Actually, that’s incorrect. Many sceptic do do their own science.

Sorry, Nullis. You are incorrect. The vast majority of skeptics do not do their own relevant science. They nitpick, cherrypick, misunderstand, fabricate. They are not constrained to stick to the facts, something that has been pointed out numerous times now.

And they’re not the slightest bit bothered by their own inconsistencies: Temp is stable, declining, can’t tell. Temp is rising but it’s the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, anything but us. Climate sensitivity is low. Climate sensitivity is high. More here .skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php, and essay here skepticalscience.com/skeptic-contradictions.html

Are you able to list the “many” skeptics that do their own science? There’s Spencer. Christie. I don’t think Patrick Michaels has done anything. Lindzen? O’Donnell? Certainly the most prominent noise-makers don’t do science (Watts, Monckton, Plimer, the Mc’s, Carter–all they do is cherry pick, nitpick, misunderstand, and just make stuff up).

And that is without getting into “skeptic” definition. Michaels, Christie, probably O’Donnell, acknowledge the temp is warming and that we are responsible–some might say that gets their “skeptic” card revoked right there because the party line is “not happening”, or “it’s happening but not our fault”.

But you can only prove or disprove it by subjecting it to critical examination.

Clearing out wrong ideas from the body of science does count as progress. And a wrong argument is still wrong, even if the person pointing it out doesn’t have a better idea to replace it with. That would be like demanding that critics of fortune telling provide a better way to foretell the future before they’re allowed to ‘nitpick’ statistics on any of the current methods. Our position is that the future is unpredictable. You can criticise that for offering unexplainable variables if you like, but it doesn’t make Tarot cards or horoscopes work any better.

“The problem with deniers is that they don’t do their own science, they just nitpick.”

Actually, that’s incorrect. Many sceptic do do their own science.

But there’s nothing wrong with ‘nitpicking’ if that’s another word for criticising bad science.

“I also feel a bit sorry for you and your personal views of science. It’s a cold pursuit of pure truth and logic that is unlikely to be fulfilled. I think most people here think science is at it’s best when it helps people, and science that doesn’t help bring about meaningful progress for mankind is hollow.”

I think you’ve misunderstood my view on science – it isn’t cold at all. We do science because it matters, because we can use it to solve important problems that make everybody’s lives better. But we do it by the right method because it is so important, and we don’t want to mess up. You ask someone doing pharmaceutical work just how slow and careful you have to be. Yes, it would be great to cure cancer – but it’s of no use whatsoever to produce a cure for cancer that doesn’t actually work, or even kills people, because you made errors in your statistics or mislabelled test-tubes, or said that it passed effectiveness tests when it didn’t. You can’t go charging off mixing up new concoctions in a slap-dash way in an effort to get their first. We take that level of care about the quality of science because we know how easy it is to let our hopes distort our judgement, and because we want to succeed and good quality is the only way to reliably achieve that.

Science has achieved great things, but it has always done so by facing reality and looking at the evidence, rather than wishful thinking. You can’t just abandon it and use something else out of impatience; because whatever alternative you pick is almost certainly even less reliable.

According to certain scientists, the Earth was destroyed ten years ago. Or at least, they said it would be back in the 1960s, and recommended some pretty draconian measures to try to reduce the impact of it. It’s all very well breaking the rules to save the Earth, but what happens when it turns out that you’re not, and the world was never in any danger? And now you’ve broken some pretty important rules, and got nothing for it except for the realisation on the part of the unscrupulous that they can get you to agree to absolutely anything if they just attach a scary enough story to it. That would be bad.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
H L Mencken.

“I believe the passion behind this thread comes from the flow of politically motivated”
Certainly, the dividing lines on this, and the AGW debate, are clearly drawn. I was only talking about my opinion on the IPCC not the motivation of the republican party in de-funding the IPCC. I doubt many that voted against the funding have spent any time reviewing the science of AGW let alone the validity of claims against the IPCC. However, I would also argue that most of the Dems that voted for the funding have not done any real research either. It was a “party line” vote to be sure.

This is the problem with the AGW debate (as well just about everything political these days), each side thinks they are 100% correct. If someone dissents in the slightest they are made an outcast. Reason and rational thinking are gone (for most) and we are left with “denialists and warmists” that are blinded by their hatred of the other side.

The AGW science was hijacked by liberals and blown out of proportion with threats of “The end is near” and when those claims were shot down the republicans hijacked the dissenting science and came out with “nothing to see here”. In my opinion, neither side it correct. There is something to AGW, but if we keep arguing “The end is near” VS “nothing to see here” we will get nowhere.

“Do you think the corruptions that you perceive in the IPCC are enough to justify de-funding it and leaving nothing in it’s place?”
I would have been more happy if the vote was to reallocate the funds for the IPCC to another organization (non political) rather than a straight de-funding. But I would rather have nothing than the IPCC, yes.

I disagree that the IPCC is corrupt.  I feel their answers to criticism and the subsequent independent statistical analysis of their work has validated the publications.  There were certainly errors, but I don’t feel the errors were intentional nor gravely significant in the overall conclusions reached.  Calling them corrupt is too far in MY book, but I couldn’t say it’s unreasonable.  There are facts behind the claim, I just disagree on their significance.  

I believe the passion behind this thread comes from the flow of politically motivated, anti-AGW moves that followed the conservative sweep into office this last election. More than anti-AGW…anti-science.  Defunding the IPCC is symptomatic of this anti-science wave.

I would prefer funding the IPCC and changing it’s structure to be more open and flexible.  As an alternative, take funding and give it to NASA to form a group specifically tasked to perform the IPCC’s functions, as outlined in post 53. Make the group out of scientists and teachers, because sometimes good scientists make poor teachers.  

The problem is, if the conservative congress has it’s way, neither of these options will take place.  We’ll be left with nothing.

Do you think the corruptions that you perceive in the IPCC are enough to justify defunding it and leaving nothing in it’s place?

 PS Wasn’t me in the other thread.  

This is certainly a separate argument to the AGW debate. I think we went back and forth a bit on this in an0ther thread. At that time I said (paraphrase) “I have no problem with funding organizations to study AGW (I specifically mentioned NASA do to their widely accepted results). But why would we fund an organization that is, to some extent, corrupt?”

To argue that de-funding the IPCC and denying AGW are the same is to show your bias as, to use the AGW nomenclature, a denialist or a warmist. Being able to look at all information objectively is key to finding a resolution. If one find themselves always defending anything that supports one side of the argument and dismissing anything that supports the other is religion, not science.

Do you find it unreasonable that someone can believe that AGW is real, but also believes that the IPCC is corrupt and Al Gore is a buffoon?

The problem with deniers is that they don’t do their own science, they just nitpick.  Then the scientists respond, the deniers pick again, and nothing gets done.  To use a previous example here, people who thought dinosaurs were warm blooded were once skeptics.  The way they changed things was to make their own theories and predictions, and through examination, interpretation and discovery, prove their predictions in publication after publication.  The beauty modern science is how fast it will actually respond to new and better ideas.

AGW deniers don’t propose their own theories or make predictions, they attempt to disprove others.  Their alternative “theories” smack of those given by creationists, about natural cycles that aren’t explainable or testable, talking about variables that are unknowable.  You want to disprove AGW?  Stop nitpicking statistics.  You’ll never win that fight. You’ll make your claim, the scientists will counter with equally rational arguments over and over.  Make your own experiments, predict an outcome, prove your theory, and publish it.  If you’re right, science will recognize it.

I also feel a bit sorry for you and your personal views of science.  It’s a cold pursuit of pure truth and logic that is unlikely to be fulfilled.  I think most people here think science is at it’s best when it helps people, and science that doesn’t help bring about meaningful progress for mankind is hollow.  Even pure researchers in theoretical science are building blocks on that road of change, and dream about seeing mankind into the stars, curing ailments, and improving the world for the next generations.   A pyrrhic victory in seeing the earth destroyed to preserve perfect science is pitiful.  Science serves humanity, not the other way around.

You can respond if you like, and if you have a real question I’ll answer.  But you and I are so far apart in our opinions and morals that I’ll probably just refrain from commenting on your posts from here on out.  The gulf is too wide.

That wasn’t what I said. I said that I would never think it was the right decision if I was personally unconvinced. But in a democracy, if the representatives elected by the majority make the wrong decision then – within reason – that’s what we have to put up with. I’d say the same if the majority decided to make their decisions with a magic 8-ball.

Democracy isn’t ruled by science, and science is not a democracy. The term ‘scientific consensus’ is an oxymoron. You can have a consensus of scientists, but consensus as such is not scientific. Science is based on evidence, not opinion. Not even the opinion of scientists.

I changed the numbers around because the original numbers were wrong. It’s helpful not to let such misconceptions get too firmly rooted.

If you insist on a definite yes or no answer, then I’ll give you a definite ‘no’, you can’t launch your planet-saving mission. Because the way you keep on trying to hustle me into a hasty decision without answering my questions or giving me the information I need makes me suspicious. Why would any real scientist act in such opposition to the principles of science? It’s evidently not science, and therefore I’ve no reason to believe it’s any better than any of the other schemes political lobbyists are pushing on me.

What’s more, it’s one road to totalitarianism, and I’d almost rather the whole world die than that we go down that road. It’s as bad as the asteroid.

“Despite your earlier warnings against experts, your answers reveal that you believe in experts – namely yourself”

I don’t rely on my own expertise, either. That’s why I come to places like this – to have my views challenged, so that I can catch and correct my errors. Like I said, what matters in science is not experts but evidence.

My criterion is that scientific belief is justified by a hypothesis surviving determined, motivated, competent attack in circumstances where one would expect any errors, if there are any, to be found. A hypothesis that loses but says it “doesn’t matter”, uses wrong maths, dodges the fight, or lists the people who were convinced rather than the evidence that convinced them is not to be believed. I don’t care if 100% of everybody says it – if you don’t have evidence for it, the belief is unfounded.

“The math is complex and, like Einstein, I have great difficulty marrying non-locality with my daily observations of the universe.”

Einstein was quite right about that, although wrong in his attempted solution. Quantum mechanics is in fact completely local and deterministic, as Einstein wished. The only bits that aren’t are interpretive additions with no observable consequences. Again, I believe the maths, not the opinions of famous physicists.

“I wasn’t asking you to suddenly support AGW. Rather, I was asking you to propose an impartial measurement for funding and/or taking action on any subject. I’d invite you to answer again.”

Besides what I said above, I’d simply say they have to provide solid evidence. Not opinion.

@130. Disappointed at your answers.  And not just because I disagree.  Again you didn’t give a yes or no to the thought experiment, and you changed the numbers around.  Since in lieu of an answer you asked another question, I’ll answer: yes, I’d still launch.  Ultimately you’re saying that 15% of scientists feel portions of the data are unreliable, but that 85% of scientists still feel the data is valid and action is called for, it would be totally irresponsible in the context not to take action.  You’re right, fortunately we have more than a few minutes.  But let’s just say I’m glad you’re not the waffler we put in the bunker.  If you were, the senario would probably end like the opening scene from War Games…”Turn your key sir!” 

Your other answers “Well, the political system for making these sorts of decisions that we currently live under is called “democracy”. It’s not perfect, but it’s what we’ve got.”; “I personally don’t recognise that, but I recognise that throughout history some people have done.”; and “the answer is when they actually show us their evidence.” – I found these unsatisfactory from the standpoint of rational science.  That you don’t personally recognize that there is ever a time when scientific consensus warrants action is shocking – what is the point of doing predictive science on risks if we never take action on them?!  Your responses are not at all impartial, and it appears that you are saying that there is NEVER a time when action is justified if you are personally unconvinced.  That YOU are the arbiter of scientific debate.  Despite your earlier warnings against experts, your answers reveal that you believe in experts – namely yourself – and could never objectively compromise or yield the field.  For all your statements on AGW proponents being like religious followers, you come off as the true zealot.

I don’t like quantum mechanics.  Never have.  The math is complex and, like Einstein, I have great difficulty marrying non-locality with my daily observations of the universe.  But I am able to divorce myself from my personal reservations and acknowledge that the field clearly needs study and funding, and that findings in the field have tremendous scientific merit.  I try to remain impartial. 

I wasn’t asking you to suddenly support AGW.  Rather, I was asking you to propose an impartial measurement for funding and/or taking action on any subject.  I’d invite you to answer again.  I’ll post my criteria for board critique tomorrow, as I’m still waiting for other answers here and have to sign off for the next few hours.

That doesn’t mean that I accept “go read about it in the literature” from one who professes to know enough to lecture me -> I would think, they being so smart and all, that they should not find any question I pose to be overtly difficult.

I have to strongly agree with you on this. While no one should ever be discouraged from going to the journals for answers or just to look out of curiosity, it can be a daunting task for the layman. Journal articles are terse, written intensely in the jargon of the specialty, and assume a lot on the part of the reader. And there’s tons of it. And as has been discussed above, publications can be wrong. The quality varies like crazy.

I feel there is a great need for much more summary-level and also in-depth presentation of scientific material for the non-specialist, above and beyond the magazines and blogs that now exist (which are good – I like them and would like to see more). Maybe its just me, but it seems like this kind of thing was a lot more easy to find back in the 50s through the 70s. Agencies like NASA, the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission) etc. would pass out informative and interesting booklets and small books on pertinent subjects at the drop of a hat (somewhere lying around I still have a small booklet on the NERVA engine I got when I was in high school). Scientific American used to periodically publish really great paperback books which were essentially collections of articles on one subject. And I really miss Isaac Asimov’s non-fiction science education books. More than a few of them are priceless. I’d really like to see this vacuum filled again. Just thinking out loud here—maybe universities, research institutes and even journals themselves could be tasked with periodically producing entry-level to advanced guides to research fields.

Furthermore, scientists need to make themselves more accessible to the public. If a scientist receives public funding, they have a duty to educate the public about what they’re doing. Some scientists do make a point of giving general talks and science cafe’s etc, but I think this kind of behavior really needs to increase. Its also important for the scientists themselves, for them to get out and schmooze with people who are potentially interested in the subject, to learn how to communicate without inadvertently confusing people with jargon, and learn to not avoid explaining a concept because it might require intense math (that is, figure out a way to explain without using advanced math). One of the things I really liked about Richard Feynman was that he felt that if you truly understand something, you should be able to explain it to a non-specialist. And most importantly, scientists should learn how not to put people off, as you describe above.

And to try to bring this around to the topic of the post and a common theme at this blog, one of the reasons US science funding is in such dire straights today is that this kind of outreach has languished badly for a while now.