climate change". If he wanted a definition of human caused change he would have asked. Ok maybe not, as I suspect his motive was to play the normal stupid skeptic gotcha: "Climate has always changed, therefore you are wrong. Ha!"
Did you type in that list for me? I didn't read beyond 2. What is the point in asking "Has the atmospheric CO2 content of the atmosphere been greater in the past" without any context (insolation, volcanic activity, whatever)? It is like asking me "Have you been heavier in the past?" and thinking you can infer something important from the answer (without knowing things like my mental state, medication, exercise levels, food intake etc). The rest of the list are doubtless equally pointless "skeptic" talking points.
Raff
Raff,
so are you saying that there is no human influence on climate?
SandyS
If reading comprehension fails you, common sense should tell you whether that is what I think.
Raff
@Raff gave his definition of "Climate change is a change in the statistical properties of the climate system when considered over long periods of time, regardless of cause."
OK if that happens is that a problem ?
When is it a problem ?
(You still don't understand the fallacy of the argument from authority ..or what "proper validated science" means, but we'll let that drop as you'll realise one day)
BTW "long period of time" is a bit vague I'd prefer something more specific, cos it leaves too much room for wiggle room "Oh I meant millions of years not ten's of years" ..or vice versa
stewgreen
I'll take that as
Don't expect anything sensible from me I'm a troll and like trying to send you round in circles
Sorry Raff, I'm with those who think you're a time wasting idiot.
SandyS
Raff: A debate involving Al Gore would do for starters. Looking forward to that list.
Richard Drake
Hi Raff
udthread you made this as part off your comment -
"Over the course of years, a field develops and ideas that have strength, prevail and those that don't, wither. Your preoccupation with the word "validated" (or even "properly validated", which seems to be the same thing as something that has not been "properly" validated has clearly not been validated) is just a means to reject those parts of science that don't fit your political bias."
from this can i assume you think people like BH & commentators on this blog have a political bias on this ?
wonder what this tells us about your "political bias" as you are obviously from the US (could be wrong though :-)
it may startle you to know AFAIAW politics + real world waste by halfwits/scamsters is a topic on this site, because the MSM will never touch this.
speaking for myself the whole engineering reality of the green dream makes me weep at the money wasted, but hey somebody did well £££
dfhunter
The way the argument was going is totally off topic from the start of the thread. So I created a new thread to answer Raff's points
- I think that sometimes people are happy to see threads destroyed and perhaps consciously or unconsciously move the debate off topic ..I'm not making any accusations.