Am I wrong that we grow weary hearing about error-laden “climate change” science? I know I am, and have been. But what about you?
When Trump won the first time I celebrated, thrilled to tell any who would listen I wouldn’t have to write about this dismal topic again (not many would listen). Then, when Trump won a second time, it all came back. “Climate change” became mandatory to believe once more. Now he’s won a third time, and even though much lousy science continues to be produced, it seems all of us have better things to think about.
We might credit growing understanding of how bad apocalyptic “climate change” science has been—since the 1970s!—with the diminution of your interest. But I think the decreasing profits from selling incredibly inefficient yet gargantuan windmill and solar farms is a better reason. Oligarchs aren’t pushing as hard on these, or other “green” “solutions” because of diminishing returns, and so they don’t need “The Science” to back and provide cover for their moves as much.
But maybe I’m wrong, so I ask again: have we had our fill?
Part of the reason I kept covering it was because “climate change” papers made bold, easy-to-spot errors which all fell into the same categories over and over ad nauseum. My hope was to teach you how to spot these errors, which appear in many fields.
So my second question is: have we learned these lessons? I hope so. But I wonder.
I saw recently one of our guys who had expressed the usual, and correct, skepticism about “climate change”, yet who was sure cloud seeding and contrails caused the Texas flood. So I do wonder.
In any case, our third and main question is this: what about your own fields of expertise or interest?
Our concern is the evidence used to bolster theories which you find suspicious, wrong, or lacking. What is a popular theory or motivating idea which you believe is held too strongly, or incorrectly?
I want to collect more examples for use in Class and for illustrating how evidence in science works. And you, my dear readers, are the best people to ask. So please let me know. The more specific, the better.
For instance, don’t ask “Are seed oils bad?”, ask “This article or this paper says seed oils are good, but something doesn’t seem right.” (Hot take: seed oils vary in badness, but also show the incredible resiliency of the human body to eat nearly anything and live. Incidentally, the entire field of nutrition has difficulties.)
An up-and-comer is tying pesticides (or other chemicals) to nearly every malady. We did one of these last week. But then medical research always has ripe interest, for the obvious reasons. But what exact problems concern you?
We don’t want only medicine, or “climate change”, but a broader base. We’ve done everything from multiverses to electromagnetic drives to ESP and every kind of DIEing. But we haven’t done a lot. So let us know about your own areas or interests.
The point is, and will be, that the way evidence works is the same regardless of the field. The evidence itself changes, obviously, but how to tie evidence to theories and models, and even recognizing what are models, is the same wherever you go. Even in outside science, where the same things
I’ll read every comment and email, but I don’t always have time to respond directly to all of them.
Many thanks.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank. BUY ME A COFFEE.
Discover more from William M. Briggs
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Televised sports include commercials for sports betting which show the “probability” that some athlete will score a touchdown, kick a field goal, make a putt, etc. These probabilities are overlayed on video of the play as it happened. The “X” conditions are reduced to some simplistic summary of position on the field, length of putt, or similar gross condition. They seem to be advertising that their models can predict anything, but the commercial spot invariably prove their models are not skillful.
As I recall, you are not much of a sports fan, but this topic might entertain you as it seems to be characteristic of so many similar promotions.
Reading and history. Neither a science yet both fields (as taught in schools) introduce evidence to justify their conclusions. Meanwhile we see college graduates who cannot follow the argument of a newspaper op ed (written at an 8th grade level) and who think communism could work next time. What happened to education?
The idea that physics can replace philosophy.
This is an old one. For instance, Laplace said “Newton was the greatest genius that has ever existed, and the most fortunate, for we cannot find more than once a system of the world to establish.” (Ch. 7 of Journey through Genius). Newton was able to model phenomena successfully, but he found *a* system of the world, not *the* system of the world.
Likewise, the idea that because physics can model time as an additional dimension (though one we can’t go backward in, more like half a dimension), then that’s it, we’ve pinned down exactly what time is, rather than modelling it in a restricted setting.
Another example, from the end of the Elegant Universe:
“Rather, just as we should allow our artist to work from a blank canvas, we should allow string theory to create its own spacetime arena by starting in a spaceless and timeless configuration.
The hope is that from this blank state starting point – possibly in an era that existed before the big bang or the pre-big bang (if we can use temporal terms, for lack of any other linguistic framework)- the theory will describe a universe that evolves to a form in which a background of coherent string vibrations emerges, yielding the conventional notions of space and time.”
What does time and space evolving from timelessness and spacelessness even mean? Physicists can make mathematical models, but space and time are real things, not just parts of a model. Just modelling something with some convenient mathematical theory doesn’t replace philosophical understanding, i.e., thinking about such things in their own terms.
I suspect that the success of the old physics was that it stuck close to nature. Even though some, like Laplace, exaggerated its success, at least it was based on something concrete. When physics goes into these vast wildernesses of speculation, it doesn’t transcend physics, its gets further away from what physics should be.
Social constructionism. Almost as obviously BS as man caused, catastrophic climate change.
Bad science is only a symptom of the stupidity (much of it willful) of the masses. Treat symptoms not causes. Blind trust of “experts.” Choose comfort and safety (based on blind trust) over freedom and calculated risks. Willful ignorance like not thinking that water runs downhill and is collected by rivers so lets build a house next to the river. “Trust your doctor.” Thinking is hard work so just accept the narrative. Government can be trusted. Abolish the police. Ignore conflicts of interest (big pharma). Don’t learn logic so one can accept logical fallacies. Trust narratives (e.g, climate change) regardless of its irrationality and honest data. Accept guesses from models as though the number are real data. There are no absolute standards — right? (Except the standard that there are no absolute standards). All of it depends on a failure to think logically and of ignorance regarding the true nature of evil (spiritual warfare). Please keep trying as you may win over a few people each week. Only God knows where the tipping point is.
“Political science” comes to mind as an illustrative fraud. After decades of watching, I think the entire field can be boiled down to one single, self evident, axiom. We are ruled by murderous, thieving psychopaths. Any additional true statements are just details or repetitions of Axiom One.
But I can’t let go of “Climate Change” quite so quickly. For the hundredth time I present this chart. It is based on records of the US Historical Climate Network, a subset of US temperature recording stations. The set is “the best of the best of the best” regarding most complete records, good siting, fewest instrumental changes, and stable surrounding areas. In other words, of all the temperature records we have, these should be the least likely to have need of any large or systemic adjustments to the measurements that were recorded. This chart was made by graphing the AVERAGE ADJUSTMENT made to measured temperatures for the entire Network, versus the CO2 level of the atmosphere for that year. Note also that the so-called “adjustments” were made decades, sometimes as much as a century, after the actual measurements. Obviously, the changes have never been explained by any substantive justification.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230115002156/https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/USHCN-Average-Temperature-Adjustments-Final-Minus-Raw-vs.-Atmospheric-CO2-1.png
Put simply, the SOBs have created an artificial two degree warming trend by making the past look colder, and the present look hotter. I have never had even ONE Climate Change adherent attempt to explain this.
(Chart was made by Tony Heller of realclimatescience.com)