Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Null Hypothesis101 #2 the response

{I forgot about this one from a couple days ago that I didn't get to post.}

A quick update from a coffee shop in Corrales, NM
Krischel responded at OurChangingClimate with the following that seems to totally evade the simple questions about "null hypothesis" I'd asked about.

krischel Says:  July 21, 2014 at 02:21 
Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one. Science doesn’t work through consensus, it works through the strict application of skepticism to necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements. 
#1 – the verification of experiments, or observation of data, is not subject to consensus. CO2 has risen steadily for the past 17 years, while global average temperatures have had no statistically significant warming, no matter how many people wish to deny that. 
#2 – Medical “science” is a lot more primitive than you would believe. A sad amount of focus is put on epidemiological studies (observational studies), which leads to all kinds of false flags, causing treatment and medical advice that is actually *damaging* to humanity. Hormone replacement therapy and low-fat nutrition advice come immediately to mind. 
#3 – A “consensus” is poll of people where their opinions align. 
#4 – I’ll be a bit more specific -> in all fields of science, blindly accepting the “common understanding” is a negative. We should always be brutally skeptical of even our most cherished and deeply held beliefs. Without challenges to the “common understanding”, science simply does not progress. 
That being said, having a common understanding of the scientific method is *crucial* to the proper practice of science. Sadly, this isn’t generally the case in the AGW debate.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 02:21 -  
"Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one."
~ ~ ~ 

Do you actually believe that?
What's the point of designing reproducible experiments - 
if not a desire to find support in "consensus"?
~ ~ ~ 

Don't you appreciate that the "consensus" is nothing more than the "general agreement" among informed experts.

And that the consensus is always provisional in light of new and better information?
~ ~ ~ 

#1 Has nothing to do with consensus, because you refuse to acknowledge the warming of polar regions and ocean depths. - you have presented a cheap Argument from Ignorance.

#2 Why did you ignore "consensus" question?  Merely complained that medical sciences aren't perfect, get's no one anywhere.
Tell me, if you suffered severe bodily injury, would want to be taken to your favorite mechanic or your PhD philosophy sparing mates - or would you prefer to be dropped off in a certified Emergency Room?
Think the principle of "consensus" might have something to do with that choice?

#3 Is an example of the pure cynicism that is the lifeblood of the contrarian.  Trying compare the proceed of learned folks with expert level understanding and the conclusion they draw from their experiments and experiences - with the flakey civilian population who can be swayed by any well scripted soundbite.

#4 There's a big difference between brutally honest and being a malicious vandal who uses lies of convenience (such as your #1) to confuse and stonewall - rather than to learn and move forward in our understanding.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Now I gotta get back to the Loafing Shed I'm building.

1 comment:

citizenschallenge said...

{The shed is looking good :- ) }
{But, still too busy to get back to this, though I checked up on the continuing comment thread at OurChangingClimate and made a quick observation. }

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

citizenschallenge Says:
July 31, 2014 at 19:56

Krischel claims that ” In the case of AGW, our null hypothesis is natural climate change”.
~ ~ ~

Krischel has still not faced the fact that there is nothing “unnatural” about current climate change. Huge increases of CO2 has always warmed our planet!

CO2 has always had it’s insulating properties, nothing has changed about those physics!

Today’s “climate change” is a natural result of greatly enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.
In the past there were other causes for increasing those greenhouse gas levels. Today we know, beyond all doubt, that humans have injected geologically significant amounts of CO2.
Warming will enhance our planet’s hydrological cycle and energetic interactions between atmosphere, oceans and land.

Krischel null hypothesis is a fail –

Sadly K fights an unfair battle in that he steadfastly refuses to accept the authoritative information he’s been offered… instead believing that the “authority” of his own conviction holds supreme… thus justifying his deaf ear to all rational arguments and learning moments.