139 replies to this topic

[Devonian]

VillagePlank, on 16 March 2010 - 10:47 , said:

Good question.

I don't know.

It could well be the case that politicised output from the IPCC is largely correct (I think that it is) but I can't tell that is is, and I certainly can't verify that it is. And, I don't think that's because I have a room temperature IQ, either.

This is getting back to proof - I'm not going there again because it wont exist until after the event (if then even)

Quote

That such and such will occur with nth probability - it's all over the IPCC report??

Ahh, definded at the begining of the TAR I think, or was it the previous one. Again, what scientists think, not, oh dear..., proven (why does the wink emoticon look mad ).

Edit: ah haa - this is it !

Edited by Devonian, 16 March 2010 - 12:37 .

[Essan]

Of course, if there is no need for a consensus it implies that there is absolutely no doubt. Maybe some would rather the IPCC said that?

[Captain_Bobski]

Devonian, on 16 March 2010 - 12:24 , said:

They should have kept quiet about the reality there is a consensus so that those who think otherwise aren't stifled?

You're trying to turn this into the wrong argument entirely.

It's not a case of "they should have kept quiet". The point is why did they need to say anything at all?!

The majority of people think that smoking is bad, while a minority thinks it is good.

Why does that need to be said?

It doesn't. An official analysis, conclusion and presentation of this fact would only serve to give the majority the moral high ground, and the only reason there is to gain that is to shut the minority up.

Do you not see?

CB

Essan, on 16 March 2010 - 12:28 , said:

Of course, if there is no need for a consensus it implies that there is absolutely no doubt. Maybe some would rather the IPCC said that?

You are also arguing the wrong point - I am not denying that there is a consensus, among scientists, that AGW is real and correct. A Consensus would not imply that there is absolutely no doubt, because even unanimous agreement counts as consensus. Edit - that last bit didn't make sense, but neither did the comment I was responding to. You can't say "if there's no need for consensus" because, as I say, consensus just is - nobody decides to have consensus: consensus is just the word we use to define the majority view of something. There is always a majority view in any situation, in any question, in any subject that people think about...

Consensus always exists, whether spoken or unspoken.

This thread is (supposed to be) about the analysis of data for the purpose of determining where the consensus lies, the derived conclusion and the presentation of that conclusion, the sole purpose of which is not scientific but rather only to prove the majority opinion, as if that really matters from a scientific perspective.

CB

EDIT - I'm starting to wonder if this discussion is too abstract for most people, or if they are making it more abstract than it needs to be...

Edited by Captain_Bobski, 16 March 2010 - 13:34 .

[Essan]

So what's your point then? That because it's obvious the scientific consensus is that human activity is causing global warming there is no need to say so?

[Thundery wintry showers]

My bottom line on it is: if people are merely pointing out that a strong consensus of opinion exists, then fine, but if they then use it as a manipulative tactic to stifle debate and protect the "status quo" from being challenged, then that's a very bad thing.

Even in the realms of politics, where decisions usually have to be made on the basis of majority rule, it is unhealthy to carry the "majority rule" to the level of groupthink.

[Captain_Bobski]

Essan, on 16 March 2010 - 15:00 , said:

So what's your point then? That because it's obvious the scientific consensus is that human activity is causing global warming there is no need to say so?

No.

No, that's not my point.

No, my point is that the act of decreeing consensus on an issue is a cheap tactic deliberately used to stifle broad debate.

I broadly agree with TWS, in that a casual comment on the fact that there is a consensus is okay (to an extent - if that comment is being made as an observation then fine, but if it is used as a deferral to authority then it is not fine).

The point is that the IPCC's (and the Chicxulub impact team's) whole purpose was to determine where the consensus lay so as to define the parameters of the debate. Anything which counters the AGW argument is not part of the consensus and, as such, is not a part of the debate.

People have commented, for example, on the LI thread that they don't think that the LI can be correct because it flies in the face of consensus opinion. This is a clear deferral to authority, and the whole reason this kind of comment can be made is because of the officially-declared state of the consensus.

Fundamentally, consensus is a democratic concept - the consensus is the belief of the majority.

Science is not a democracy - either something happens or it doesn't, and no amount of belief or opinion changes that fact.

Note well that I am not saying that consensus science is necessarily wrong, but rather that consensus science is necessarily bad.

CB

[Devonian]

Thundery wintry showers, on 16 March 2010 - 15:11 , said:

My bottom line on it is: if people are merely pointing out that a strong consensus of opinion exists, then fine, but if they then use it as a manipulative tactic to stifle debate and protect the "status quo" from being challenged, then that's a very bad thing.

I agree, how would one tell the difference?

[Devonian]

Captain_Bobski, on 16 March 2010 - 15:41 , said:

No.

No, that's not my point.

No, my point is that the act of decreeing consensus on an issue is a cheap tactic deliberately used to stifle broad debate.

Is there to be any debate about that or are you telling us

Quote

I broadly agree with TWS, in that a casual comment on the fact that there is a consensus is okay (to an extent - if that comment is being made as an observation then fine, but if it is used as a deferral to authority then it is not fine).

The point is that the IPCC's (and the Chicxulub impact team's) whole purpose was to determine where the consensus lay so as to define the parameters of the debate. Anything which counters the AGW argument is not part of the consensus and, as such, is not a part of the debate.

I don't think there is any evidence of this tbh.

Quote

People have commented, for example, on the LI thread that they don't think that the LI can be correct because it flies in the face of consensus opinion. This is a clear deferral to authority, and the whole reason this kind of comment can be made is because of the officially-declared state of the consensus.

Have they, heck did I

Quote

Fundamentally, consensus is a democratic concept - the consensus is the belief of the majority.

Science is not a democracy - either something happens or it doesn't, and no amount of belief or opinion changes that fact.

Note well that I am not saying that consensus science is necessarily wrong, but rather that consensus science is necessarily bad.

CB

Well, I agree in that over on sceptic blogs the overwhealing consensus science is that AGW science is 100% wrong. But that doesn't mean AGW science is wrong does it...

So, what changes a science is not debate over the word consensus but new evidence (or not). But if it's consensus, and the 'imposing' of that, that matters then we could see that if the LI becomes widely accepted by science then a simply way to oppose it would be to say 'Oh, the LI is the consensus position now, that consensus is being used to stifle debate'

So I guess we come back to how one would tell if consensus was being used to stifle and not to inform???

Edited by Devonian, 16 March 2010 - 15:59 .

[jethro]

What about funding for research? I imagine money is in short supply and getting funding for a study is fairly difficult; isn't it logical that funding will be easier (comparitively speaking) for a study which is within the bounds of the consensus rather than outside of it, and possibly considered unimportant as a consequence?

[Captain_Bobski]

Devonian, on 16 March 2010 - 15:58 , said:

Is there to be any debate about that or are you telling us

ha ha

Quote

I don't think there is any evidence of this tbh.

I'll reprint this from the IPCC website:

The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.

By declaring consensus on the basis of a study which determined what was "relevant" for the AGW risk assessment, they defined the parameters of the debate. There's your evidence in black and white.

Quote

Have they, heck did I

I didn't want to name any names...

Quote

Well, I agree in that over on sceptic blogs the overwhealing consensus science is that AGW science is 100% wrong. But that doesn't mean AGW science is wrong does it...

Information on the skeptic blogs is, by its very definition, not consensus science - if it's skeptical science, and the skeptics are in the minority, then it cannot be defined as "consensus science". Of course, that doesn't make it right (which is not what this debate was about in the first place, so I fail to understand the relevance of this comment).

Quote

So, what changes a science is not debate over the word consensus but new evidence (or not). But if it's consensus, and the 'imposing' of that, that matters then we could see that if the LI becomes widely accepted by science then a simply way to oppose it would be to say 'Oh, the LI is the consensus position now, that consensus is being used to stifle debate'

So I guess we come back to how one would tell if consensus was being used to stifle and not to inform???

Yes, that would be one way to oppose it - a way that I would not agree with. As I have said, several times now, I am not arguing that the science of AGW must be wrong because it's consensus science: I am arguing that, regardless of whether AGW science is right or wrong, consensus science is not science and has no place in science.

A quick question for you: how does the consensus inform anyone, and what does it inform them of?

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

Devonian raises a good point, "how does one tell the difference?". Emotional forms of manipulation are often very hard to track down and sometimes go unnoticed even by the perpetuators (though rarely by those affected).

The most obvious way to tell would be if some people found that they felt afraid to express well-substantiated views, which disagreed with the consensus, because it might get them into trouble for doing so. I get a strong sense of this in the political discussions over AGW. It's similar to the "debates" over legal issues where you get a consensus saying "the law is right because it's the law, and the law is the law" and anyone who dares to question the correctness of the law or any propaganda surrounding it gets shot down for condoning illegal activity.

But then it's hard to tell those people apart from those who come up with unsubstantiated IceAgeNow-style nonsense and then, when their stances are refuted outright, come back with "you're a consensus and you're stifling my views", when in fact their views are being declared wrong because the available evidence (independent of the consensus) overwhelmingly says so.

I don't detect an air of this in the scientific discussions on AGW within the mainstream scientific community- just a little confirmation bias here and there.

[Captain_Bobski]

I think the difference doesn't really exist - what purpose does the official statement of consensus actually serve?

If everyone knows what the general view is then there is no need for the analysis and dissemination of that view.

If nobody knows what the general view is then the analysis and dissemination of that view is for the purpose of swaying others' opinions.

You don't go about forming a group of people to go through masses of research to form a viewpoint solely for the purpose of letting people know about it. Especially in science, where the majority view is beside the point.

Therefore, the official statement of consensus serves one function, and one function only: to silence (or reduce the credibility of) critics of that view. It is a pre-emptively defensive move, building a fortification around the mainstream view to fend off those who disagree.

I can't see anything about consensus that is beneficial to science.

CB

[Essan]

So, if it's announced that there is a consensus that Darwinian Evolution is correct ...... what does that mean? Who does that affect?

Simply: there is a consensus. Live with it!

[Captain_Bobski]

Essan, on 16 March 2010 - 20:45 , said:

So, if it's announced that there is a consensus that Darwinian Evolution is correct ...... what does that mean? Who does that affect?

Simply: there is a consensus. Live with it!

That's just about the most pathetic argument I've ever read in my life.

[Essan]

Captain_Bobski, on 16 March 2010 - 20:50 , said:

That's just about the most pathetic argument I've ever read in my life.

Why? because it is wrong? Because it is right?

At the end of the day, there is a consensus because we're not so arrogant as to say we're 100% certain. It may be argued that such incertainty should not be made so public, and in that sense maybe the fact there is only a consensus should not be pushed. But at least it's honest. What's so wrong with that?

Edited by Essan, 16 March 2010 - 21:05 .

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

I think that there is a little too much of arguing around the grey areas, here - of course, that's the place the play, by definition, since it is grey not black nor white.

For those arguing for a consensus - I shall ask just one question ...

Should a theory be put to a vote?

(of course - there are countless sub-contexts, here: such as who is qualified to vote? And if that is a question, is the consensus, since only certain qualification enables an electorate, already closed to differing opinion. I hope some patent clerk doesn't have any good ideas)

[Captain_Bobski]

Essan, on 16 March 2010 - 21:03 , said:

Why? because it is wrong? Because it is right?

At the end of the day, there is a consensus because we're not so arrogant as to say we're 100% certain. It may be argued that such incertainty should not be made so public, and in that sense maybe the fact there is only a consensus should not be pushed. But at least it's honest. What's so wrong with that?

Because it's irrelevant.

Because it shows a complete failure on your part to attempt to understand what this discussion is about.

Because it wasn't even an argument - it was an attempt to end the discussion by saying "if you don't like it, too bad".

I shall ask just one question, to go alongside VP's (I've asked it before but had no answer):

What is the point of announcing consensus?

Edited by Captain_Bobski, 17 March 2010 - 07:42 .

[Hiya]

Captain_Bobski, on 16 March 2010 - 18:53 , said:

I can't see anything about consensus that is beneficial to science.

CB

I feel inclined to disagree.

Sometimes a when consensus is reached it can allow people to bypass a problem in a set of linear experiments by making an assumption. As long as some people continue to work on the problem with the open mind that the solution might be contradictory to the consensus.

Hard to explain really.

Obviously the biggest science issue is GW and it does not conform to this.

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Hiya, on 17 March 2010 - 08:05 , said:

Obviously the biggest science issue is GW and it does not conform to this.

Come on, now, leave Grey-Wolf out of this

[Captain_Bobski]

Hiya, on 17 March 2010 - 08:05 , said:

I feel inclined to disagree.

Sometimes a when consensus is reached it can allow people to bypass a problem in a set of linear experiments by making an assumption. As long as some people continue to work on the problem with the open mind that the solution might be contradictory to the consensus.

Hard to explain really.

Obviously the biggest science issue is GW and it does not conform to this.

Hiya

I appreciate that point of view, and I have wrestled with that idea, but I don't accept that it is good scientific practice to bypass problems. Science is about solving problems.

Science has a habit of leaping forward when a previously bypassed problem is solved (like when Einstein tackled the problem of the constancy of the speed of light head-on - Newton realised that there was a problem with his theory of gravitation but he bypassed it, even going so far as to note that he left the problem for other minds to tackle in the future).

Now, you could argue that Newton's laws served us very well for hundreds of years, and that Einstein's theories only refined Newton's work. But the thing is that Newton's laws (on the scale at which they were used) just worked. There was no real understanding of the laws, only an acceptance that they worked. Einstein's theories gave us the understanding and allowed science to leap forward, ironically paving the way for Quantum Mechanics which Einstein himself refuted all the way to his grave.

CB

VillagePlank, on 17 March 2010 - 08:16 , said:

Come on, now, leave Grey-Wolf out of this