Science denial

Discussion in 'Science' started by (original)late, Aug 23, 2020.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Active Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Your incomprehension is complete. I normally don't repost. but I need to bold something for you.

    ". . . In much the same way, scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, again often restricted to a narrow subdivision of the scientific community, that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature to which that paradigm itself had previously led the way. In both political and scientific development the sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis is prerequisite to revolution.”
    ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

    Then there's this.

    “Paradigms are not corrigible by normal science at all. Instead, as we have already seen, normal science ultimately leads only to the recognition of anomalies and to crises. And these are terminated, not by deliberation and interpretation, but by a relatively sudden and unstructured event like the gestalt switch. Scientists then often speak of the "scales falling from the eyes" or of the "lightning flash" that "inundates" a previously obscure puzzle, enabling its components to be seen in a new way that for the first time permits its solution."
    ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

    And finally there's the ultimate decider.

    “Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”"
    ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,047
    Likes Received:
    8,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of that counters anything I've said..

    Revolutionary ideas enter because they are reviewed to be solid representations of a superior solution and by achieving consensus in that - Kuhn's thesis.

    Instead, YOU want to accept new ideas that have NEVER even been reviewd, let alone achieved any kid of cosensus.

    It's a fact that there are those who are slow to accept new ideas in EVERY field of human endeavor. Remember that I pointed this out as something Dr. Curry cares about.

    But, that's not an excuse for failing to review in order to verify that actual advances have been found - vs. just more crap.

    Neither Maxwell Planck nor Dr. Curry EVER suggested that serious review be ignored as a critical step. They aren't/weren't foolst!

    Progress in science doesn't come from purposefully ignoring independent review and verification. Such steps are absolutely required.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Active Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    It counters everything you've said, but that's not something I expect you to concede.
    The achievement of new agreement is of course the goal of the revolution. But getting there is not a matter of consensus (as Kuhn explains). Please review #646 to get an idea of the obstacles insurgents face. This is especially the case in a field as highly politicized as climate science.
     
    Sunsettommy and bringiton like this.
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,047
    Likes Received:
    8,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've pointed out obstacles insurgents face. That just is not the issue.

    I haven't pushed on consensus much, though there isn't success until there is rasonable consensus. Winning a revoloution doen't comport with remaining a backwater minority.

    The real issue is that failing to do verification and review work is how science actually dies.

    Accepting the ideas of anyone regardless of review is not science. Science is predicated on eliminating false ideas as soon as possible, since there is no method in science for proving truth.

    False ideas can't be eliminated with YOUR process of accepting whatever seems to appeal to you at the momvent, regardless of review, of other knowledge, of methodology used, etc.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  5. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Active Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    The review you cherish is under way now. The journals proved too narrow and prejudiced, so they're out. That's their own fault; review will take place without them. That's the nature of revolutions.
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    900
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can't you read? Jack already posted the proof that the paper in question WAS peer-reviewed, that the reviewers were biased and antagonistic, failed to offer any substantive methodological criticism, but nevertheless rejected the paper for purely POLITICAL reasons.
    And review is only a TOOL for doing that. It is not the standard of judgement.
    He already provided the quote showing that the paper HAD been reviewed, and unjustly rejected. YOUR anti-scientific bigotry would permanently reject its findings on that basis alone, substituting for the actual scientific standards that peer reviewers are SUPPOSED to follow the findings of the peer review itself. There is a higher standard than peer review, just as there is a higher standard than the verdict of a jury: the truth.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    900
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fact.
    You ignored every fact I identified, and did not even attempt to engage with them. You probably did not even read them, and you certainly did not understand them.
    False. First you demanded evidence, and when I provided it, you demanded citations.
    Garbage. I have identified the relevant facts. You have in no sense engaged with them or offered anything but blank refusal to know them.
    More accurately, you've no inclination to read, understand, or respond to the facts I identified.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
    Jack Hays likes this.
  8. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,328
    Likes Received:
    1,478
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you don't understand; I have an aversion to alternative facts, peddlers of fake scandals, conspiracy theories and people that exhibit grandiose behavior.
    ~finis~
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    900
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. You are wrong. The Milankovitch cycles have no effect on incident solar radiation, they only affect the differential heating of the earth caused by its orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and imbalance of land and ocean between the northern and southern hemispheres. Solar variation is a completely independent effect.
    Proving that CO2 is not a primary driver of global temperature.
    No. You are wrong. Warming on the time scale of the multi-thousand-year Milankovitch cycles occurs because the cycle's effect is magnified by the positive feedback effect of melting ice on the earth's albedo.
    But a microscopically small one. The additional CO2 has almost no effect on global surface temperature because lower troposphere air already has so much water vapor and CO2 in it that IR radiation is blocked.
    And a far more important one than the increase in CO2.
    No. You are wrong. No contribution by CO2 or methane is needed to fully account for the temperature fluctuations within the limits of error and noise in the data. We know that CH4 and CO2 make some contribution, probably in the low single-digit percentages, but their contribution is not needed to account for the data.
    But the dominant cycle through the late Holocene has been the ~1100y cycle associated with fluctuations in solar activity: the Minoan Warm Period starting ~3400ya, the Roman Warm Period starting ~2300ya, the Medieval Warm Period starting ~1200ya, and now the Modern Warm Period starting ~100ya.
    Right, because that warming has primarily been caused by the contemporaneous increase in solar activity to the highest sustained level in several thousand years.
    No. You are wrong. The Little Ice Age was caused by the dramatic decline in solar activity between the 14th and 19th century, to multimillennium lows.
    But their effect was weak and very short-lived compared to the much stronger and sustained effect of reduced solar activity through the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton solar minima.
    Decreased solar activity was the major cause of the cooling.
    No. You are wrong. It was indisputably warmer, as proved by the repeated discoveries of Holocene Optimum artifacts unveiled as European glaciers have retreated over the last 150y. It must have been warmer for people to have lived and worked in those places before they were covered with ice.
    But that long-term trend was overlaid with the ~1100y solar cycle, which caused periodic reversals of the cooling then returns to cooling, such as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age was by far the coldest 500y period in the last 10Ky, so it is not surprising that we have now naturally returned to more normal Holocene temperatures.
    That long-term Milankovitch trend has probably not reversed -- it is of course far too early to make any claim that it has -- but the up-phase of the ~1100y solar cycle is ample natural reason for the earth's return to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500y period in the last 10Ky.
    Increased solar activity -- the 20th century saw the highest sustained level of solar activity in the last 10Ky -- accounts for most of it. Human activities other than CO2 emissions -- land-use changes, urban heat island effects, night-time heat emissions, methane emissions from petroleum production and agriculture, etc. -- account for most of the rest, leaving only a derisory fraction to be accounted for by increased CO2.
    These claims are just bald falsehoods. Temperature data have simply been falsified to turn the actual cooling trend since the 1930s into a fabricated warming trend. Increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases have little effect on the earth's surface temperature because the IR absorption spectra are already saturated by water vapor and natural CO2. Human activities such as land-use changes, night-time heat emissions and urban heat island effects are far more important drivers of observed temperatures than CO2.
    After the data have been altered and other data fabricated to turn the cooling trend since the 1930s into a warming trend.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    900
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, but I do. You just don't like me identifying the disingenuous means you have chosen to ignore, derogate and dismiss the facts without engaging with them.
    No. You have an aversion to facts that refute your false beliefs.
    The only thing fake about the slimategate scandal was the exculpatory whitewash.
    Especially when well founded in fact...?

    Odd how analyses that people like you always dismiss as "conspiracy theories" later turn out to be true: the Pentagon Papers, MK Ultra, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran Contra, the list goes on and on.
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
    :lol: Buh-bye...
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    900
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, there is no credible empirical evidence that aerosols were particularly abundant during that period.
    Which has increased exponentially since then, yet some how no longer produces aerosols....
    Vulcanism was not particularly prevalent during that period.

    Perhaps slightly, which is not surprising given the sustained, multimillennium-high level of solar activity throughout the second half of the 20th century.
    In hysterical anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda, that is...
    The fact that this dataset shows effectively no change in arctic sea ice for its first 50 years is enough to condemn it as cherry-picked and/or fabricated. The absurd use of a fourth-order polynomial to characterize such data proves the anti-scientific intent of the paper.
     
    Ddyad and Jack Hays like this.
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Active Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Another blow against the empire.

    Another New Study Determines Sea Surface Temperatures Were 1-5°C Warmer Than Now During The Last ICE AGE
    By Kenneth Richard on 30. November 2020

    Share this...
    [​IMG][​IMG]
    Scientists report they must “exclude atmospheric pCO2 as a direct driver of SST variations” after finding the Atlantic Ocean’s surface was multiple degrees warmer than today from 90 to 20 thousand years ago, or when CO2 concentrations hovered below 200 ppm.
    Another new study (Hou et al., 2020) casts even more doubt on the contention that CO2 concentrations are a driver of ocean temperature changes. Sea surface temperatures ranged between 1 and 5°C warmer than today throughout the last glacial period in the western tropical Atlantic.

    “Our results indicate a lack of pronounced glacial-interglacial variability in the SST record, prompting us to exclude atmospheric pCO2 as a direct driver of SST variations in the southern WTA [western tropical Atlantic].”
    [​IMG]

    Image Source: Hou et al., 2020
    A Southern Ocean site was analyzed in another 2020 study (Ghadi et al.). Sea surface temperatures averaged 1-2°C during glacials and 4°C during interglacials. Today, with a 410 ppm CO2 concentration, this location has again plummeted to glacial/ice age levels (2°C). . . .
     
    Sunsettommy, Ddyad and bringiton like this.
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    900
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not when one side's "argument" is an appeal to authority fallacy.
    You merely assume that politically motivated anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda is "progress."
    So check it out on logical, methodological and epistemological criteria. Don't just claim that only journal peer-reviewers and editors can check things out, or that their decision to publish or not to publish a scientific work is the highest authority on its scientific merit.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,047
    Likes Received:
    8,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, when it gets reviewed it would be great to see he results of the review and who did it.

    I have no idea what you mean by"too narrow" or "prejudiced".
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,047
    Likes Received:
    8,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More unreviewed nonsense from another of the denier sites that cares about politically defeating science rather than extending knowledge.

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/01/notrickszone-review-too-many-tricks-in.html

    If your ideas were REAL, if your ideas were TRUE, you could support them with science that has gone through testing and review.

    If your ideas are limited to the political - you're doing GREAT!!
     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,047
    Likes Received:
    8,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not making an appeal to authority. I'm pointing out that science advances through a process of study and review.

    In NO field, let alone science, should anyone accept the statements of one individual without question.

    And, Hayes IS asking me to believe paper after paper that have not been reviewed by anyone who knows the science underlying the paper, it's methodology, the body of other evidence, etc.- papers that purport to put the lie to what is known throughout the world of climatological sciences.

    He's asking to throw out the results of many thousands of scientists who have had their work checked.

    What is the reason that I should believe the papers Hayse chooses from the denier blogs he trolls over and above the papers that HAVE been reviewed as real science???
     
  17. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Active Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    ". . . The climate science community clearly needs to consider this work very carefully. This may not be easy since three major physics journals have refused to publish it. Their reviews have been defensive and antagonistic, instead of thoughtful, science-based or helpful. Climate alarmism seems to control these journals, and they tend to censor contrary findings. That’s why H&W released the preprint version. . . ."
    Slight, beneficial warming from more carbon dioxide!
     
  18. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Active Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Peer-reviewed and published in a well known journal. Links were provided. Please read before posting.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Active Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not asking you to believe anything.
    Most (nearly all, in fact) of the papers I cite are peer-reviewed and published. I make exceptions for egregious cases of alarmist prejudice.
     
  20. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    You are too lazy to get around your website bigotry since the paper in question was published by Elsevier (Science Direct), NTZ posted the link to it and brought it up for YOUR reading pleasure.

    Forcing of western tropical South Atlantic sea surface temperature across three glacial-interglacial cycles - ScienceDirect
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,047
    Likes Received:
    8,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The next question is why physics journals refuse to publish.

    Most papers get released in preprint. From there they may go on to be published following review. Or, they may reside there as a record or ideas and work that has been done, but hasn't passed rigorous review or been published in credible journals for various reasons.

    Preprint is one of the methods of communication of work that has been done. Scientists do watch prepreint sites.

    That doesn't counter the larger point that there is no serious topic inside or outside of science where the ideas and logic of a tiny minority should supercede all current thought without even bothering to have a serious review.
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,047
    Likes Received:
    8,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see references to who reviewed or published any of these papers.

    I looked at early cites by you for that kind of evidence. Lately I havent, because I've seen no pattern by you in doing more than citing links to denier sites.

    Perprint requires no review. So, that doesn't count.

    I'm not moving any bar - my argument on verification and review has remained consistent from the very start.
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    37,047
    Likes Received:
    8,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The next question is why physics journals refuse to publish.

    Most papers get released in preprint. From there they may go on to be published following review. Or, they may reside there as a record or ideas and work that has been done, but hasn't passed rigorous review or been published in credible journals for various reasons. For example, a reason might be that there have been several well reviewed papers covering the same issue, and journals can't publish every paper - there are FAR FAR too many. Or, the paper ay be

    That's one of the methods of communication of work that has been done.

    I'm NOT trying to squelch your papers. I'm pointing out that before they get accepted as "truth", before they get used to invalidate the reviewed and tested works of the thousands of scientists in the field, review is required.
    I already commented on this group. As a late comer, maybe you should keep up before blundering into making false accusations.

    Elsevier has a long history of all sorts of serious problems with its methodologies that definitely include their process of review - whether they even check for plaerism, what technical review any paper gets, etc.

    In one of it's outrages, they chose to publish medical science only laudatory of Merck corporation.

    The mass resignations of editorial boards is strong comment on the sales of journals to the Elsivier group of journals.

    Its not clear that they even bother to check for plagerism.

    Calling that "published" is a dodge, not a check against projects that incorporate bad methodology, logic, data, etc. and come to conclusions that have been solidly refuted.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Active Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    They don't supersede . . . until they do.
     
  25. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Active Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    694
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Global and Planetary Change | Journal | ScienceDirect.com ...
    www.sciencedirect.com › journal › global-and-planetary-...


    Read the latest articles of Global and Planetary Change at ScienceDirect.com, Elsevier's leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature.
     

Share This Page