The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[TheSkepticChristian]

The respected Japan Meteorological Agency also agrees that 2014 is most likely the hottest year. Even if it is not, it is still part of the top 4. 

2010 and 2013 are also in the top 4, so I don't know how that helps your case. 

 

It is very highly probable that 2014 or 2010 is the warmest year on record. 

 

 

 

but 38-48% is improbable!

 

think of a number from 1-3. If I tell you the number, please send me 1,000 dollars. 

Edited April 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

think of a number from 1-3. If I tell you the number, please send me 1,000 dollars. 

 

If you guess wrong, please send me 1,000 dollars. 

 

Is this what science has boiled down to, influencing America with their highly trusted name (NASA) to gamble against the odds?  It makes me sick to think that they would publish such a statement as fact.  Science is supposed to pursue the most likely truth, not influence people to believe the least likely truth.

 

I came into this debate believing in GW but agnostic as to whether it is man caused (I actually leaned a little more toward it being man caused believe it or not), I am leaving this debate questioning the long term trajectory of global climate, and much more confident that man is playing a very minor role in any warming at all.  I am leaving this debate with a bad taste in my mouth at how low scientists would stoop to influence America to believe in their pet theory.  To state as fact that 2014 was the hottest year on record with only a 38-48% chance of being right is disgusting to me.  They are making desperate attempts to silence skeptics, even when simple mathematics clearly demonstrate that they are most likely wrong. 

 

This just gives more validity to the OP "The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible."

 

 I actually believe that science is credible, I just think that scientists muck it up way too much and exert influence where it is not deserved.  

Edited April 17, 2015 by pogi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

it means means that it is certainlty among the top 4 hottest years on record, and there is a 38% chance of being the hottest year according to NASA.  NOAA concluded that among the top 5, 2014 has a 48% chance. So it is not misleading at all. 

 

2010 has an 18% chance of being the hottest on record. 

 

 

 

 

Because good scientists don't like to be 100% certain on anything. 

So the 0 in the first graph signifies "normal". Can you justify that? Can the "climatologist" justify it?

[thesometimesaint]

If you guess wrong, please send me 1,000 dollars. 

 

Is this what science has boiled down to, influencing America with their highly trusted name (NASA) to gamble against the odds?  It makes me sick to think that they would publish such a statement as fact.  Science is supposed to pursue the most likely truth, not influence people to believe the least likely truth.

 

I came into this debate believing in GW but agnostic as to whether it is man caused (I actually leaned a little more toward it being man caused believe it or not), I am leaving this debate questioning the long term trajectory of global climate, and much more confident that man is playing a very minor role in any warming at all.  I am leaving this debate with a bad taste in my mouth at how low scientists would stoop to influence America to believe in their pet theory.  To state as fact that 2014 was the hottest year on record with only a 38-48% chance of being right is disgusting to me.  They are making desperate attempts to silence skeptics, even when simple mathematics clearly demonstrate that they are most likely wrong. 

 

This just gives more validity to the OP "The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible."

 

 I actually believe that science is credible, I just think that scientists muck it up way too much and exert influence where it is not deserved.  

 

Yes that is exactly what science does. IE; There was no better than 50/50 chance that the first American men to land on the moon would do so; to safely land and return alive. Also it was even longer odds that the Apollo 13 mission crew members would survive, but they did.

 

Same with Climate Science

SEE http://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/five-things-know-about-2014-global-temperatures

SEE http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php

SEE http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

 

Here a list of the scientific organization that accept AGW

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

We humans really are causing the globe to warm through our release of CO2.

SEE

 

Science doesn't care what you. or I,  believe. It's not a popularity contest. We don't through out the Theory of Gravity just because your scale said you gained a few pounds over Thanksgiving dinner.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay, there's something here I'm not getting. Given that they know the temperatures for all of those years, and given your statement that "global surface temperatures in 2014 were the hottest on record" it follows that the temperatures for the other years are known. And that they are known to be less than 2014.

Shouldn't their probabilities, therefore, be zero?

What have I missed?

Thanks,

Russell

Excellent observation. I am under the impression that they are playing a joke and some people don't see the punch line.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay, it is my 95 BP moment, my mistake, I didn't look carefully.  Here is another nasa graph, after 2010 

 

 

 

So you have to switch graphs to prove your point? Which graph is the correct graph? This one? Or the one you post earlier?

[ERayR]

Okay, there's something here I'm not getting. Given that they know the temperatures for all of those years, and given your statement that "global surface temperatures in 2014 were the hottest on record" it follows that the temperatures for the other years are known. And that they are known to be less than 2014.

Shouldn't their probabilities, therefore, be zero?

What have I missed?

Thanks,

Russell

 

My guess is they are playing with there models and juggling the numbers.

[pogi]

Yes that is exactly what science does. IE; There was no better than 50/50 chance that the first American men to land on the moon would do so; to safely land and return alive. Also it was even longer odds that the Apollo 13 mission crew members would survive, but they did.

 

If they want to gamble with their own lives and livelihood, that is their reckless prerogative to do so, but when the livelihood of entire industries and thousands and thousands of jobs are at risk, they have no right to mislead the public the way they do - betting against the odds while misleading us to believe that their conclusions are factual, or at least highly probable, is reckless and dishonest. 

 

TSS, isn't it true that it is more unlikely than likely that 2014 was the hottest year on record?  Give me a yes or no answer.

Edited April 17, 2015 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

If they want to gamble with their own lives and livelihood, that is their reckless prerogative to do so, but when the livelihood of entire industries and thousands and thousands of jobs are at risk, they have no right to mislead the public the way they do - betting against the odds while misleading us to believe that their conclusions are factual is reckless and dishonest. 

 

TSS, isn't it more probable that their conclusion is wrong that 2014 was the hottest year on record?  Give me a yes or no answer.

 

Why should I have confidence in their conclusions when the numbers speak louder than their words?

 

If you had a choice between two slot machines, one had a 38%-48% chance of winning and the other had a 52%-62% chance of winning, which machine would you have higher confidence in?

 

Christopher Columbus sailed on the Spanish coin. JFK committed the US to putting man on the moon and returning him safely within a decade. Not because it would be easy and/or without cost, but because it would be hard and expensive. We're those efforts worth the risk? I think so.

 

Developing the sanitation smart grid system we have cost entire industries and thousands and thousands of jobs. Do you want to give that up?

SEE

 

There is no yes or no answer. That's like asking have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. I've not said that 2014 was the hottest on record. At the minimum it was one of the three hottest years on record so far. Slight variations from the upwards slope don't impress me all that much when compared to the slope.

 

The thing about science is that you don't have to put any confidence in it. In fact scientists are always trying to prove another scientist wrong. Test their ideas yourself. Does CO2 in fact trap heat? Does more CO2 in fact trap more heat? Has there been a measurable rise in temperatures over the last 50 years or so due to our production of CO2? The answer is an emphatic YES with over a 97% confidence rate. Does that mean that some scientist can't disprove those simple ideas at some time in the future? Absolutely not. Science is always open to change. IE; Newton wasn't the last word on gravity. We still use some of his idea's today.

 

I believe in taking calculated risks. Everytime we drive on the public roads we run the risk of being injured or killed in an automobile accident. That is a risk we assume may happen. We buy insurance to help defray the monetary cost if we do. With climate change the risk is overheating our planet with its attendant costs. Like driving that car if nothing happens then we profit from it, minus the cost of insurance. If something bad happens, and we have insurance, we're not wipe out financially because of it. Think of burning less fossil fuel as the insurance policy against bad things happening if we continue to overheat our planet.

 

Slot machines don't have a 30% chance of winning. It's about a 1 in 6 chance. William "Bill" Harrah didn't build those fancy casinos to give away money. My dad taught one very valuable lesson about gambling, and I taught it to my kids. "Don't wager any more than you can afford to loose". With climate change loosing the bet will be VERY expensive in deed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Christopher Columbus sailed on the Spanish coin. JFK committed the US to putting man on the moon and returning him safely within a decade. Not because it would be easy and/or without cost, but because it would be hard and expensive. We're those efforts worth the risk? I think so.

 

Developing the sanitation smart grid system we have cost entire industries and thousands and thousands of jobs. Do you want to give that up?

SEE

 

There is no yes or no answer. That's like asking have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. I've not said that 2014 was the hottest on record. At the minimum it was one of the three hottest years on record so far. Slight variations from the upwards slope don't impress me all that much when compared to the slope.

 

The thing about science is that you don't have to put any confidence in it. In fact scientists are always trying to prove another scientist wrong. Test their ideas yourself. Does CO2 in fact trap heat? Does more CO2 in fact trap more heat? Has there been a measurable rise in temperatures over the last 50 years or so due to our production of CO2? The answer is an emphatic YES with over a 97% confidence rate. Does that mean that some scientist can't disprove those simple ideas at some time in the future? Absolutely not. Science is always open to change. IE; Newton wasn't the last word on gravity. We still use some of his idea's today.

 

I believe in taking calculated risks. Everytime we drive on the public roads we run the risk of being injured or killed in an automobile accident. That is a risk we assume may happen. We buy insurance to help defray the monetary cost if we do. With climate change the risk is overheating our planet with its attendant costs. Like driving that car if nothing happens then we profit from it, minus the cost of insurance. If something bad happens, and we have insurance, we're not wipe out financially because of it. Think of burning less fossil fuel as the insurance policy against bad things happening if we continue to overheat our planet.

 

Slot machines don't have a 30% chance of winning. It's about a 1 in 6 chance. William "Bill" Harrah didn't build those fancy casinos to give away money. My dad taught one very valuable lesson about gambling, and I taught it to my kids. "Don't wager any more than you can afford to loose". With climate change loosing the bet will be VERY expensive in deed.

Last year in Utah April 17th was the warmest on record.

 

Or

 

There is a 42% chance that April the 17th 2015 was the hottest year.

 

The fact is that Pogi is correct. That the chance it was not the hottest year is greater than the chance it was.

 

He is not asking a loaded question. It is a simple math problem.

[pogi]

There is no yes or no answer.  That's like asking have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

 

???

 

Again, isn't it true that it is more unlikely than likely that 2014 was the hottest year on record?  This question can be correctly answered with a yes or no answer.  This is not a trick question.  It is simple math and risk assessment. 

 

I believe in taking calculated risks. 

 

 

If you can't even tell me if a 38% likelihood is less likely than a 62% likelihood, how exactly do you calculate risk?  

 

 If I only had a 38-48% chance of driving safely on the roads, I would not drive on the roads. 

 

If I only had 38-48% confidence in a result, I would certainly not publish that result as the factual truth in the media - that would be dishonest. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

If you guess wrong, please send me 1,000 dollars. 

 

I knew you were going to tell me that, but there is a very high probability that 2014 or 2010 is the hottest on record.

The Japan Meteorological Agency also agrees that 2014 is most likely the hottest year

 

If 2014 is not the hottest year, it is 2010 or 2005. 2014 is 38% (NASA) compared to the other three. 

 

So you have to switch graphs to prove your point? Which graph is the correct graph? This one? Or the one you post earlier?

 

Both, but the other one ends around 2005. 

 

 It makes me sick to think that they would publish such a statement as fact.  Science is supposed to pursue the most likely truth, not influence people to believe the least likely truth.

CFR

 It was NASA that said 38%, not the critics. NASA did not say it is a 100% fact, your argument is kind of irrelevant because you keep ignoring that 2014 is among the top four. 2014, 2010, or 2005 are after your so-called pause. You also keep ignoring that the oceans are warming faster and faster. 

 

Again, isn't it true that it is more unlikely than likely that 2014 was the hottest year on record?  

 

True, so what is the big deal? Let say it is 2010, how does that help your case? 

 

Bytheway, 

 

What do you have to say about the BBC reporter? He did not mention Gore. 

 

 

From 1989 to 2002, several large US companies, including the oil companies Exxon and the US subsidiaries of Shell and BP, sponsored a lobbying organisation called the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), to counter the strengthening consensus that human carbon dioxide emissions posed a serious threat to the Earth’s climate. Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron no longer easily fit the stereotype of “Merchants of Doubt”, at least when it comes to the basic science of climate change. Nevertheless, the damage done to the public perception of climate science by the GCC and other oil-company-sponsored organizations lingers on. Nobody should be under the illusion that oil companies are going to lead the fight against climate change. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/bigoil.html

Edited April 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

CFR

 It was NASA that said 38%, not the critics. 

 

 

Scientists reported that "2014 was the hottest year on record" to the media (I already gave you a CFR). How is that not a statement of fact?  Yet, the TRUTH of the matter is that it is more unlikely than likely that 2014 was the hottest year.  They did not tell the media that it is only 38% likely that it was the hottest year in their press releases, you kind of had to find it on your own from their website - that is misleading and dishonest. 

 

"According to a NASA spokesman, the PowerPoint containing this slide went online at the same time that the 2014 temperature record itself was announced. So it may not have been as prominent as the press releases from the agencies, but it was available."

 

Why didn't they include that highly significant bit of information in the press releases?  And why did they say 2014 was the hottest year when it most likely wasn't?  Wouldn't it have been more honest and accurate to say that 2014 was one of the 20 warmest years on record?  It leads me to believe that these scientist are intentionally misleading the public.  They have tarnished their reputation. 

 

True, so what is the big deal? 

 

 

 

The big deal is that scientists are intentionally giving misleading information to the public.  You don't find that disturbing?  You don't think that hurts their credibility?  

 

So why did they say 2014 was the hottest year on record when they know for a fact that it is more unlikely than likely that 2014 was the warmest year? How is that not disgraceful conduct?  What is the motivation of such a press release if these scientists are truly unbiased, not politically driven, or unmotivated by money?  You would have mocked the critics to scorn if they pulled such a stunt! 

Edited April 17, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

Scientists reported that "2014 was the hottest year on record" to the media (I already gave you a CFR). 

 

The media is not the scientific literature or a scientific report. 

 

The big deal is that scientists are intentionally giving misleading information to the public.  You don't find that disturbing?  You don't think that hurts their credibility?  

 

Milk before meat, the public won't understand complex stuff. 

The church does the same thing too. Most people do not use percentages, and don't think scientifically.

 

Again, 2014 has the best chance of being the hottest, NASA said it is 38%.  

The skeptics do spread  a lot of misleading information, why don't you complain about that? 

 

Edited April 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

The slide was also discussed in the press briefing when the news of the new record was released. In the briefing, NOAA’s Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, noted: Certainly there are uncertainties in putting all this together, all these datasets. But after considering the uncertainties, we have calculated the probability that 2014, versus other years that were relatively warm, were actually the warmest year on record. And the way you can interpret these data tables is, for the NOAA data, 2014 is two and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on record, 2010, to actually be the warmest on record, after consideration of all the data uncertainties that we take into account. And for the NASA data, that number is on the order of about one and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on their records, which again, is 2010. So clearly, 2014 in both our records were the warmest, and there’s a fair bit of confidence that that is indeed the case, even considering data uncertainties.

 

In light of all of this, is there anything wrong with NASA and NOAA declaring 2014 a record? To the contrary, it’s hard to see how there could be. If anything, in criticizing NASA, and holding forth the 38 percent figure as though it somehow undermines the analysis, climate “skeptics” are simply exaggerating scientific uncertainty — which always exists and can never be fully dispelled — and letting it undermine what we actually know. A better scientific way of assessing evidence, in contrast, is to take uncertainty into account — which NASA and NOAA clearly did — but then go with the conclusion that is supported by the weight of existing evidence. And from Karl’s words above, you can clearly see that the weight of the evidence, supported by both NASA’s and NOAA’s analyses, shows that the most reasonable conclusion is that 2014 is the hottest year on record. Indeed, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who heads up the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which did the temperature analysis from its records, dubbed “GISTEMP”) and also participated in the press briefing above, has written a blog post to explain all of this further. Here’s what he notes: In both analyses, the values for 2014 are the warmest, but are statistically close to that of 2010 and 2005. In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04ºC, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.02ºC. Given the uncertainties, we can estimated the likelihood that this means 2014 was in fact the planet’s warmest year since 1880. Intuitively, the highest ranked year will be the most likely individual year to be the record (in horse racing terms, that would be the favorite) and indeed, we estimated that 2014 is about 1.5 to ~3 times more likely than 2010 to have been the record. In absolute probability terms, NOAA calculated that 2014 was ~48% likely to be the record versus all other years, while for GISTEMP (because of the smaller margin), there is a higher change of uncertainties changing the ranking (~38%). (Contrary to some press reports, this was indeed fully discussed during the briefing). So taking all of this into account, I can only conclude that once you dig into what NOAA’s and NASA’s scientists actually did, and why they did it, you realize that their conclusion is perfectly reasonable. 2014 was the hottest year on record. Not with absolute certainty — just with enough of it for an imperfect world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/23/sorry-skeptics-nasa-and-noaa-were-right-about-the-2014-temperature-record/

Edited April 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

For our gambling fans out there. CO2 weights the dice. No one would play a game of Craps if it ALWAYS showed Snake Eye's. What CO2 does is give a slight statistical advantage to throwing Snake Eye's.

[ERayR]

Milk before meat, the public won't understand complex stuff. 

 

Do you know how elitist this sounds?  Only we the elite few can understand.  The general public, well they are just too stupid.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Do you know how elitist this sounds?  Only we the elite few can understand.  The general public, well they are just too stupid.

 

It doesn't have to be that way, but most people simply do not care, that is the problem. 

Most people do not like to read science and math books.

 

 

 

but please do not misrepresent what I said, I did not use offensive language 

Edited April 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Sorry, skeptics: NASA and NOAA were right about the 2014 temperature record, Washington Post 

 

Last month was hottest March worldwide since 1880

http://news.yahoo.com/march-hottest-worldwide-since-1880-151603683.html

Edited April 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

It doesn't have to be that way, but most people simply do not care, that is the problem. 

Most people do not like to read science and math books. 

 

 

 

Your not helping yourself.  The poor ignorant masses just don't care enough to read science and understand it. Keep digging.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Your not helping yourself.  The poor ignorant masses just don't care enough to read science and understand it. Keep digging.

 

you are judging me, and you are also misrepresenting what I am saying. 

I did not use offensive language.  

[pogi]

Do you know how elitist this sounds?  Only we the elite few can understand.  The general public, well they are just too stupid.

 

I don't know, I think Skeptic is on to something...I mean the general public could never understand the difference between a 38% probability of being right and a 62% probability of being wrong.  Far too complex!

[TheSkepticChristian]

I don't know, I think Skeptic is on to something...I mean the general public could never understand the difference between a 38% probability of being right and a 62% probability of being wrong.  Far too complex!

 

Sorry, skeptics: NASA and NOAA were right about the 2014 temperature record, Washington Post 

 

Last month was hottest March worldwide since 1880

http://news.yahoo.com/march-hottest-worldwide-since-1880-151603683.html

 

 

The slide was also discussed in the press briefing when the news of the new record was released. In the briefing, NOAA’s Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, noted: Certainly there are uncertainties in putting all this together, all these datasets. But after considering the uncertainties, we have calculated the probability that 2014, versus other years that were relatively warm, were actually the warmest year on record. And the way you can interpret these data tables is, for the NOAA data, 2014 is two and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on record, 2010, to actually be the warmest on record, after consideration of all the data uncertainties that we take into account. And for the NASA data, that number is on the order of about one and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on their records, which again, is 2010. So clearly, 2014 in both our records were the warmest, and there’s a fair bit of confidence that that is indeed the case, even considering data uncertainties.

 

In light of all of this, is there anything wrong with NASA and NOAA declaring 2014 a record? To the contrary, it’s hard to see how there could be. If anything, in criticizing NASA, and holding forth the 38 percent figure as though it somehow undermines the analysis, climate “skeptics” are simply exaggerating scientific uncertainty — which always exists and can never be fully dispelled — and letting it undermine what we actually know. A better scientific way of assessing evidence, in contrast, is to take uncertainty into account — which NASA and NOAA clearly did — but then go with the conclusion that is supported by the weight of existing evidence. And from Karl’s words above, you can clearly see that the weight of the evidence, supported by both NASA’s and NOAA’s analyses, shows that the most reasonable conclusion is that 2014 is the hottest year on record. Indeed, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who heads up the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which did the temperature analysis from its records, dubbed “GISTEMP”) and also participated in the press briefing above, has written a blog post to explain all of this further. Here’s what he notes: In both analyses, the values for 2014 are the warmest, but are statistically close to that of 2010 and 2005. In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04ºC, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.02ºC. Given the uncertainties, we can estimated the likelihood that this means 2014 was in fact the planet’s warmest year since 1880. Intuitively, the highest ranked year will be the most likely individual year to be the record (in horse racing terms, that would be the favorite) and indeed, we estimated that 2014 is about 1.5 to ~3 times more likely than 2010 to have been the record. In absolute probability terms, NOAA calculated that 2014 was ~48% likely to be the record versus all other years, while for GISTEMP (because of the smaller margin), there is a higher change of uncertainties changing the ranking (~38%). (Contrary to some press reports, this was indeed fully discussed during the briefing). So taking all of this into account, I can only conclude that once you dig into what NOAA’s and NASA’s scientists actually did, and why they did it, you realize that their conclusion is perfectly reasonable. 2014 was the hottest year on record. Not with absolute certainty — just with enough of it for an imperfect world.

Edited April 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

I still want to know why nobody complains about the flood of misleading information that the skeptics spread everywhere 

 

 

[pogi]

Sorry, skeptics: NASA and NOAA were right about the 2014 temperature record, Washington Post 

 

Last month was hottest March worldwide since 1880

http://news.yahoo.com/march-hottest-worldwide-since-1880-151603683.html

 

Ya I saw this post 4 posts ago (You are like a nagging child...Mom, mom, mom, mom, mom, mom, mom....)  It is really annoying when you repost videos and links a MILLION times!

 

I already read the Washington Post article.  That's where I got the quote from Nasa that admitted that they were not upfront with the media regarding the fact that 2014 was more unlikely than likely the hottest year.  I don't care how Washington Post spins it, there is still only a 38-48% probability of them being right.   Just because 2014 was the most probable out of all of the improbable years, doesn't make their percentages go above 38-48% probability of being right.  In other words, THEY ARE LIKELY WRONG. 

 

What boggles my mind is that they admit that their ability tell what the temperature of the planet is today is highly improbable (38-48%), yet they want me to believe that they have "high" confidence in their models for the future?  Lets figure out how to measure the temp of the planet first today before we start predicting the future!  

 

You are wasting your time re-posting your videos too.. I will not watch them, wasted too much time already.  They are crap.  You have lost all credibility in the video department

Edited April 18, 2015 by pogi