RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin has seen the ugly side of the climate change debate after being warned he faced demonisation if he challenged the accepted wisdom that global warming poses a danger to humanity.
Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was “out of his mind” by some in the media after writing that the science of global warming “doesn’t seem to stack up”.
Declaring global warming might not be such an important issue, Professor Aitkin argued in a speech to the Planning Insitute of Australia this month that counter measures such as carbon trading were likely to be unnecessary, expensive and futile without stronger evidence of a crisis.
The eminent historian and political scientist said in a speech called A Cool Look at Global Warming, which has received little public attention, that he was urged not to express his contrary views to orthodox thinking because he would be demonised.
He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly ignored or attacked because “scientist activists” from a quasi-religious movement have spread a flawed message that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”.
Professor Aitkin is a former vice-chancellor at the University of Canberra, foundation chairman of the Australian Research Council and a distinguished researcher at the Australian National University and Macquarie University…
According to the professor, much of the inadequate policy-making on climate change is based on “over-certainty in the absence of convincing argument and data” and “over-reliance on computer models”.
“While governments can never ignore what they see as popular feeling, good policy cannot be based on moods,” he says.
Read more here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23509775-2702,00.html?from=public_rss
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The Auatralian had 2 AGW stories on p14 and I guessed Jen would get more excited about the Aitkin one.( Other was Niki Williams on coal industry upbeat on CCS despite recent gloomy forecasts). I wont mention that Aitkin comes from a discipline that doesnt do evidence-based, so I have to find which bit he didnt like. He hangs it on the lynchpin of ‘no true causal link between CO2 and rising temperatures.’ Really.
Bazza writes: “I wont mention that Aitkin comes from a discipline that doesnt do evidence-based…”
A very peculiar comment indeed.
Proteus: I have the simple view that appropriate science only happens after an event. Also practical people don’t sleep out under our midday summer sun.
Gavin, how does your remark illuminate: “I wont mention that Aitkin comes from a discipline that doesnt do evidence-based”?
“About a year ago I decided that I should look hard at the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming the notion that it is we human beings who are responsible for the warming of the earth” –
Professor Aitkin AO, a historian and political scientist CT Opinion April 3rd
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/opinion/opinion/one-cool-view-of-global-warming/1215521.html
“More generally, I would urge people to find out for themselves, because the issue is important. There are around four million Australians who have been to university. This domain is science, but the questions are straightforward and accessible. I warn that there is a lot of reading”
Fortunatly, some others don’t walk round with their eyes closed.
http://canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor/1217170.html
No one here is talking about the obvious, our global population excess elsewhere.
Let’s guess who pays his bills
Looks like it’s back to normal transmission folks…
March has come in at +0.67 on GISSTEMP
We will see what HadCRUD says. The satellite groups say only 0.08 degC change from Feb. A 0.41 increase in GISS from Feb simply demonstrates that GISS is a dataset that should not be taken seriously.
When I see devotees quote one month’s change as proof, where they were admonishing everyone in the past who did the same, I know they are in denial.
When I see government funded alarmist organisations such as the BAS of Wilkins Ice shelf fame, making silk purses out of sows ears because they thought they could get away with it,then I know the game is up.
Bazza writes
“I wont mention that Aitkin comes from a discipline that doesnt do evidence-based”
Hmmm? Guess Bazza would not have mentioned etc if the Prof had been a Gore devotee either?
So Mr T, Normal transmission has returned, has it.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964#comments
I had no idea so much correction was done to the GISS data – so much that this data cannot be relied on.
GISS and dodgy bros seem an apt association.
And if I did that to assays and published it in an ASX qtr report, I would have been truly and well JORC’d out of existence.
As for Aitkin, he is truly being courageous, despite Sir Humphrey’s warnings.
One comment which I identify with from Climate Audit’s comment section on the GISS data manipulation:
“As an engineer, I find it absolutely incomprehensible that any data, once recorded, (and massaged), should be altered. Talk about 1984. It’s a bit like altering the height of the steps behind you as you climb some stairs. Surely this goes beyond averaging to absolute fraud. How can anyone even countenance the idea of permitting historical data to be altered?
Why would anyone do this, asked my wife? Buggered if I know, said I. (But I’ve got a good idea!)”
And I have a reasonable idea that we are dealing with politically motivated government funded scientists who, without exception, are progressive or leftists, and who finally have the means by which to implement their philosophical utopia of a socialist state.
This is the real game, not the falisification of temperature data.
Also have a look on the website of Roger Pielke Sr. The sattelite data show some perculiar anomalies which require further explanation compared to different climate models.
http://climatesci.org/2008/04/08/latest-msu-lower-troposhperic-temperature-values-from-the-university-of-alabama-at-huntsville/
Still no clarification of what Bazza meant by a “discipline that does not do evidence-based”? Very instructive.
BTW, Gavin, the first two letters to the editor are rather telling. The first confirms in the first sentence the ‘demonisation’ (tobacoo lobby) he would face in simply challenging AGW. The second puffs its chest about about ‘the scientific method’ and then proceeds to blow a lot of hot air that has nothing to do with ‘the scientific method’.
No wonder so much heat needs to be generated to counter mild criticism, because they are simply unable to generate any light.
Hadley centre will have to make a profound decision soon. Someone or something is awfully wrong LOL
“Other was Niki Williams on coal industry upbeat on CCS despite recent gloomy forecasts”
Why shouldn’t the coal industry be upbeat about this? The energy for the carbon capture and storage will come from coal burning so they will get to sell maybe 60% more coal this way to generate the same amount of energy for other uses. The coal industry will do nicely out of this. The rest of us will pay far more for electricity.
It’s so funny watching everyone run around claiming “GISS IS WRONG”
It’s an amusing game for a slow afternoon.
Oh yes, and “Boy, it’s different to Hadley… one has to be wrong…”
That always makes me smile.
Proteus says ‘Still no clarification of what Bazza meant’. Proteus consistent, what next. But if you want clarification of my statement that I would not mention a discipline that does not do evidence based, then go find some disconfirming of the latter bit. I never imagined anyone would respond to such a cheap shot and elevate it to on target.
Louis – “How can anyone even countenance the idea of permitting historical data to be altered?”
The original data is not altered. It is there for you to do your own analysis if you want to. However to make sense of the different data sets the data has to be processed to extract any meaningful data. The methods they use are published. If you doubt how about you submit a peer reviewed paper with your own analysis method.
BTW what do you think happens to the lower troposphere MSU data that is so beloved of the deniers? Do you think they plot the measurements straight off the satellite? Spencer and Christie combined 2 instrument’s measurements to produce their famous data series. Is that fraud too?
So you admit it, Bazza. It was a cheap shot from a low life scrubber bent on demonising, attacking the man not his argument.
Louis – “And I have a reasonable idea that we are dealing with politically motivated government funded scientists who, without exception, are progressive or leftists, and who finally have the means by which to implement their philosophical utopia of a socialist state.”
So that they can counter the right wing fascist in league with the mega corporations that want us all to be good consumers in a philosophical utopia of perfect consumers, consuming what they are told to and never questioning the perfect capitalist corporate gods.
Mind you it could just be a conspiracy theory…. LOL
PS Proteus, apologies, now I am inconsistent. If you check out Clarke and Primo (Perspectives on Politics, 2007, 5: 741-753) you will see political scientists have made a humble start and they could even teach AGW sceptics a thing or two. ‘Although the use of models has come to dominate much of the scientific study of politics, the discipline’s understanding of the role or function that models play in the scientific enterprise has not kept pace. We argue that models should be assessed for their usefulness for a particular purpose, not solely for the accuracy of their predictions. We provide a typology of the uses to which models may be put, and show how these uses are obscured by the field’s emphasis on model testing. Our approach highlights the centrality of models in scientific reasoning, avoids the logical inconsistencies of current practice, and offers political scientists a new way of thinking about the relationship between the natural world and the models with which we are so familiar’. We should wish them well too. Go Don.
Mr T, “Oh yes, and “Boy, it’s different to Hadley… one has to be wrong…”
In world where the truth is pluralistic and tolerant you might have something to smile about. Personally I don’t go for the post-modern rubbery representaions. Heck if absurdities could be true then we could never have proven that pi is a transcendental number and we’d still be looking for a repetitive cycle in the decimal representaion of it.
In short if you have two different series of numbers both claiming to represent the same value they can’t both be right. The can however both be wrong, in which case on must decide which is the more reliable and since the HISTORICAL values of GISSTemp have varied over time one suspects that this one will be the less reliable.
How do ecnomists work anything out? With models, of course.
How many economists were out there warning us about the current economic meltdown?
Its just about looking at the evidence clean and simple and not allowing the sentiment to affect your outlook.
This Don Aitken has looked at it in much the same time period as I have. Well he appears to be a moderate sort of guy and is not yet prepared to point out that the alarmists are LIARS, FILTH, FASCISTS, AND DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
Any of us who have actually decided to look at the evidence must come to the same conclusion:
That is that CO2 isn’t a problem and the best guess is towards cooling.
Now I understate the above conclusion as much as I can.
There is no substitute for mass-sackings of public-tit-employees. And if we can do this we will see that people will stop all this lying and unscience.
Mr T, I’m glad this makes you smile. Its always best to smile in the face of defeat, its good for your health.
I’m sure that, of those who went down with the Titanic, those who did so smiling, enjoyed ehe experience most.
SJT, you should know economists predicted 5 of the last 2 downturns.
Bazza, it was not even a cheap shot (they usually are in some way true), you simply made a ridiculous statement.
BTW, the thought that modelling something is necessary for a evidence-based discipline is simply false. History is based on historical facts; we don’t need to model WW2 to know about, all we need are historical objects from WW2 that continue to exist in the present.
I also find it curious that some people (eg. letter to the editor Gavin linked to above) seem to imagine that predictions count as evidence; certainly they count as evidence of a prediction, but not of anything else.
Jan “In world where the truth is pluralistic and tolerant you might have something to smile about. Personally I don’t go for the post-modern rubbery representaions. Heck if absurdities could be true then we could never have proven that pi is a transcendental number and we’d still be looking for a repetitive cycle in the decimal representaion of it.”
I burst out laughing when i read this!
Come on people! The two datasets are different, BECAUSE…. They use different data!!!
They take data from different places, Hadley doesn’t use data as far north as GISS does.
Oh my…
Tell me, who knows what the base period for both is too? Anyone?
Has anyone done any studies comparing the two? Reduding them to the same base period? Yes. Yes they have.
Ok, so today’s game is… When they reduce them to the same base level (lets call this normalizing) what happens? Who will be the first to come back with an answer…
Proteus that’s an amazing thing to say. “History is based on historical facts”. Hmmmm very strange. The ‘facts’ you speak of, they wouldn’t have been ‘modified’ ro ‘adjusted’ along the way? Would they?
You also forget that we can’t try and guess the future by any other means than modelling. Modelling is very useful, generally it goes by the term of “Planning”.
In civil engineering we use computer models a lot – successfully. We are surrounded by buildings that stay up, dams that hold, bridges that just … work.
In all cases the computer models are computerised versions of slide rule calcs that are based on blackboard theories. The behaviours of steel and concrete are well understood because they are easy to study in a lab with all other factors excluded.
Computer models in other walks of life seem to be troubled with problems. In economics they know all the ingredients – we know exactly what the world population is, how many companies there are, the interest rates in different countries, exchange rates and so on. Yet no-one has ever built any computer models that can predict anything useful about world or even national economies.
Now look at the problems of modelling the world’s climate in 20 years time. We know so little about the ingredients and so little about the processes and interactions.
Maybe the Professor is acknowledging the problems from his own experience of economics ?
BTW: “Modelling” and “Planning” are two different activities – that’s why we use different words 🙂
Thanks Jack,
Yes modelling is tricky but hardly useless. No one would do it if it was useless.
I think people do understand the dificulties of modelling.
Modelling is a kind of planning, or part of planning. Better?
Mr T, there is nothing amazing about my statement at all. In what way do we modify or adjust a historical object? This would be called tampering with the evidence. Or are you saying that the passage of time alters or modifies these objects? This is certainly true, nevertheless, although it hampers our understanding of the past it does not obliterate it.
Proteus, history is a subjective treatment of past events. It’s not objective. It’s not the passage of time that alters or modifies events it’s people that modfify them.
Re Mr T – Proteus, history is a subjective treatment of past events; which is not to say it has protean qualities, more likely the eye of the beholder than the panoptic. Tricky doing experiments too.
Mr T: “history is a subjective treatment of past events. It’s not objective. It’s not the passage of time that alters or modifies events it’s people that modfify them.”
This is just rubbish. Mr T, who was the Australian PM in 1943? That it was John Curtin is an objective fact. I can adduce newspapers of the time, parliamentary records, interview his contemporaries, etc. Nothing at all subjective in this. How can people modify this fact?
Bazza, in what way does perspective modify the fact of Curtin being PM in 1943? If perspective modifies a fact we were in some way previously mistaken.
Just incredible. You would do well to qualify your subsequent statements. Reading a little philosophy of history wouldn’t hurt either.
Mr T, “Has anyone done any studies comparing the two? Reduding them to the same base period? Yes. Yes they have.”
People have also compared earlier GISSTemp series wit later ones and they don’t agree I have two series. TGGWS has a third and John Goetz has been analysing GISS algorethms used by GISS and found that *later* values are influencing earlier ones so the historical record gets revised when later data is added implying for example that 1999 temperatures are influencing 1970 records.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
Proteus, your have veered from what you oroginally posted. Yes, there are observable facts in history. But history isn’t composed entirely of ‘facts’.
“History is based on historical facts; we don’t need to model WW2 to know about, all we need are historical objects from WW2 that continue to exist in the present.”
That’s you original post. Are you suggesting there is no ‘fact’ about WW2 that is missing? Are you suggesting that everything in our history of WW2 is composed of facts?
Jan, we were discussing comparing GISSTEMP and HadCRUT3 data.
I like the bit you missed out too “Between the February and March versions, the values of 30 months were decreased by 1 and the values of 8 months were increased by 1. Not huge changes, to be sure.”
You also didn’t elaborate on why they do that. Why not? Why would you not say why they do it?
If you plot the GISS data and Hadley data together, they are almost identical. Does adjustments to GISS data affect Hadley?
Jan, you are letting your perspective affect your thinking. You have started from the premis that they are doing something wrong, so you don’t even bother finding out why they do what they do. This is not skepticism.
Mr T, stop putting words in my mouth.
Where in “History is based on historical facts; we don’t need to model WW2 to know about, all we need are historical objects from WW2 that continue to exist in the present” is it suggested that no facts are missing? Almost anyone reading “all we need are historical objects from WW2 that continue to exist in the present” would have understood that.
You then write something that is just peculiar: “Are you suggesting that everything in our history of WW2 is composed of facts?” I’m curious to know what you think in our history is not composed of facts?
Proteus
I would say most of our history is not composed of facts. Most of it is speculation, for example; who killed Julius Caeser?
How much of WWII history is factual? Who knows, there are objects as you say, but they don’t really detail the history do they. You have, say a bunch of tanks. Those tanks don’t tell you anything specific, other than what they were made of etc. The history of how they were used is based on accounts written in the war, but do you really think they’re ‘factual’. Who knows? there’s nothing objective about the accounts. They wouldn’t constitute data in a scientific sense.
Recent history has a greater proportion of factual material, but lets not kid ourselves that history is fact. Why else would historians argue and debate?
Poor proteus, waste of time Mr T. Proteus is not getting even simple higher level ideas like facts v information gleaned by imposing a testable model upon the raw data. Tell me Proteus what I dont know. Sure Curtin was Prime Minister in 1943, an objective fact, but historians write about whether he was a good one. Do the counterfactual and then tell me. Manning Clark would have said he was a good one, but if you were born with a lean to the right or you got infected later you would disagree, as you will. Fire at will. But dont take the fun out of history.
Mr T, “If you plot the GISS data and Hadley data together, they are almost identical.”
Almost is the operative word here.
“Does adjustments to GISS data affect Hadley?”
Not unless there is some plagiarism going on. I’m not about to accuse Phil Jones of that.
“You have started from the premis that they are doing something wrong”
No I’ve started from the premiss that the historical data is not static where it aught to be. We are not talking about proxies here, where we can run the same samples again using improved methods, but thermometer readings.
Jan,
it’s naive to think that data can’t be improved, you don’t think that new computers and techniques can improve signal to noise ratios? Raw data has lots of noise in it… I am sure you know where I’m going.
Anyway this worship of raw data is a little underwhelming and I am sure you know why data can change.
So if you aren’t working from the premise that they have done something wrong, why do you think they have? “Data adjustment” is not unusual. I worked as a geophysical data processor for 2 years, I remember the quality of the raw data we got. You had to “adjust” it to get any sense out of it. And you could even take the raw data and do another analysis later, using a different technique and get slightly different (and better) results. It’s no big deal.
Proteus it may help to think of history as the narrative that joins ‘facts’ together. It gives the facts their meaning. When new ‘facts’ emerge it changes the narrative.
Jan: Jones n Co needed a degree in Archeology. Just digging through the pile would be daunting without imagining the state of a thermometer as used by each authority maintaining their site independently as they saw fit at the time. See this report from oz.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/6021/paper.html
At home I use a max/min U tube, left over from a well known institution. It hangs off the grill outside the kitchen window. The case and scale is a one piece plastic mould which makes zero correction impossible. I’m forced to average both columns regardless of the temperature trend. Therefore floating markers, max and min require a mental adjustment a zero correction of ~ 1 C every time I check. Let’s guess such a thermometer also went aloft under a balloon.
Mr T, “you don’t think that new computers and techniques can improve signal to noise ratios”
On hand written manually collected data? Further more if you had actually looked at the algorithm used in the link I gave you, you would see it has nothing to do with improving method but putting more recent readings into a time machine to influence past readings.
Bazza, bazza, bazza. You appear to be unable to differentiate between fact and opinion. That Curtin was PM is a fact. Curtin’s performance as PM is an opinion formed by those who observed him at the time (the confused accounts of witnesses)and by those who observe him from the present. The latter may form their opinion by reference to both facts and records of past opinion but those who observe him from the present are not part of history.
A record of someone’s past opinion of Curtin is merely a factual record of someone’s opinion. It is not an historical fact in any broader context. So to claim that history is subjective merely betrays a sloppy intellect with a limited capacity to distinguish between data of varying integrity.
Question: Who’s respected, eminent and looks good in a tight-fitting lycra superhero costume?
Answer: The truly wonderful Prof Aitken, who has seen the inner ugliness of the climate alarmists by virtue of his X-Ray vision.
ps- if you answered Ian Mott wash your mouth with soapy water.
From the link referred to by Gavin:
“In Australia, problems in the temperature
record are being investigated and corrected for using subjective
decisions based on metadata investigations, and objective
decisions based on results from statistical algorithms.”
Note the “subjective”.
Nice armwave. Seems one could come to any conclusion you liked about historical temperatures.
Jan: The missing data discussion on CA is quite interesting, especially the longer comments by John, Hu, LadyG etc. However…
Am I concerned? No, Did I ever use numerical methods to come to a conclusion? No.
All this stuff is purely academic because what they are playing with generally falls under the limits of readings given a bag full of instruments straight off the shelf.
Simply; when there is a hole in your info, somebody usually went looking round the corner for another box of records as alternative sources were common. Also if the weather man missed his beat on the radio nobody was too worried. Every other office, home and lab had an instrument of their own.
Who actually authorises these adjustments creates a turf war for sure but given time even the blogs will fall into line.
Mr T asks, how do you answer the question: “Who killed Julius Caesar?” Historians actually attempt to recover objects that might in some way answer such a question, objects being not merely the daggers, but extant contemporary accounts, etc.
“Who knows, there are objects as you say, but they don’t really detail the history do they. You have, say a bunch of tanks. Those tanks don’t tell you anything specific, other than what they were made of etc. The history of how they were used is based on accounts written in the war, but do you really think they’re ‘factual’.”
Let’s see. Tanks are made into models and types, we can identify which side employed them. They have serial numbers, we can identify the factory they were made in, the number of them made, when they were first made when they ceased being manufactured, etc. Tanks were assigned to units/regiments/divisions/corps each of which has a battle history. They fire rounds which can be identified forensically. Personnel were assigned to tanks, anyone of which of them may have kept a diary. Etc. To suggest that history is not composed of facts is simply fallacious.
You go on to say, “Who knows? there’s nothing objective about the accounts” is another point entirely. You’ve moved from the facts that compose an event to an account of what happened. Nevertheless, you are still wrong. The simple fact that we can say “John Curtin was Aust. PM in 43 suggests an account of that period that stated that Proteus was Aust. PM would be objectively wrong. You then write: “They [the accounts] wouldn’t constitute data in a scientific sense”, no they wouldn’t, and they wouldn’t do so in a historical sense either becuase the account or interpretation of the facts is to be distinguished from the facts themselves.
Mr T then writes: “but lets not kid ourselves that history is fact.” Yet, I never said history is fact, I said it was composed of facts. There is a difference and it is all the difference in the world. Mr T concludes: “Why else would historians argue and debate?” This fact should tell you something Mr T. In their arguments and debates, what do historians refer to? FACTS!
Let me move on to the hapless Bazza. He writes: “Proteus is not getting even simple higher level ideas like facts v information gleaned by imposing a testable model upon the raw data.” Oh, thanks Bazza, this point is rather new to me. I would never have guessed that I needed a theory/category/rudimentary idea to distinguish a relevant from an irrelevant fact. But, even someone as dim-witted as you should have recognised that this was beside the point because what was at issue was whether history was composed of facts, i.e. evidence-based.
You continue: “Sure Curtin was Prime Minister in 1943, an objective fact, but historians write about whether he was a good one.” Glad you admitted I was right but failed to recognise it. The question, was Curtin a good PM? is to my mind not really a historical question, it is for me a practical question. But none of this suggests that the historian, if s/he wishes to ask such a question, cannot and does not adduce facts in his/ her argument since they can and do refer to what he did, the decisions he made, the state of the economy and society during his period as PM, etc. The historian doesn’t just say: “Curtin was great ’cause I said so” and leave it at that, s/he refers to FACTS.
Proteus: My dear aunt swore by John Curtin’s leadership and the man however I doubt she ever saw him.
Your musing over history or anyone else for that matter won’t change the hand to hand witness process that creates legends. BTW, after spending many hours in the school named after him, his stature grew for me too.
Proteus
No, history is not compose of ‘facts’ as you say, as we have no way of ascertaining if the accounts people made were right or wrong. They’re not objective facts. A diary is not ‘fact’ it’s someone’s subjective opinion. To suggest the histroy documented by a General is ‘fact’ is misleading too. People are not “Objective documentors” we are subjective and our perceptions imprecise. We cannot be obkective in the sense that, say, mathematics or physics can.
For example, compare the history in the bible and that of the Egyptians. In the Bible Moses led the Pharoah to his death. Do the Egyptians document this? No. Weird huh? You are kidding yourself if you think history is composed of ‘facts’ – it’s the narrative that joins facts, the facts themselves are meaningless.
Jan, they’re not changing the handwritten data (this of course is preserved), They’re adjusting the data they use in the next step (I think this is actually called step 1). So they take all the data (handwritten included) and they use them to construct the gridcells (or whatever they call them) this is done by adjusting the data so that the cell adequately describes the observable data. Of course there is going to be changes here. It’s to be expected. It could happen for any number of reasons. Data could have been mis-entered, they may have developed a new algorithm, they may have found new data for a station, they may have found new data for a nearby station which then adjusts data for all the stations nearby, they may have found a way to include old data that they couldn’t use earlier. Perhaps adding new readings changes the ‘average reading’ for a station which then makes the past anomaly slightly different. Any number of reasons. The point is that you are criticising and attempting to discredit their system without really knowing why they do it.
The ONLY real reason you dismiss this data is because it doesn’t serve your paradigm.
Mr T, you are just being ridiculous.
“No, history is not compose of ‘facts’ as you say, as we have no way of ascertaining if the accounts people made were right or wrong.”
Really, so we have no way of ascertaining whether Curtin was Australian PM in 1943. No way at all. The parliamentary records, newspapers, etc., diary entries, etc. are not facts, their subjective opinion are they. All very interesting.
“To suggest the history documented by a General is ‘fact’ is misleading too.”
You’re being simple-minded. The diary, for example, of Rommel are historical objects, one of the materials historians refer to if they’re writing a history of the war in Northern Africa, Normandy, where ever Rommel happend to be during WW2. The accounts of the battles they provide are to be taken into consideration in writing this history. If other facts corroborate their account then they are reliable objects to be referred in any future account of that battle. If they don’t they are unreliable. Nevertheless, they are, so long as they’re not forgeries, Rommel’s diaries. They are thus historical facts.
“People are not “Objective documentors” we are subjective and our perceptions imprecise. We cannot be obkective in the sense that, say, mathematics or physics can.”
If people as you say are not “objective documentors” then how does physics escape the problems you accuse history of? What direct knowledge of protons, electrons, or neutrons do you/ we have? Or of the sub-atomic particles that are suggested to compose an atom? In a super-collidor they appear as lines and squiggles. Are you suggesting that a neutrino is more factual than Curtin being PM in 1943? That reading these lines and squiggles doesn’t require interpretation? That we can’t be mistaken in our interpretation?
“compare the history in the bible and that of the Egyptians. In the Bible Moses led the Pharoah to his death. Do the Egyptians document this? No. Weird huh?”
No, nothing weird about it at all. The Bible is not history, certainly not history in the sense we’ve understood it for the last two hundred years. And anyway, the fact that the Egyptians did not document what you describe as “Moses [leading] the Pharoah to his death” only suggests that that they did not document it. Nothing else (The Chinese daily newspapers do not document our weekly footy results, does this mean they never happened). If nothing apart from the Bible documented this event then we would have very little reason in believing the account provided by the Bible. Thus proving that the discipline, History, is evidence-based.
“You are kidding yourself if you think history is composed of ‘facts’ – it’s the narrative that joins facts, the facts themselves are meaningless.”
What an incoherent statement. You begin by denying that history is composed of ‘facts’, and then contradict this statement in your following statement, “it’s the narrative that joins facts” which is to admit that history is composed of facts, and because it is composed of facts, we can rationally disagree or agree with one another’s interpretation (narrative) that seeks to make sense of various historical facts. BTW, “the facts themselves are [never] meaningless”, but it is certainly true to say that the better the context in which they are situated, the more meaningful they may become.
Give you a piece of advice, if you find nothing about what I’ve said convincing and you’re unwilling to read any philosophy of history, R. G. Collingwood’s The Idea of History (1946) and The Principles of History (1999)
and Michael Oakeshott’s Experience and Its Modes (1933) and On History (1983) being as a good start as your likely to find, just walk into the closest Department of History and run the line of argument you’ve run here. Unless they’re a POMO twit you’re in for an interesting and instructive conversation.
Remove: (The Chinese daily newspapers do not document our weekly footy results, does this mean they never happened). It’s likely to confuse the point being made in that paragraph.
Having read Don Aitkin’s address to the Planning Institute of Australia, I would like to note that he does not describe himself as a ‘denier’, rather he considers himself an agnostic, open to persuasion by evidence, but doubting that the evidence for AGW is not strong enough to warrant giving it policy priority over Australia’s more important problems of water supply for a dry, and maybe drier contintent, and finding a cheap energy source to support Australia’s future prosperity.
His final statement was the subject of this thread – that he was urged not to write or present such an address, mostly because he was likely to be demonised.
I feel this thread has diverted from the subject; pressure to conform to the accepted policy line. And is now an argument about specifics and interpretation of data evidence supporting AGW.
Perhaps Jennifer can put up Don Aitkin’s address so that his analysis of the following aspects of AGW can be discussed –
(1)the extent to which the planet is warming
(2) whether such warming is unprecedented
(3) whether or not the warming is caused by our burning fossil fuels
(4) the likelihood of polar ice melting away
(5) the use of computer models in predicting future climates
(6) the reluctance to admit uncertainty
(7) the extent to which we need to change our way of life to avoid catastropy.
Proteus you are being ridiculous.
Obviously we can say Curtin was Prime Minister in 1943. But that’s not “History”, that’s a piece of information unconnected to anything else. History is a narrative. History is a story. It’s an interpolation between data points (the facts). However these data points aren’t fixed. They change. As more information becomes apparent the data points move. If you just base history on the data points all you get is a scatter of data, that doesn’t mean anything. You need to create a narrative. You need to interpolate between the points.
With respect to physics, you are missing the point. Yes, the existence of neutrinos is determined by the squiggly lines we see. You cannot compare this to Rommels diaries though. Rommels diaries are one man’s account, his opinon, they’ll be different to Montgomeries account. Neutrinos, however, give the same response whomever is looking at them.
You say that the context is important. Which is where I agree with you. I think it actually proves my point as in physics, facts don’t vary according to context. Facts shouldn’t vary according to context. I think you are confusing ‘fact’ for ‘information’.
Mr T, I’m starting to think you’re incapable of reading my words accurately. I never said saying “Curtin was Prime Minister in 1943” was history, I said it was a historical fact. You say “‘history’ is a narrative”, but it is not a story (a fiction) because it is a narrative composed of facts. The fact that Curtin was PM in 1943 will not change, unless we are seriously. That the 6th Australian Division was in Tobruk and surrounded by Rommel will, similarly, not change unless we are seriously mistaken. The possibility that we can be mistaken suggests that we can be mistaken as to the facts that compose history. BTW, the fact that Curtin was PM is not a mere data point. Curtin could simply have a been a citizen, the fact that he was PM requires determination itself.
“However these data points aren’t fixed. They change. As more information becomes apparent the data points move. If you just base history on the data points all you get is a scatter of data, that doesn’t mean anything. You need to create a narrative. You need to interpolate between the points.”
This is all very interesting but wrong. Data is never entirely on its own. You can never completely seperate a piece of information from an idea, concept, category, theory; so it is never entirely meaningless. What we do is make it more meaningful.
“You cannot compare this to Rommels diaries though. Rommels diaries are one man’s account, his opinon, they’ll be different to Montgomeries account. Neutrinos, however, give the same response whomever is looking at them.”
Really, are Monty’s accounts substantially different to Rommel’s when they’re concerned with the same events. Does Monty’s account suggest that different units/ regiments/ divisions were involved, that they are engaged in different battles, that these battles occurred at different times and places, etc., when compared to Rommel’s? I don’t think they do. The dairies to use your terminology are the data points, but they’re not the only data points we have.
“I think it actually proves my point as in physics, facts don’t vary according to context. Facts shouldn’t vary according to context. I think you are confusing ‘fact’ for ‘information’.”
Really, so how does this distinguish the discipline ‘History’ from physics? A Marxist account of Australian history and a liberal account nevertheless recognise Curtin as PM in 1943. The context has changed but this fact has remained the same. Anyway, your point is not necessarily true of physics or science. Facts can change if the context changes, and in such situations we say that we were mistaken as to that fact, or that this fact was irrelevent to this situation/ event/ etc.
The confusion, I dare say, is all yours.
Why you people care about the climate so much is beyond me as you all seem to spend a lot of time stuck in front of your computers I doubt you get outside much to experience it. It all seems about attachment to your own beliefs and the need to convince others of their righteousness thus empowering your own egos. I doubt any of you are going to convince anyone else to change their beliefs, peoples sense of self is so caught up in their beliefs. What is the point of it all? There is no great truth only opinion and speculation. Following a football team would be more useful you get a result you can have a beer and then go home.
Mr T, “Data could have been mis-entered, they may have developed a new algorithm, they may have found new data for a station,”
No! all these ‘could’s ‘may’s are really “didn’t” and “aren’t” They haven’t found new data from the past they haven’t developed new improved algorithms for analysis of the past temperatures they haven’t found new proxies they are using an algorethms that automatically change past published data when new *current* is added there is no sound reason to do this as the present does not influence past events.
Jack Hughes: “Yet no-one has ever built any computer models that can predict anything useful about world or even national economies.”
Well that’s because they fail to include a suitable ISAFS simulation algorithm. You know – “Incredibly Stupid American Financial System”. You need such an algorithm to try to predict such ingenious actions like lending huge amounts of money to people without suitable incomes to buy overpriced houses they can’t afford in the first place.
SJT:”How many economists were out there warning us about the current econonmic downturn.” Apr 9. Heaps ,mate, but their story got lost by the main stream media. http://www.kitco.com/ind/Texashedge/jan142005.htmlhhttp://www.kitco.com/ind/Droke/jan212005.htmlttp://www.kitco.com/ind/Puplava/jan112005.html http://www.kitco.com/ind/Richebacher/feb072005.htmlhttp://www.aireview.com.au:80/index.php?act=backissueshttp://www.kitco.com/ind/Field/apr102008.html. So have a bit of a trawl and see what’s come to pass because that’s life. The same advise applies as to Ender on another thread,better check your super cause it could just disappear.In which case the least of your worries will be AGW>
thread closed because of spam overload.
jennifer