That there’s a difference between the science and the policy recommendations made off it? I would think it was self-evident.
Say, a coastal geomorphologist to evaluate claims about sea level rise, a ecologist to evaluate claims about biosphere effects, an economist to evaluate claims about economic effects, and climate scientists to evaluate claims about causes.
Ummm . . . . yet another straw man. You would seem to be claiming, by analogy, that there is an important distinction between the CAGW claim and the CAGW science. That non-climate scientists are potentially qualified to evaluate one and not the other.
As I said earlier: Take your pick.
And exactly what training/education is necessary to be a “related specialist who can understand the science”?
Actually, to be more precise, you (MrDibble) are attempting to revise what you said earlier.
Hey, man, I’m just answering you questions as they come. What exactly am I revising, now?
I don’t think you have the right idea of what a straw man argument is, BTW.
Depends on the specialty, don’t it? And it’d take university training in that specialty, so a geology, biology, economics or climatology degree, in those specific examples.
I find this astonishing–and utterly contradictory to your claimed trust in the adversarial process. If you think 50 hours is enough to show you that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people engaged in this exact adversarial process–the overwhelming number of people engaged in it–are wrong, then you clearly have no trust in the adversarial process.
If you trust the process, get involved in it. Otherwise, your supposed trust in the process is nonsense.
Daniel
Lol. You are pretending that you made a different argument from the one you actually made.
And I think you are wrong.
In any event, I’m not going to get sucked into a meta-debate with you.
You seem to concede that a non-climate scientist is potentially qualified to evaluate either the claim of CAGW or the science of CAGW. As I said before, take your pick.
Fascinating. So for example, somebody with a degree in computational science would be, according to the IPCC, potentially qualified to evaluate the IPCC’s claims, insofar as those claims rest on computational science?
I don’t see why. In any adversarial process, there is a good chance that one side is right, and the other side is wrong.
Adversarial process is not the same thing as majority rule. And by the way, I don’t concede that the “overwhelming number” of people involved in climate research adhere to the CAGW hypothesis. Nor do I concede that the adversarial process is working properly in connection with the research that underlies the CAGW hypothesis.
Here’s what one researcher apparently said:
Really? I had no idea!
No fooling?
Then you’re objectively wrong. You’ve seen the numbers, so I won’t repeat them, but you’re simply objectively wrong.
That’s dandy and cool, but absurd. What evidence do you offer that it’s not working properly?
Yeah yeah. That’s one researcher’s out-of-context and unattributed alleged quote out of the tens of thousands of people doing the research. What’s the plural of anecdote?
Daniel
Correct.
No I have not. I’ve seen many attempts at a “bait and switch,” but nothing that has stood up to scrutiny.
If I were confident that there is a serious problem, I would have said so. As things stand, there are some troubling indications.
I’ve heard many reports of researchers refusing to release data, source code etc. Purely anecdotal, of course.
If I made a different argument, you can of course, point to it, no?
I concede nothing - I’ve never said non-climate-scientists can’t evaluate the claims of AGCC as it relates to their fields of study. Just that non-climate scientists aren’t in a position to evaluate the climate science. You do realise there’s a difference between the claimed effects and the backing science, yes?
I said nothing about “according to the IPCC”. I’ve never claimed the IPCC said anything about this. I’ve told you how I believe it would work in the real world (and certainly how it currently works in my city, where I’m reasonably familiar with both the municipal and provincial players in climate change preparedness from the environmental, coastal management and urban planning fields.) The policy makers have various task groups of academics and relevant industry consultants who evaluate reports (not just the IPCC’s either) and come back to them with recommendations, as well as suggestions for local research etc. This is based on their speciality - not so much in the climate science, but in all those nifty effects and changes that these reports say have to happen.
Absolutely.
Side note: I’m not sure what you mean by “AGCC.” I’m talking about CAGW. i.e. the hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions will cause temperatures to rise to a point where the temperature increase will cause significant harm to human wellbeing.
Anyway, here’s what you said before:
Seems like you are engaging in still more revisionism.
Yet another Dibble-Distinction. Let me ask you this: In order to evaluate the claim that CAGW (as defined above) is correct, is it necessary to evaluate (1) the claimed effect; or (2) the backing science ?
Of course you haven’t, but you and I both know the question that’s coming, which is this: If the IPCC is providing scientific information, and “aiming” it at a certain audience, isn’t it an implicit admission that that audience is potentially qualified to evaluate the claims being made?
This release of source code stuff is a red herring, as I have noted before. At least in the fields that I work in, it is rare for scientists to release their source code. It is their…or their employer’s…intellectual property and they are not required to do so even if their work is government-funded; the NSF in particular has been very clear on this point. And, in fact, in my own personal case, I have published papers using code that my employer would absolutely not allow me to release.
Notwithstanding that, Michael Mann did eventually make his source code public even though he was not required to do so. And, apparently the source code for the entire NASA GISS ModelE climate model is and has been publicly available on the web. [Since one of the claims of skeptics such as intention has been that all of the climate modelers (apparently all being AGW proponents) have tuned their models to fit the global temperature record with greenhouse gases included…and that this is why they then find that the models require the anthropogenic forcings to reproduce this record, one would have thought that one of these skeptics would have taken the GISS model and re-tuned it so it fit the global temperature record without the anthropogenic forcings and thus demonstrated how this can be done. One might speculate as to why this hasn’t happened…perhaps because their claim that the models are or can be tuned in this way is not correct, as they have already been told many times?]
Anytime now…
And I’m talking about Anthropogenic Global Climate Change, which neatly skips that “Global Warming” canard.
You’re kidding, right? You point to the wording of an analogy I made (which was a continuation of a comment on the field of specialisation of an actual petition signatory being veterinary science) as evidence? :rolleyes:
Both
…or has the experts to make that call on staff. That’s the assumption I’d make, personally - I wouldn’t trust any random MP in my country (or congressman in yours, from what I’ve seen) to be able to understand the IPCC Policymakers Summary, but I do expect them to be able to hire the people who do.
Just because it’s common don’t make it right.
If that’s true, then it’s good. I conceded that the information I heard was purely anecdotal.
To me, that’s an important question, and I will certainly reconsider my position if I cannot find a satisfactory answer.
I will do it one more time, and then ignore any further meta-debate from you except to identify it.
In discussing the doctor analogy, you said this:
This suggests that you were arguing against somebody who was defending the use of intuition in evaluating a medical (and by analogy, scientific) claim.
Your implicit assertion was false.
Lol. I know what AGCC stands for. But I’m not sure what you mean by it. Is it limited to changes caused by CO2 emissions? Does include changes that have no significant effect on human well being? Does it hold that CO2 emissions might cause the climate to cool?
Nope. Your implication was clear enough. As is your weaseling.
And is a layman potentially qualified to do either? both? neither?
Fine, so by your own reasoning, a computational scientist is potentially qualified to assess (and reject) the CAGW hypothesis. At least according to the IPCC.
Well, one can certainly have a debate about this point. I think there are good reasons to allow scientists to maintain certain intellectual property but people can have differing opinions. However, what I don’t like is when it is stated or implied that the failure to make source code publicly available (or to release it to anyone who asks) is something that is unique to climate science…i.e., that it goes against generally-accepted practice in similar fields (e.g., in the physical sciences). It does not. In fact, doing what NASA GISS has done by making their entire complex code freely available is, I believe, much more the exception than the rule in the physical sciences.
Great!
…or what he’d read on the internet…
Not from where I’m standing.
Then why ask?
Let me try:
Anthropogenic: human-caused
Global: of worldwide scale
Climate:Long-term weather over a large region
Change: Variation from the current state
Clearer?
No. There are other anthropogenic greenhouse gases and other effects humans can have such as deforestation and desertification
Yes - although one man’s “no significant effect” may be another man’s poison. I know my mental well-being’s very tied into there being coral reefs and Antarctic ice in the world.
In places, at times, yes.
Take it to the Pit or report me. I’m just answering your questions here. Like I said, an analogy. If you want to read deeper meaning, that’s your look-out. I’m not sifting your posts for the minutae of nuances of shades of implication, myself.
An absolute layman with no relevant specialisation? Neither.
No, that’s not what I said. A computational scientist (to use your example) might have reason to quibble with a computational part of a report that falls within his field of specialty, yes (but then the onus is on him to show how it’s wrong in the peer reviewed literature, not editorial pages.) That doesn’t qualify him to assess or reject anything as a whole.
Where do you derive the idea of climate change as some sort of monolithic entity that disproving just the tiniest thing disproves the lot? Reminds me of those ICR people who think if you can’t explain, right now, how a flagellum evolved, evolution disappears in a puff of smoke. Like evolution, climate change is sustained by multiple lines of proof and many different specialties. They *all *have to be proved wrong.
Ignored.
In that case, there’s no need to debate “AGCC” with me. I accept that mankind’s activities are very likely to change the climate in some respect.
In that case, there is no reason to draw the distinction. Unless your aim is to confuse the discussion.
Strawman ignored.
Whatever. It’s possible that other fields suffer from the same problem.
:shrug: My mind is certainly open enough to consider the situation in a critical fashion.
Bliss.
I wasn’t debating AGCC with you - I came into this to debate who’s qualified to pass comment on scientific matters
There is if you want to differentiate between the bits that climate scientists are qualified to discuss, and the bit that other specialists are.
Ad hominems do not a rebuttal make.