Are recent times an increasing age of unreason?

[stewski]

Some interesting coverage of other recent climate science discussion (and mis representation) over at Ars technica today.

https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2...ut-climate-change-leads-to-confused-coverage/

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Politically it appears increasingly popular to deny reason and push emotion above evidence!

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/16/qa-brian-cox-brings-graphs-malcolm-roberts

After Grenfell I proposed the most important question is "What evidence and reasoning was a large budget given to clad tower blocks", people have suggested insulation as a reason, I can find no evidence/calculations that in energy/financially cladding tower blocks over housing was efficient and the debate hasn't seemed to even consider the wider problem that perhaps unreason has been part of government for sometime, are lessons really learned by leaders?

Dr Cox has been vocal over concerns that people seem to increasingly discount experts and evidence in political debate, have we entered an increasingly unreasonable period or alternatively has this approach always been dominant in politics and government, the third option that evidence and reason are well handled by government seems unlikely at this point, but what do others think?

Yeah

The joke that runs on the internet is "the feels before the reals".

Basically, means people ignore science and would rather go off how they feel about something. The problem is we are not teaching people emotional intelligence or about their own cognitive biases. We need to start actually teaching this stuff in school. Rationality > over everything else.

Like, make people question their own emotions and biases critically. Why do I feel this way? why does this thing trigger me? why am I doing x or y? why am I defending this position?

There is a great piece of advice I saw in a self-help book once, he said before arguing why your viewpoint is right look at all the counter evidence and argue against your own viewpoint first. Basically look for all disconfirming evidence before looking for confirming evidence so you don't fall prey to confirmation bias.

 

[stewski]

Yeah

The joke that runs on the internet is "the feels before the reals".

Basically, means people ignore science and would rather go off how they feel about something. The problem is we are not teaching people emotional intelligence or about their own cognitive biases. We need to start actually teaching this stuff in school. Rationality > over everything else.

Like make people question their own emotions and biases critically. Like why do I feel this way? why does this thing trigger me? why am I doing x or y?

To my knowledge something like Critical Thinking (as a discreet subject) only becomes available as an option at Level 3/A-level in the UK.
http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/by-subject/critical-thinking/

Whilst it is compulsory that every child gains detailed insight about important aspects of the world like:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/clips/z787tfr

An insight into the preparations for the annual Hindu celebration of Diwali. The importance of new beginnings, food, decorations and the specific preparations made to encourage Lakshmi, a Hindu God, to visit and bring wealth and good fortune for the year ahead with her.

 

[Rroff]

The implication of the above post is that Dr Cox and others who represent Science via the media have/are wilfully misrepresenting climate data, apparently requesting the person making this serious claim (about Dr Cox) gives him (Dr Cox) the right to reply, rather than spreading unsubstantiated FUD is not worthy of speakers corner. This is in fact the entire point of this thread!

My criticism isn't specific to Brian Cox - many others as in your later link use the same start point as at face value it is very hard to refute and in that respect they are probably well intentioned as climate change is a very real and immediate problem regardless of the ins and outs of it but it is not a particularly constructive practise for debate and education of the subject.

There is nothing particularly controversial in what I'm presenting the numbers are all there for anyone to see and interpret - https://xkcd.com/1732/ has a reasonably decent presentation of it though the scale they are using smooths the dips and peaks out - but it references the longer term data and shows more than one possible outcome from that data.

 

[stewski]

My criticism isn't specific to Brian Cox - many others as in your later link use the same start point as at face value it is very hard to refute and in that respect they are probably well intentioned as climate change is a very real and immediate problem regardless of the ins and outs of it but it is not a particularly constructive practise for debate and education of the subject.

There is nothing particularly controversial in what I'm presenting the numbers are all there for anyone to see and interpret - https://xkcd.com/1732/ has a reasonably decent presentation of it though the scale they are using smooths the dips and peaks out.

The point being in this context if we want to see an age lead by reason then it comes from both sides of the fence - things like this don't help to forward the case for reason when they mostly seem to be utilised to shut down debate and silence dissent using what has to be intentional representation of the data towards a specific picture.

Do you or do you not think using the graph as Professor Cox did is misrepresenting the data and 'shutting down' fair debate as per your original statement above?
If you think it is a deliberate misrepresentation, he's a pretty open science advocate and his facebook is right here: https://www.facebook.com/ProfessorBrianCox/

As I have said there are possible reasons not to put data contiguously, especially if they likely have wildly varying confidence/tolerance. The link I just posted is all about the issues with historic data guess work! If we push the axes far enough back in time our estimate is likely to be that the earth was the temperature of the Sun, although I can't tell you what confidence/tolerance should be applied to such an estimate.

If you don't think Dr Cox (specifically and others generally) has intentionally given a "representation of the data towards a specific picture" what was the post below about and why are we even having this discussion?

BTW on my phone so can't go into it right now but I've posted before, with evidence, the problem with that graph Brian Cox used.

As I suggested, your issue here is considerably less preposterous (though I suspect as misguided) than NASA "corrupted" the data (which was the suggestion made in the debate), you appearing unwilling to put your name to it (Publish and be Damned) straight to the very Scientist in question, suggests to me, you don't entirely believe it?

 

[Rroff]

Do you or do you not think using the graph as Professor Cox did is misrepresenting the data and 'shutting down' fair debate contrary to your original statement above?

How is my statement(s) contrary?

As I have said there are possible reasons not to put data contiguously, especially if they likely have wildly varying confidence/tolerance. The link I just posted is all about the issues with historic data guess work! If we push the axes far enough back in time our estimate is likely to be that the earth was the temperature of the Sun, although I can't tell you what confidence/tolerance should be applied to such an estimate.

The historic accuracy of data is a fair point but there is a range that is more relevant to modern times - the problem is the indiscriminate use of the rising edge - which does correlate with rising human human influences via industrialisation, etc. while glossing over what it is rising out of which linked to natural factors (for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age) most of them extraordinary events which causes a distortion between natural and human factors. Those graphs are often used as if to show a massive change from the normal due to human factors starting in the early to mid 1800s which isn't the real story at all.

This goes back way beyond Brian Cox's use of the data but generally any attempt to discuss it results in trying to quash the assumed climate change denial angle and an unwillingness to discuss the actual representation side of it.

Not sure as to the rest of your post as you seem to be misunderstanding some of what I'm saying.

 

[Bear]

Yes but the graph isn't going back thousands of years, it's going back a couple of hundred years. The point is that by choosing the start point of the graph at the late 1800s is that it only shows a steep upward trend. This is done purposely for effect, because if they didn't start then it would then lead others to question what the cause was for the decline in temps before it started to rise. No one is disputing the data and no one is denying climate change here, it's just the way the data is being served up feels like it's aimed to head off the obvious questions.

 

[stewski]

How is my statement(s) contrary?

Sorry see my edit, you specifically appear to have claimed that by using that graph Dr Cox is wilfully misrepresenting data to shut down fair debate, are you now retracting that?

The historic accuracy of data is a fair point but there is a range that is more relevant to modern times

Why don't you discuss the time range you feel is relevant and the instrumentation and tolerances available at those times on Professor Cox (who used the graph that you feel is misleading and is an "Intentional representation of the data towards a specific picture") facebook?

- the problem is the indiscriminate use of the rising edge - which does correlate with rising human human influences via industrialisation, etc. while glossing over what it is rising out of which linked to natural factors (for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age) most of them extraordinary events which causes a distortion between natural and human factors. Those graphs are often used as if to show a massive change from the normal due to human factors starting in the early to mid 1800s which isn't the real story at all.

This goes back way beyond Brian Cox's use of the data but generally any attempt to discuss it results in trying to quash the assumed climate change denial angle and an unwillingness to discuss the actual representation side of it.

Who is quashing anything, I'm asking you to put your accusation to the person you are accusing of mis representing data, in the history of Science it's pretty much an established way of doing things and I seriously doubt you will be the first 'scientist' to make these points.

Not sure as to the rest of your post as you seem to be misunderstanding some of what I'm saying.

This is so vague about what I posted that I cannot respond.

 

[stewski]

Yes but the graph isn't going back thousands of years, it's going back a couple of hundred years. The point is that by choosing the start point of the graph at the late 1800s is that it only shows a steep upward trend. This is done purposely for effect, because if they didn't start then it would then lead others to question what the cause was for the decline in temps before it started to rise. No one is disputing the data and no one is denying climate change here, it's just the way the data is being served up feels like it's aimed to head off the obvious questions.

Do you imagine a couple of hundred/thousand etc years ago we know with the same precision as today the average global surface temperature?

 

[Rroff]

Sorry see my edit, you specifically appear to have claimed that by using that graph Dr Cox is wilfully misrepresenting data to shut down fair debate, are you now retracting that?

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm retracting it.

Who is quashing anything, I'm asking you to put your accusation to the person you are accusing of mis representing data, in the history of Science it's pretty much an established way of doing things and I seriously doubt you will be the first 'scientist' to make these points.

This isn't the first time I've brought this up - I've posted about it 3-4 times on these forums before and on other forums including those frequented by professionals who use those kind of graphs - there has been very little interest in discussing what I'm actually talking about and a lot of time trying to put down my assumed climate change denial.

Do you imagine a couple of hundred/thousand etc years ago we know with the same precision as today the average global surface temperature?

In that vein we should ignore everything that pre-dates satellite mapping. The range of data that is relevant to modern times and reasonably accurate in the context of the 1800s goes back at least another 2-3 hundred years before that graph and are quite relevant to a complete picture and historic temperatures can also be deduced to a fairly accurate degree using things like core samples.

 

[stewski]

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm retracting it.

If you specifically accuse Dr Cox of wilful misrepresentation of evidence here, why not directly either on his facebook or academically though a published article?

The only person quashing debate are cowards who anonymously post fear uncertainty and distrust, that they wouldn't even put their name to.

This isn't the first time I've brought this up - I've posted about it 3-4 times on these forums before and on other forums including those frequented by professionals who use those kind of graphs - there has been very little interest in discussing what I'm actually talking about and a lot of time trying to put down my assumed climate change denial.

I've put nothing down and what you want to say is not being quashed, I'm saying elevate your argument to an arena that will fully test the intellectual rigour of the point you are making, or drop it!

Alternatively it's just another conspiracy theory in my book.

 

[Bear]

Do you imagine a couple of hundred/thousand etc years ago we know with the same precision as today the average global surface temperature?

Then why start the graph in the 1800s? It starts there because it shows the start of the rise, it's for added effect.

 

[stewski]

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm retracting it.



This isn't the first time I've brought this up - I've posted about it 3-4 times on these forums before and on other forums including those frequented by professionals who use those kind of graphs - there has been very little interest in discussing what I'm actually talking about and a lot of time trying to put down my assumed climate change denial.



In that vein we should ignore everything that pre-dates satellite mapping. The range of data that is relevant to modern times and reasonably accurate in the context of the 1800s goes back at least another 2-3 hundred years before that graph and are quite relevant to a complete picture and historic temperatures can also be deduced to a fairly accurate degree using things like core samples.

It's well beyond my background to discuss exact details on the varying historical accuracy (or relevance) of global average surface temps, if only we knew of a science advocate who recently discussed the topic, has been accused of wilful misrepresentations and was open to discussion...

 

[Rroff]

Yes but the graph isn't going back thousands of years, it's going back a couple of hundred years. The point is that by choosing the start point of the graph at the late 1800s is that it only shows a steep upward trend. This is done purposely for effect, because if they didn't start then it would then lead others to question what the cause was for the decline in temps before it started to rise. No one is disputing the data and no one is denying climate change here, it's just the way the data is being served up feels like it's aimed to head off the obvious questions.

I have some conflict internally as I'm a strong believer that we should be making dramatic changes as a civilisation especially in terms of the type and nature of housing with reduced environmental impact and better resilience to climate change in terms of things like flooding, etc. and more attention paid to localised renewable generation of power to reduce the amount that is being used from less environmental friendly sources regardless of who is right and wrong about climate change, etc. but I think though well intended that kind of representation of data is potentially harmful in the long run as if people understand the full context they will likely feel somewhat lied to and be less trustful of those presenting that data and more likely to ignore things like that in the future.

 

[stewski]

Then why start the graph in the 1800s? It starts there because it shows the start of the rise, it's for added effect.

Does that 'feel' right?

 

[stewski]

Then why start the graph in the 1800s? It starts there because it shows the start of the rise, it's for added effect.

Why not ask the guy who used it?
The likely answer is it seems improbable based on current knowledge that humans could affect the global average surface temperature much before then.

 

[Rroff]

I've put nothing down and what you want to say is not being quashed, I'm saying elevate your argument to an arena that will fully test the intellectual rigour of the point you are making, or drop it!

Alternatively it's just another conspiracy theory in my book.

You jumped straight on - disagreeing with a perceived authority figure = must be conspiracy theorist angle from the very start, constantly trying to use put downs to belittle my posts while all the time bemoaning the death of reason - Zefan pretty shrewdly had you to rights.

 

[stewski]

You jumped straight on - disagreeing with a perceived authority figure = must be conspiracy theorist angle from the very start, constantly trying to use put downs to belittle my posts while all the time bemoaning the death of reason - Zefan pretty shrewdly had you to rights.

Quote anything I said that illustrates the point above.
I've said publish and be damned or stop spreading unsubstantiated fear uncertainty and distrust.
Anonymous postings suggesting science en masse are wilfully misrepresenting data, is the work of conspiracy theorist and intellectual cowards!

 

[stewski]

Seems less wild than NASA purposefully skew results, more explanation of why you are correct and the international panels of scientists in the field are wrong may be required for me to change position!

This was my Second full response, hardly you being quashed!

 

[stewski]

Please explain the "corruption" in the data, as a scientist he'd likely love that!

Actually this was my first response to you above is the second response.