Good folk carried off and an evil turd like Murphy remains.
bloke in spain
For someone attempting to push the Green New Deal, that’s a very brave statement.
Roué le Jour
Who “we” white man?
decnine
I suspect that the second sentence is pure truth.
Boganboy
‘And let’s also be clear: there is no such thing as objective bullshit.
We choose the bullshit we want to believe.’
Fixed that one for you.
DocBud
There is some science that is objective, usually non-controversial science. Climate science is rarely objective and neither it seems is epidemiology. Governments choose the experts whose ‘science’ suits their agenda.
Ljh
Docbud, you also failed to mention how careers in science that lead to eminence and positions on policy bodies depend on sponsorship of “appropriate “ research and its publication.
Ljh
I forgot to add the old saw: science proceeds one funeral at a time, definitely applies to medicine.
Arthur the Cat
“We choose the science we want to believe.”
I can’t remember who said it, but “the great thing about science is that it works whether you believe it or not”. Nobody ever got a rock to fly upwards by not believing in gravity.
ken
This is a classic part of post modernist critiques of “reality is socially constructed”. There is a modicum of truth to this – science has a theory that is generally accepted, say Newtonian Gravity or Phlogiston, which is then challenged and overturned in part or in toto. (Quantum mechanics & Oxygen theory). There are some universal constants, but even these rely on social constructs for us to be able to express them.
This critique doesn’t matter for most scientists or social scientists, you just nod and move on. Once in a while it matters a lot – the climate stuff is a classic of this sort – where true science is uncertain and yet the idiots scream the science is settled. The one that makes me laugh is when people who claim scientific knowledge tell me “CO2 is a greenhouse gas and this proves global warming”, with no understanding of the complexity of the climate system and the feedbacks.
Andrew C
“Governments choose the experts whose ‘science’ suits their agenda.”
In this case I think the scariest ‘science’ has been chosen. The highest projected death toll was the one the politicians were scared of taking no notice of.
Which is why we have near empty 4,000 bed emergency Nightingale hospitals.
Itellyounothing
Spud meant religion and wrote science. 180 years of dead Marxists smiled in their graves…..
Funnily enough the the inclusion of a well known liar ( Cummings ), Geobbels to the Brexit Reich, in scientific discussion, was justified, in the just this way, by Conservative Home. I expect the Dettol injection kit to be available shortly, and its efficacy advertised on the side of a Bus.
Anyone who prefers expertise to lying is, of course, an “embittered Remaianiac loser” ( a direct quote). Not the sort of thing one used to read from what was once the Conservative Party.
The problem here is that it is easy to confuse people by suggesting that because Newton`s theories were replaced by Einstein’s ( let us say) an apple is just as likely to fall upwards the earth is flat and anyone who says otherwise is failing to respect the voice of the “people”
You have a somewhat better case with economics but not when you are making bizarre assertions no authoritative voice agrees with.
MC
Good folk carried off and an evil turd like Murphy remains.
There’s no justice Ecksy. Piers Moron is a millionaire and his wife’s a stunner.
MyBurningEars
@Andrew C
To be fair in this kind of situation there’s something to be said in favour of preparing capacity eg for the 10% risk and hoping much of that was unnecessary rather than preparing for the median projection and keeping your fingers crossed. Predictions are hard, especially about the future, and if you accept things could be both much better or much worse than your central estimate, it’s the chance of “much worse” that deserves more planning attention.
The Meissen Bison
“The science is settled” is a contention that suits non-scientists who do not or do not wish to understand the science or lobbyists who wish to close down the debate in order to advance their special interest.
The BBC has the distinction of having a foot in each camp whereby their Nick Robinsons can frame arguments on simple terms that are their stock in trade with staged confrontations between deniers of self-evident truth versus enlightened experts. And then there are also the green evangelists like Roger Harabin, supposedly an independent journalist but clothed in the raiment of Climatology whose every contribution is framed by his creed.
PJF
…“embittered Remaianiac loser” ( a direct quote).
Quoting yourself, judging from that.
The Meissen Bison
Funnily enough the the inclusion of a well known liar ( Cummings ), Geobbels to the Brexit Reich
Lockdown tip of the day: a dirty gerbil cage can really stink out your bungalow.
Steve
Ritchie’s manner became less severe. He resettled his spectacles thoughtfully, and took a pace or two up and down. When he spoke his voice was gentle and patient. He had the air of a doctor, a teacher, even a priest, anxious to explain and persuade rather than to punish.
‘I am taking trouble with you, Winston,’ he said, ‘because you are worth trouble. You know perfectly well what is the matter with you. You have known it for years, though you have fought against the knowledge. You are mentally deranged. You suffer from a defective memory. You are unable to remember real events and you persuade yourself that you remember other events which never happened.
Fortunately it is curable. You have never cured yourself of it, because you did not choose to. There was a small effort of the will that you were not ready to make. Even now, I am well aware, you are clinging to your disease under the impression that it is a virtue.
Now we will take an example. At this moment, candidly… which power is Oceania at war with?’
rhoda klapp
We all, yes all of us, even you, form our judgments directly from our prejudices. Before conscious thought. The rational brain gets the task of making up a story whereby those prejudices can be justified by logic, or at least a semblance of logic. Nobody subjects their opinion to rational thought before deciding.
Having made that clear, in my own case my prejudices are all perfectly in line with logic and sense, it is others who need to stretch reality to match.
Chernyy_Drakon
Ritchie’s manner became less severe. He resettled his spectacles thoughtfully, and took a pace or two up and down. When he spoke his voice was gentle and patient. He had the air of a doctor, a teacher, even a priest, anxious to explain and persuade rather than to punish.
‘I am taking trouble with you, Worstall,’ he said, ‘because you are worth trouble. You know perfectly well what is the matter with you. You have known it for years, though you have fought against the knowledge. You are mentally deranged. You suffer from a defective memory. You are unable to remember real events and you persuade yourself that you remember other events which never happened.
Fortunately it is curable. You have never cured yourself of it, because you did not choose to. There was a small effort of the will that you were not ready to make. Even now, I am well aware, you are clinging to your disease under the impression that it is a virtue.
Now we will take an example. At this moment, candidly… which power is Oceania at war with?’
Fixed it for you
Steve
CD – I’ve got chills, man. And they’re multiplying.
I like to think Our Hero would have something up his sleeve like James Bond did when that Europhile was trying to laser off his nuts.
“You expect me to talk?”
“Nooooo, Mister Worstall! I expect you to listen to the full, unabridged audiobook of my lembit opik, THE EROTIC ADVENTURES OF TAX”
Andrew C
“The problem here is that it is easy to confuse people…”
You speak with more experince of that then anyone else I’ve known.
“It’s not that socialists know nothing, it’s that they know so much that isn’t so”
Mr Ecks
Facepaint–the sooner you are decorating the side of a bus the better.
Chris
“You have a somewhat better case with economics but not when you are making bizarre assertions no authoritative voice agrees with.” Projecting again, Newmy.
Gary Moran
Climate science is interesting as there are the objective facts:
1. CO2 has increased from pre-industrial: 275 ppm to 420 ppm
2. the CO2 increase was predominantly anthropogenic
3. the increase will result in an increase in radiative forcing
4. this increase will result in a global mean surface temperature increase – all things remaining equal this would be close to 1.2’C for a doubling of CO2 – of course not all things will remain equal, and this is the cause of much of the dispute
Then there is all the hypothetical, speculative, model based outcomes – which is not objective fact – and about which we all argue. This is often called “The Science”.
What I find most interesting is that “The Science” does not fundamentally understand climate change at all, in any shape or form. There was better consensus 30 years ago. We do not understand why the world moved from a hothouse regime to an ice-house regime 35 MYA, or why the ice-age started in the northern hemisphere 2.6 MYA, or what caused the mid-pleistocene transition 800 KYA, or what causes dansgaard-oeschger events or Heinrich events, or the cause of the Younger Dryas, or the 8.2 KYA cooling event. None of the significant climate change event are understood, we have lots of hypotheses and conjecture but no certainty. Even milankovitch cycles – which undoubtedly does mostly explain the pattern of stadials and interstadials of the last few million years – is still somewhat disputed.
rhoda klapp
When Science gains the definite article, it becomes indefinite.
Gus
There is science. And then there are scientists. It is the misapplication of one by the other, particularly when there is a career or a political point to be made, that tends to lead to fuckups. The current situation reminded me of the foot and mouth fiasco and this comprehensive and damning report: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/not-the-foot-and-mouth
Boris and team would do well to read it before they take any more advice.
johnnybonk
@Steve – even by your own high standards, that was a great post.
Charly
Gary Moran, there are doubts about those objective facts.
1. CO2 has increased from pre-industrial: 275 ppm to 420 ppm
Measurements from mid-19th C onwards giving values between 300 to over 400 ppm
2. the CO2 increase was predominantly anthropogenic
We know that man’s emissions are dwarfed by other sources.
3. the increase will result in an increase in radiative forcing
How much of the IR absorbed by CO2 is re-radiated? Collision occurs much faster than relaxation.
4. this increase will result in a global mean surface temperature increase – all things remaining equal this would be close to 1.2’C for a doubling of CO2 – of course not all things will remain equal, and this is the cause of much of the dispute
Studies are trending to that 1.2 C number, but some put it as low as 0.5 C, and others at close to zero.
The consensus amongst sceptics is the lukewarmer position. We should be wary of consensus in science.
Tractor Gent
Personally I’m quite happy with Cummings holding the scientist’s feet to the fire, if he’s insisting they justify their assumptions.
Chris Miller
This is a classic part of post modernist critiques of “reality is socially constructed”. There is a modicum of truth to this – science has a theory that is generally accepted, say Newtonian Gravity or Phlogiston, which is then challenged and overturned in part or in toto.
Newton tragically lacked the foresight to include in his laws any caveat along the lines of “within 1 part in a billion for velocities less than 1 million mph and gravitational fields less than 10g”. This remains true, which is why we can direct spacecraft to Pluto and beyond without needing to correct for relativistic effects.
Agammamon
So, he is now saying Young Earth Creationism is valid?
That the earth is flat – for some people? But not for others?
djc
“reality is socially constructed”
A fine example of an idea, not without merit, that is very appealing and dangerous when it makes its way into the mind of the not-very-bright.
Pcar
@ken
“the science is settled” Stomach ulcers are caused by stress & excess acid
…………
Oh, All change, jump to Bacteria Bus, settle in
Chester Draws
So, he is now saying Young Earth Creationism is valid?
No, he is saying that you can choose to believe in it, if you want. And some people do, regardless of all the evidence.
We choose the science we want to believe.
I choose the Lotto numbers. Doesn’t make me right.
Stonyground
Charly, your checklist fails at #2. The man made contribution to the plus side of the CO2 cycle is less than 5%. All things being equal, that should still cause a modest rise but there is no way of knowing whether the observed rise is completely natural.
PF
2)
I thought that the observed increase had been calculated as primarily due to man’s input, through Carbon isotopes? It’s a while since I looked, am I wrong?
Doesn’t change the rest, ie by the time you get to sensitivity, “models”, etc.
Steve
Mr Bonk – thank you
john77
@ rhoda klapp
My brain works differently. The rational consciousness has given up pretending that it is the more powerful part and accepts that the subconscious has emotional diktats. It applies logic to work from there to generate my prejudices which I am free to test against reality. This means that I am not a slave to the bigotry exhibited by, for example, the pro- and anti-Trump extremists.
ANNRQ
“We choose the science we want to believe.”
The Golden Wonder can believe what he likes. It doesn’t make it fact.
His big problem is that everyone else can also choose to believe what they want. I suspect that he would be very disappointed to find out that the “we” that are part of his particular socio-politco-economic grouping and subscribe to his science preferences (fantasies) is substantially smaller than the ‘them” that are outside.
Rejecting the data that does not fit the desired outcome is a classic “technique” of dodgy science and socialist doctrine, so it’s hardly surprising that there’s a large cross-connection between the two groups.
Charly
Stonyground, PF
I agree. If the data we have are correct, CO2 should be increasing faster.
But we do not know whether oceans are + or – for CO2. We do know that the planet is 15% greener that at the start of the satellite record. That needs a lot of CO2.
Classic Marxist cockrot.
Good folk carried off and an evil turd like Murphy remains.
For someone attempting to push the Green New Deal, that’s a very brave statement.
Who “we” white man?
I suspect that the second sentence is pure truth.
‘And let’s also be clear: there is no such thing as objective bullshit.
We choose the bullshit we want to believe.’
Fixed that one for you.
There is some science that is objective, usually non-controversial science. Climate science is rarely objective and neither it seems is epidemiology. Governments choose the experts whose ‘science’ suits their agenda.
Docbud, you also failed to mention how careers in science that lead to eminence and positions on policy bodies depend on sponsorship of “appropriate “ research and its publication.
I forgot to add the old saw: science proceeds one funeral at a time, definitely applies to medicine.
“We choose the science we want to believe.”
I can’t remember who said it, but “the great thing about science is that it works whether you believe it or not”. Nobody ever got a rock to fly upwards by not believing in gravity.
This is a classic part of post modernist critiques of “reality is socially constructed”. There is a modicum of truth to this – science has a theory that is generally accepted, say Newtonian Gravity or Phlogiston, which is then challenged and overturned in part or in toto. (Quantum mechanics & Oxygen theory). There are some universal constants, but even these rely on social constructs for us to be able to express them.
This critique doesn’t matter for most scientists or social scientists, you just nod and move on. Once in a while it matters a lot – the climate stuff is a classic of this sort – where true science is uncertain and yet the idiots scream the science is settled. The one that makes me laugh is when people who claim scientific knowledge tell me “CO2 is a greenhouse gas and this proves global warming”, with no understanding of the complexity of the climate system and the feedbacks.
“Governments choose the experts whose ‘science’ suits their agenda.”
In this case I think the scariest ‘science’ has been chosen. The highest projected death toll was the one the politicians were scared of taking no notice of.
Which is why we have near empty 4,000 bed emergency Nightingale hospitals.
Spud meant religion and wrote science. 180 years of dead Marxists smiled in their graves…..
Follow the money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0Ir4_RH66g&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
Apologies if this is a double post – I saw it this morning but can’t remember where……
And a classic from Michael Crichton. Discussing Chernobyl but relevant to today: http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Fear,%20Complexity,%20&%20Environmental%20Management%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.htm
Funnily enough the the inclusion of a well known liar ( Cummings ), Geobbels to the Brexit Reich, in scientific discussion, was justified, in the just this way, by Conservative Home. I expect the Dettol injection kit to be available shortly, and its efficacy advertised on the side of a Bus.
Anyone who prefers expertise to lying is, of course, an “embittered Remaianiac loser” ( a direct quote). Not the sort of thing one used to read from what was once the Conservative Party.
The problem here is that it is easy to confuse people by suggesting that because Newton`s theories were replaced by Einstein’s ( let us say) an apple is just as likely to fall upwards the earth is flat and anyone who says otherwise is failing to respect the voice of the “people”
You have a somewhat better case with economics but not when you are making bizarre assertions no authoritative voice agrees with.
Good folk carried off and an evil turd like Murphy remains.
There’s no justice Ecksy. Piers Moron is a millionaire and his wife’s a stunner.
@Andrew C
To be fair in this kind of situation there’s something to be said in favour of preparing capacity eg for the 10% risk and hoping much of that was unnecessary rather than preparing for the median projection and keeping your fingers crossed. Predictions are hard, especially about the future, and if you accept things could be both much better or much worse than your central estimate, it’s the chance of “much worse” that deserves more planning attention.
“The science is settled” is a contention that suits non-scientists who do not or do not wish to understand the science or lobbyists who wish to close down the debate in order to advance their special interest.
The BBC has the distinction of having a foot in each camp whereby their Nick Robinsons can frame arguments on simple terms that are their stock in trade with staged confrontations between deniers of self-evident truth versus enlightened experts. And then there are also the green evangelists like Roger Harabin, supposedly an independent journalist but clothed in the raiment of Climatology whose every contribution is framed by his creed.
…“embittered Remaianiac loser” ( a direct quote).
Quoting yourself, judging from that.
Funnily enough the the inclusion of a well known liar ( Cummings ), Geobbels to the Brexit Reich
Lockdown tip of the day: a dirty gerbil cage can really stink out your bungalow.
Ritchie’s manner became less severe. He resettled his spectacles thoughtfully, and took a pace or two up and down. When he spoke his voice was gentle and patient. He had the air of a doctor, a teacher, even a priest, anxious to explain and persuade rather than to punish.
‘I am taking trouble with you, Winston,’ he said, ‘because you are worth trouble. You know perfectly well what is the matter with you. You have known it for years, though you have fought against the knowledge. You are mentally deranged. You suffer from a defective memory. You are unable to remember real events and you persuade yourself that you remember other events which never happened.
Fortunately it is curable. You have never cured yourself of it, because you did not choose to. There was a small effort of the will that you were not ready to make. Even now, I am well aware, you are clinging to your disease under the impression that it is a virtue.
Now we will take an example. At this moment, candidly… which power is Oceania at war with?’
We all, yes all of us, even you, form our judgments directly from our prejudices. Before conscious thought. The rational brain gets the task of making up a story whereby those prejudices can be justified by logic, or at least a semblance of logic. Nobody subjects their opinion to rational thought before deciding.
Having made that clear, in my own case my prejudices are all perfectly in line with logic and sense, it is others who need to stretch reality to match.
Ritchie’s manner became less severe. He resettled his spectacles thoughtfully, and took a pace or two up and down. When he spoke his voice was gentle and patient. He had the air of a doctor, a teacher, even a priest, anxious to explain and persuade rather than to punish.
‘I am taking trouble with you, Worstall,’ he said, ‘because you are worth trouble. You know perfectly well what is the matter with you. You have known it for years, though you have fought against the knowledge. You are mentally deranged. You suffer from a defective memory. You are unable to remember real events and you persuade yourself that you remember other events which never happened.
Fortunately it is curable. You have never cured yourself of it, because you did not choose to. There was a small effort of the will that you were not ready to make. Even now, I am well aware, you are clinging to your disease under the impression that it is a virtue.
Now we will take an example. At this moment, candidly… which power is Oceania at war with?’
Fixed it for you
CD – I’ve got chills, man. And they’re multiplying.
I like to think Our Hero would have something up his sleeve like James Bond did when that Europhile was trying to laser off his nuts.
“You expect me to talk?”
“Nooooo, Mister Worstall! I expect you to listen to the full, unabridged audiobook of my lembit opik, THE EROTIC ADVENTURES OF TAX”
“The problem here is that it is easy to confuse people…”
You speak with more experince of that then anyone else I’ve known.
“It’s not that socialists know nothing, it’s that they know so much that isn’t so”
Facepaint–the sooner you are decorating the side of a bus the better.
“You have a somewhat better case with economics but not when you are making bizarre assertions no authoritative voice agrees with.” Projecting again, Newmy.
Climate science is interesting as there are the objective facts:
1. CO2 has increased from pre-industrial: 275 ppm to 420 ppm
2. the CO2 increase was predominantly anthropogenic
3. the increase will result in an increase in radiative forcing
4. this increase will result in a global mean surface temperature increase – all things remaining equal this would be close to 1.2’C for a doubling of CO2 – of course not all things will remain equal, and this is the cause of much of the dispute
Then there is all the hypothetical, speculative, model based outcomes – which is not objective fact – and about which we all argue. This is often called “The Science”.
What I find most interesting is that “The Science” does not fundamentally understand climate change at all, in any shape or form. There was better consensus 30 years ago. We do not understand why the world moved from a hothouse regime to an ice-house regime 35 MYA, or why the ice-age started in the northern hemisphere 2.6 MYA, or what caused the mid-pleistocene transition 800 KYA, or what causes dansgaard-oeschger events or Heinrich events, or the cause of the Younger Dryas, or the 8.2 KYA cooling event. None of the significant climate change event are understood, we have lots of hypotheses and conjecture but no certainty. Even milankovitch cycles – which undoubtedly does mostly explain the pattern of stadials and interstadials of the last few million years – is still somewhat disputed.
When Science gains the definite article, it becomes indefinite.
There is science. And then there are scientists. It is the misapplication of one by the other, particularly when there is a career or a political point to be made, that tends to lead to fuckups. The current situation reminded me of the foot and mouth fiasco and this comprehensive and damning report: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/not-the-foot-and-mouth
Boris and team would do well to read it before they take any more advice.
@Steve – even by your own high standards, that was a great post.
Gary Moran, there are doubts about those objective facts.
1. CO2 has increased from pre-industrial: 275 ppm to 420 ppm
Measurements from mid-19th C onwards giving values between 300 to over 400 ppm
2. the CO2 increase was predominantly anthropogenic
We know that man’s emissions are dwarfed by other sources.
3. the increase will result in an increase in radiative forcing
How much of the IR absorbed by CO2 is re-radiated? Collision occurs much faster than relaxation.
4. this increase will result in a global mean surface temperature increase – all things remaining equal this would be close to 1.2’C for a doubling of CO2 – of course not all things will remain equal, and this is the cause of much of the dispute
Studies are trending to that 1.2 C number, but some put it as low as 0.5 C, and others at close to zero.
The consensus amongst sceptics is the lukewarmer position. We should be wary of consensus in science.
Personally I’m quite happy with Cummings holding the scientist’s feet to the fire, if he’s insisting they justify their assumptions.
This is a classic part of post modernist critiques of “reality is socially constructed”. There is a modicum of truth to this – science has a theory that is generally accepted, say Newtonian Gravity or Phlogiston, which is then challenged and overturned in part or in toto.
Newton tragically lacked the foresight to include in his laws any caveat along the lines of “within 1 part in a billion for velocities less than 1 million mph and gravitational fields less than 10g”. This remains true, which is why we can direct spacecraft to Pluto and beyond without needing to correct for relativistic effects.
So, he is now saying Young Earth Creationism is valid?
That the earth is flat – for some people? But not for others?
“reality is socially constructed”
A fine example of an idea, not without merit, that is very appealing and dangerous when it makes its way into the mind of the not-very-bright.
@ken
“the science is settled” Stomach ulcers are caused by stress & excess acid
…………
Oh, All change, jump to Bacteria Bus, settle in
So, he is now saying Young Earth Creationism is valid?
No, he is saying that you can choose to believe in it, if you want. And some people do, regardless of all the evidence.
We choose the science we want to believe.
I choose the Lotto numbers. Doesn’t make me right.
Charly, your checklist fails at #2. The man made contribution to the plus side of the CO2 cycle is less than 5%. All things being equal, that should still cause a modest rise but there is no way of knowing whether the observed rise is completely natural.
2)
I thought that the observed increase had been calculated as primarily due to man’s input, through Carbon isotopes? It’s a while since I looked, am I wrong?
Doesn’t change the rest, ie by the time you get to sensitivity, “models”, etc.
Mr Bonk – thank you
@ rhoda klapp
My brain works differently. The rational consciousness has given up pretending that it is the more powerful part and accepts that the subconscious has emotional diktats. It applies logic to work from there to generate my prejudices which I am free to test against reality. This means that I am not a slave to the bigotry exhibited by, for example, the pro- and anti-Trump extremists.
“We choose the science we want to believe.”
The Golden Wonder can believe what he likes. It doesn’t make it fact.
His big problem is that everyone else can also choose to believe what they want. I suspect that he would be very disappointed to find out that the “we” that are part of his particular socio-politco-economic grouping and subscribe to his science preferences (fantasies) is substantially smaller than the ‘them” that are outside.
Rejecting the data that does not fit the desired outcome is a classic “technique” of dodgy science and socialist doctrine, so it’s hardly surprising that there’s a large cross-connection between the two groups.
Stonyground, PF
I agree. If the data we have are correct, CO2 should be increasing faster.
But we do not know whether oceans are + or – for CO2. We do know that the planet is 15% greener that at the start of the satellite record. That needs a lot of CO2.