Science is the pursuit of the truth, not consensus
John Kay, Financial Times, 9 October 2007
The notion of a monolithic "science", meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of "scientific consensus" actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of "scientific consensus".
Read the rest of the article here (free registration required).
Just read most of the above, and I use the term "global temperature" because it is a common term in this debate here. While a global temperature is, physically, impossible to estimate, it is, none the less, used by the scientifically illiterate as part of their argot.
(I originally thought of useing the Dutch term Aapeknootjes for global temperature but, on consdieration, realised it would have been demeaning to some here).
“The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of” - "scientific consensus".
Skimming through Luke’s initial response (I need to run some numbers) - I was reminded that in a fit of madness I put truth up as a point on an argand diagram but that was a long time ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number
Then I went on step further and incorporated a third dimension with the complex numbers form that presented another view of learning.
Moving out of structured language concepts about various absolutes provided a great alternative view of possibilities. Everything is relative to our individual brain structures. Any one absolute is only what you make it.
Real and imaginary axis as a tool lets us glide into a host of applications
wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_analysis
In one hit I could cover all this or at least I thought I could by leaving language behind, have a glance through this lot including all the headings and related disciplines (biomedical engineering etc).
NOTE the word SCIENCE is hardly mentioned!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_engineering
Putting the revelation into practice took a while. Control theory (power and process) and surface communications (radio & telecommunications) can be linked with that imaginary axis working of the real planes.
Language is the limiting factor and so is the notion of science in the practice. I feel sorry for those who get constantly hung up in the words.
Pielke Sr has documented IPCC AR4's cherry picking of papers:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/07/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-ii/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/06/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-i/
Jen - I was just testing to see if you were ignoring me 🙂 !!
Paul will send you a paper or two through Jen. You can then tell me.
Rog - I know you'll only mock me and roll your eyes but for the record. There are no absolutes in the seasonal forecasts - they're 6 out of 10 to 7 out of 10 type technology. You'll be going to get it 8 out of 10. So if people aren't up to using this technology and understanding minority odds will pop up - well go back to flipping coins.
Of course it's interesting that this is a second La Nina to "misfire". Maybe it's CLIMATE CHANGE - maybe the next 120 years aren't like the last. Or maybe it's minority odds. Or maybe they're wrong.
You can decide yourself.
Anyway BoM can defend themselves - but don't read more into the seasonal forecasts than there is - they are not absolute EVER !
However if they got 10 wrong in a row - you're entitled to complain !
If frmers using the forecast did one of the many climate courses that are out there they'd know the probability story.
Frankly after 6 or 7 years of drought and matching models and observations it would be more rational to have some concern - on SAM for a start !!
It's 6/10 - 7/10 stuff ! You'd do well at the casino as you can throw the dice every couple of minutes. 10 years is a long time for dice throwing.
Over to the ever cynical Rog.
There is science and there is opinion...
The BOM has been criticised for getting it wrong - farmers took their advice about la Nina and spring rains and invested heavily - and now they are asking for help from farmers etc
The Climate Centre nows advises of climate change - and after 6 or 7 years of drought farmers dont believe them
"Farmers want the Bureau of Meteorology to improve its long-range forecasts, or at least be clearer about the limitations of its predictions.
New South Wales graingrower John Ridley says the bureau was clearly wrong to back a wet La Nina year so strongly earlier this year, and many farmers have been caught out.
Head of the National Climate Centre, Mike Coghlan, agrees the accuracy of forecasts needs to be better, and says the bureau is working to improve the models it uses."
Jen, I think James Hansen called it "jousting with jesters"!
Oh, I just had got the impression from Anthony that we would be "fried next year".
I repeated some of his words as a question ... and now we have both SJT and Luke falsely thinking I believe we will be fried next year.
I think that is called cascading to a false conclusion ... or is it cascading to a wrong consensus? 🙂