Ideology is permeating research, epistemology and is not going to go away soon. Data are irrelevant because there are too many vested interest into the current catastrophic narrative. Yes, education and ethic are the keys to change the current inertia but is not easy. As soon as you sing out of the choir you are shunned by the scientific community. Look at Marxism: economic disasters, million of deaths, poverty but still popular
There is more at work here than media clicks. Just like Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex, there is a climate-industrial complex today. Enormous amounts of money and regulatory powers are at stake. Why the media goes along with this is a more complicated question. I think it’s partly because it plays into the kind of good versus evil narrative that they seem to find attractive nowadays. You have the evil business community who want to make money even if it destroys the planet, versus the “scientific consensus” who only want the best for the future. I think some actually believe this fairy tale. It’s kind of similar to how the media covered Covid. They seem to believe it’s their role now to advocate for certain policies even if it means slanting their reporting.
Piltdown Mann and others will instead point to an increase of F0-F1 small tornados as “proof” of “climate emergency”, even though when you compare that to the trend of the bigger tornados it’s clear that is just detection bias, Doppler radar picking up every little spin.
No different than how satellites now see every spinning cloud in the ocean.
Could you advise me on where I might be able to find answers to questions on statistical analyses of climate trends? I would like to help prepare a high school debating team by looking at published commentaries and their responses. For starters, I could use an explanation of how Iif at all) Random Walk analysis might apply to climate changes data.
For many readers it would be helpful to explain how normalization works. Otherwise, they might worry that it is distorting rather than clarifying the facts. More power to you for so ably conveying all the information you do.
Hypothesis (4th U.S. National Climate Assessment) "There is reason to expect increased tornado frequency and intensity in a warming climate." BUT reality fails to meet "expectations" - at least since 1950. Another instance of plausible hypothesis very likely contradicted by evidence. Thus science progresses in the long run. My guess is a lot of climate alarmism is driven by "expectations." Alarmism gets more ears and eyeballs than unspectacular reality--explaining the media trends.
You are doing the lord's work Roger but I don't share your assessment that good science will eventually become accepted wisdom. In an honest society with an honest press it would have done so by now.
Ideology is permeating research, epistemology and is not going to go away soon. Data are irrelevant because there are too many vested interest into the current catastrophic narrative. Yes, education and ethic are the keys to change the current inertia but is not easy. As soon as you sing out of the choir you are shunned by the scientific community. Look at Marxism: economic disasters, million of deaths, poverty but still popular
There is more at work here than media clicks. Just like Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex, there is a climate-industrial complex today. Enormous amounts of money and regulatory powers are at stake. Why the media goes along with this is a more complicated question. I think it’s partly because it plays into the kind of good versus evil narrative that they seem to find attractive nowadays. You have the evil business community who want to make money even if it destroys the planet, versus the “scientific consensus” who only want the best for the future. I think some actually believe this fairy tale. It’s kind of similar to how the media covered Covid. They seem to believe it’s their role now to advocate for certain policies even if it means slanting their reporting.
Piltdown Mann and others will instead point to an increase of F0-F1 small tornados as “proof” of “climate emergency”, even though when you compare that to the trend of the bigger tornados it’s clear that is just detection bias, Doppler radar picking up every little spin.
No different than how satellites now see every spinning cloud in the ocean.
There is no emergency now.
There may be an emergency in the future.
But that is only based on GIGO models.
How might the improvements in radar impact the number of detected F1 tornadoes?
Could you advise me on where I might be able to find answers to questions on statistical analyses of climate trends? I would like to help prepare a high school debating team by looking at published commentaries and their responses. For starters, I could use an explanation of how Iif at all) Random Walk analysis might apply to climate changes data.
Nice post - and really clean! I could come up with only one small nit:
"which instead claimed the opposite contrary to the evidence and peer-reviewed research:"
should be
"which instead claimed the opposite - contrary to the evidence and peer-reviewed research:"
this is like the joke about commas saving lives - the difference between
"Let's eat Gramma" and "Let's eat, Gramma"
Frank
For many readers it would be helpful to explain how normalization works. Otherwise, they might worry that it is distorting rather than clarifying the facts. More power to you for so ably conveying all the information you do.
Hypothesis (4th U.S. National Climate Assessment) "There is reason to expect increased tornado frequency and intensity in a warming climate." BUT reality fails to meet "expectations" - at least since 1950. Another instance of plausible hypothesis very likely contradicted by evidence. Thus science progresses in the long run. My guess is a lot of climate alarmism is driven by "expectations." Alarmism gets more ears and eyeballs than unspectacular reality--explaining the media trends.
But... But.... The narrative!
You are doing the lord's work Roger but I don't share your assessment that good science will eventually become accepted wisdom. In an honest society with an honest press it would have done so by now.