There’s a nickname for Missouri, the “Show Me State”. It is a label attributed to Representative Willard Van Diver. It connotes a certain self-deprecating stubbornness and devotion to simple common sense. A recent post highlighted by Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill illustrates how this is applicable to climate skepticism.
He writes:
The trust me crowd and the show me crowd
The Chemist in Langley has another post on type 1 and type 2 errors, which is just as good as his last one. I found this quote particularly perspicacious:
A colleague at work describes the difference as roughly the “trust me crowd” versus the “show me crowd”. The trust me crowd can show that some anthropogenic climate change has happened in the past and that models suggest that future conditions are going to get worse. They produce their documentation via the peer reviewed press and in doing so address all the touchstones of the scientific method. Having met the high bar of “good science” they anticipate that their word will be taken as good.
The show me crowd looks at the “good science” and points out that many historical predictions of doom and gloom (that previously met the test of good science) have been shown to be overheated or just plain wrong. They also point out that the best models have not done a very good job with respect to the “pause”. Given this they ask for a demonstration that the next prediction is going to be better than the last one. This does not mean that they deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Rather they are not comfortable with cataclysmic predictions and calls for immediate action prior to a demonstration that those predictions can be supported with something approaching real data.
Here is the first article from “A Chemist in Langley”:
…the vast majority of the warmist community have a worldview that stresses Type I [false positive] error avoidance while most skeptics work in a community that stresses Type II [false negative] error avoidance. Skeptics look at the global climate models and note that the models have a real difficulty in making accurate predictions. To explain, global climate models are complex computer programs filled with calculations based on science’s best understanding of climate processes (geochemistry, global circulation patterns etc) with best guesses used to address holes in the knowledge base.
I would have modified the sentence “…the best models have not done a very good job with respect to the ‘pause'” to read “the best models have utterly failed with respect to the ‘pause.'”
Well the “show me State” is actually the “to hell with you State.” I lived there once in the home of Harry S. Truman; well his State; not his house. A very raspy individual, but a hell of a great President.
But he was just an ordinary Missourian; They’re all like that.
G
I just looked at Missouri state on a map and have a question. Whats up with having the biggest cities, St.Louis and Kansas city on the border? Did they one day figure out their cities was to small and just took a few?
-norwegian, so sorry for not knowing local american history
new normal, yes, in fact about fifty years ago Missouri annexed both of those cities from their neighbors. Kansas complied because they are a smaller, weaker state, but Illinois fought back. Hence, Illinois ended up keeping “East St. Louis”, but it’s a hellhole so Missouri didn’t really mind.
Legend — you’re full of it. The cities of Kansas City, MO and St. Louis, MO do not extend beyond the state borders. Yes, the metropolitan areas do, but the city limits stop at the state lines. In Kansas City, the actual population of the city proper is only about 450,000 people.
Kansas City, Kansas, it an independent city and much smaller than it’s eastward neighbor. BTW, don’t call KCK a suburb of Kansas City, MO, unless you want to really piss off the locals.
> New Normal : I just looked at Missouri state on a map and have a question. Whats up with having the biggest cities, St.Louis and Kansas city on the border? … norwegian, so sorry for not knowing local american history
As with Eurasia, Transportation in North America prior to the late 19th century was a lot easier by water than by land, So major cities tended to grow where transportation routes split or were constrained. e.g. St Louis is located at the junction of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Minneapolis is at the head of navigation on the Mississippi, Chicago is where a tributary of the Mississippi almost reaches the Great Lakes. Kansas City is at the junction of the Kansas and Missouri Rivers. It’s also roughly where the 19th century land routes to New Mexico and the West Coast joined.
@Don K — The answer is geography.
The two major cities in Missouri are on navigable rivers. St Louis is on the Mississippi and Kansas City on the Missouri river. St. Louis was founded when that part of North America was French territory. Kansas City came later and was the starting point for the Santa Fe Trail, the Oregon Trail and the California Trail.
Legend: Thanks for that. Made me chuckle.
Well they have this problem in Missouri.
There’s this big thing called the Mississippi River that stops St Louis from moving any further East, and If I’m not mistaken, there’s this other thing called the Missouri river that stops Kansas City from moving any further West. The Missouri happens to also run by St Charles Missouri, from whence the Lewis & Clark expedition, set off to create the Oregon trail, and make Sakajawea famous as all heck.
I lived in Maryland Heights, until a twister blew the place off the map twice. St Charles is still there though, as are the Missouri, and Mississippi rivers, which I understand engage in interstate commerce, hence the towning of the two rivers.
G
Also near by where I lived, is Lambert Field, the home of McDonald Aircraft, who built the F-4 Phantom and other great things. I think they have an 11,000 ft runway there. You can put a whole herd of Stevenson Screens on that runway.
Don K
January 7, 2015 at 10:24 am
Rivers, Canals, and then Railroads, followed by a long time later the Interstate Highway system.
It was a topic of conversation on a number of the many road trips around the Midwest making customer visits.
Hi George, In my next book I am trying to uncover more of the errors made in the name political actions based on supposed science. As most readers will know, there are plenty of such errors that reveal the methods used currently by climate alarmists. But I struggle to find out why Harry S Truman had such a low popular approval rating when he left the Presidency in spite of being the right man for the job following WW2 (my assessment – and I am not an American). So, do you have any accessible sources that might help me please to understand the man and his times? You can contact me at 3aa910e8@opayq.com (email masked for obvious reasons).
I hope you can help.
“””””……
Legend
January 7, 2015 at 9:09 am
new normal, yes, in fact about fifty years ago Missouri annexed both of those cities from their neighbors. ……”””””
You should go see a doctor.
Fifty years ago, I was living ins St Louis; well Maryland Heights to be precise. They built the gateway arch while I was there watching it all go together.
It’s a memorial to the first people who had enough sense to clear out of town; “go west” as they say.
Anyhow, both Kansas city and St Louis were in exactly the same place they are now, and they had both been there for eons.
It was 48 years ago, before I finally took the hint myself, and got out of town. Unfortunately, I came to California. As I recall we had a Governor Brown back then too. Father of our newly re-anointed illegitimate Governor, who was actually The Attorney General, at the time, he decided to flout the State Constitution and illegally run for two more terms beyond the prescribed limit.
This may be the year I finally leave here myself.
But nyet on KC and StL being swiped from some other States.
Crowning moment of my stay in St Louis, was watching a guy named Satchel Paige pitch, and hit for the Cardinals; and I still don’t like that children’s sand lot game.
I think he was 37 years old at the time. He said: ” Never look back ; something may be gaining on you ! “
“””””…..
Nivlek
January 7, 2015 at 1:56 pm
Hi George, In my next book I am trying to uncover more of the errors made in the name political actions based on supposed science…….”””””
Well Nivlek, I’m just a guest in this great country. But I actually lived through the Truman years (on another planet). In my book, HST is one of the three all time best POTUS’s; presiding over the most momentous decisions ever made on this planet.
He had competent advisors; and he listened to them, and then he made a decision and acted on it.
But you see he was never supposed to be a POTUS; just the VPOTUS, which is a kind of wallflower that isn’t supposed to bloom. So folks thought he was a doofus. But he wasn’t, so they get mad when they think about him. And he was a Democrat to boot; what’s to like about that ??
There’s plenty of historical literature on the man, and his Bess too.
Satchel Paige pitched for the St. Louis Browns (not Cardinals) from ’51 to ’53. He was (maybe) 42 then. He also played earlier for a Kansas City Negro League team. His professional career apparently started in 1926.
He was the first Black player in the All-Star game. Never committed an error in his professional career, and was inducted into the Hall of Fame in ’71.
“Age is a question of mind over matter. If you don’t mind, it don’t matter.” — Leroy “Satchel” Paige
To bless these utter failures with the “not done a very good job” is sheer blasphemy – in this nutso PC world, PLEASE leave me out and call a spade a spade.
“””””……
David Wayne
January 8, 2015 at 11:52 am
Satchel Paige pitched for the St. Louis Browns (not Cardinals) from ’51 to ’53. He was (maybe) 42 then. He also played earlier for a Kansas City Negro League team. His professional career apparently started in 1926……..”””” I never said anything about 1951 to 1953. I said about 50 years ago, which was 1964. Actually sometime between June 1964, and July 1967, most likely 1966.
And I didn’t say Satch WAS a Saint Louis Cardinal. I saw him play WITH the St Louis Cardinals. It wasn’t some regular season game; special occasion thingie; which is why I said I was privileged to have seen him.
For the record, I also got to see Dame Margot Fonteyn in her prime, dance Giselle with the Royal Ballet. (in Auckland NZ .) Circa 1958.
It also was the very first bezeboll game I ever saw in my life. I think I have seen one San Francisco GI-Ants game since then.
And I actually wrote that I thought he was ….137….years old.
Dunno who edited it, and turned it into ……37….. Wasn’t me.
Haven`t they also failed in replicating the past?
Are you refering to the pre-adjusted past or the post-adjusted past?
all models will fail to match observations. the test is whether their error renders them useless.
I guess ultimately the question then is, “What use are the models?” If the purpose of the model is for scientists to wrap their head around the climate, then it’s useful if inaccurate. If the purpose of the model is to prognosticate 100 years into the future, then it’s an abject failure.
Update on the climate bet at NTZ.. Dana Nuccitelli and Rob Honeycutt are falling behind with 6 years to go.
Steven Mosher: the test is whether their error renders them useless.
Everybody knows that. The GCMs have failed the tests so far, which is why Schmidt and Sherwood changed the standard of the test to exclude considerations of the accuracy required to be useful. There still has not been a consideration of how accurate models have to be in order to be considered useful — see for example Willis Eschenbach’s entertaining discussion of the recent Science article on downscaling, in which article the issue of required accuracy is again ignored.
http://www.kiwithinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Climate-bet-at-4-years.jpg
Perhaps the climate models are useful to climate modelers. For predicting future climate or how the climate reacts to man-made greenhouse emissions, the climate models are as useful as teats on a boar hog, as we say in Missouri.
Depends on how you would define “useless”.
The current models are not useless … they are used for political purposes, they are used to justify grants, they are used to try to control human behavior.
Their error is ignored because they can be used for purposes that have nothing to do with their direct worth. It is their indirect worth that keeps them going, and keeps the hype going.
I have an endangered butterfly sitting outside my front window. If I gave you the temperature, humidity, wind direction/velocity, surrounding pheromone densities (at this one point in time) and asked you to tell me at what point the butterfly would cross my property line (with a vertical and horizontal accuracy of the width of the butterfly) you would roll your eyes and say trying to do so would be a waste of time. If I told you there was grant money available to support you and your departments for the next ten years, you would be all over it.
The models are not used for modeling (‘CAUSE THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE) they are used to justify more modeling and more cash flow.
The test of the climate models is whether they can keep the cash flowing for the AGW scam.
Once they fail the the “cash flow test”, then they will be discarded.
And not before that point while there is still grant and funding monies on the table, provided from politically vested interests in the scam.
Steven Mosher, “all models will fail to match observations,”
No, a few models precisely match observations, QM, Thermodynamic laws, Theory of Relativity, etc. spring to mind.
Steven Mosher the Great Denier I suppose.
all models will fail to match observations. the test is whether their error renders them useless.
Just when I think I’ve heard it all………
The “test”? I think “question” would be a better word.
For a scientist (or an engineer) trying get a handle on reality; then, yes, a model that doesn’t quite match but comes closer to observations than previous models might be useful (meaning “helpful”).
But in the field of “Political (climate) Science”, the models haven’t and don’t need to come anywhere near observations. Whether there are problems with the observations that fed the model don’t matter either. They are still useful as long as they “stick against the wall”.
wrong Mr. Mosher, engineering models often match observations and reality quite well.
If you can fly the simulator, you can fly the airplane.
This may be true in economics, but this is certainly not true in the Earth Sciences. Simulations are required to honor the data, and there are algorithms to ensure that this happens. Obviously this does not apply where you are extrapolating spatially or predicting into the future.
Once again Steven chimes in with generic nonsense. Who wouldn’t disagree with “…the test is whether their error renders them useless…”?
This is why scientists are expected to produce predictions with defined error bands.
Sadly, not only do we not get this, we also do not see such “science” laughed out of church.
“I guess ultimately the question then is, “What use are the models?” If the purpose of the model is for scientists to wrap their head around the climate, then it’s useful if inaccurate.
That was the original purpose. to give insight on questions where you CANNOT experiment.
All models even F=MA are inaccurate. Go head test a law a physics and tell me when your error
is ZERO. tell me when any model matches PERFECTLY.
If the purpose of the model is to prognosticate 100 years into the future, then it’s an abject failure.
Wrong. You wont know how close the model is for 100 years.
Question: IF you want to predict 100 years from now, what method will you suggest is better.
F = ma is a definition. It is NOT a prediction.
“wrong Mr. Mosher, engineering models often match observations and reality quite well.”
quite well?
I know of NO model, and NO law of physics where the observations match the law or model perfectly.
They all have error.
The question is how big is the error
And
is the errror too big for your intended purpose
Matthew if everyone knows that then explain the continued misunderstanding at wuwt.
Further Willis missed the whole point and you do as well. Read harder
“Wrong”, says Mosher again!
“”” If the purpose of the model is to prognosticate 100 years into the future, then it’s an abject failure.
Wrong. You wont know how close the model is for 100 years. “”””
Steven, we know right away. We don’t have to main-line Geritol and wait a hundred years. The model fails at its inception, simply by having “the purpose” of prognosticating a century hence.
Akin to presenting to the patent office a perpetual motion machine.
How wrong? you ask. Really wrong, not even wrong, 97% wrong.
Sorry jimbo that bet says nothing.
Wrong mebbe.
All models that contain a time parameter will predict 100 years hence unless you arbitrarily limit t
Steven Mosher
January 7, 2015 at 6:39 pm
You wrote:
“….
Wrong. You wont know how close the model is for 100 years.
Question: IF you want to predict 100 years from now, what method will you suggest is better.”
===========
How about rolling dice? Better to not try such predictions as one would look like a jackass….
Mr Mosher never did rebutt my assertion that Climate Models only have to pass the “cash flow test” in the real world.
As long as they do that, no matter how little to zero skill they possess, the modelling teams will press on with their outlandishly expensive production and publication. Which is why the climate models will always steer toward actionable alarmism. Time to cut off their funding.
Steven Mosher said; “All models that contain a time parameter will predict 100 years hence unless you arbitrarily limit t.”
Yes, any model will predict a hundred years hence and 4.6 billion years hence but it’s the having the avowed intent to predict that far ahead that dooms it.
Limiting t is not arbitrary, it’s a little recognition of the limitations of one’s creation.
@ Steven Mosher
January 7, 2015 at 8:05 am
“all models will fail to match observations. the test is whether their error renders them useless.”
—
Better if people know how the dodgy IPCC frankfurter models slipped into the true believer’s hotdog.
“IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted Certainties Presented to Media, Public and Politicians, But Remained Silent”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/21/ipcc-scientists-knew-data-and-science-inadequacies-contradicted-certainties-presented-to-media-public-and-politicians-but-remained-silent/
That way impressionable minds won’t make the mistake of trusting or presuming that mainstream ‘climate’ models have credibility of any sort. Plus a sausage-factory tour of models intrinsically reveals why such products shouldn’t ever be served up within self-respecting hot dog bread roll. It could make one quite sick.
smoosher is here, we can all rejoice and bask in the glow of his infinite wisdom.
All models are wrong, some models are useful is a mantra of modelers everywhere.
But in what way are climate models useful? They certainly show us climate modeling is in its infancy, that models really don’t know how the climate works.
The climate modelers also help us understand the hubris of the modelers. “You have no better way to predicts the climate 100 years in the future,” they claim. Really? How useful is a prediction is the wrong answer? The models can’t accurately predict the climate in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years or 30 years, but somehow they give a useful prediction of the climate a century from now.
I find that not particularly useful at all.
Well I’m in agreement with Babsy that f = m.a is a definition (of force f). Since (m) is a fundamental physical quantity, and (a) acceleration is d^2s dt^2 also involves only fundamental physical properties, so (f)O is the newbie to get defined.
But Mosh, what do you think about the “model”, specifically the “Planck” model of Black Body radiation, where both the first and second “radiation constants” of the Planck formula are themselves formed as composites of fundamental Physical properties such as …c , k, h (newbie) etc…. ??
In this case, we have a theoretical physical model of something that nobody has ever seen or observed, and which itself, cannot theoretically even exist, as the required properties of a “Black Body” are themselves a physical impossibility.
No material or structure exists or is known, which absorbs 100.000…% of even one single wavelength or frequency of incident electro-magnetic radiant energy, in the range of zero to infinity frequency or wavelength; let alone for all wavelengths or frequencies, in that range.
Also Planck declared that the energy of a photon shall be h(nu) or hf if you like, but placed no restraints on the wave number (nu), which may have any real value, so it also can have ANY real value of photon energy, despite assertions that Planck “quantized” EM radiant energy. And since the photon wave number can be infinite, so can its energy, which is the same as what happens to the energy in the Raleigh Jeans formula when the wavelength is zero; the so-called “ultra-violet catastrophe” . So the Planck radiation formula still has its own ultra-violet catastrophe, in that the photon energy can be infinite with black body radiation of the Planck kind.
So what gives. Here we have a very famous model of something that doesn’t even exist.
George E. Smith,
F=ma is only an approximation that works at/with non-relativistic velocities.
Einstein showed that as v –> c, mas increases. It is fundamentally why making a massive particle approach the speed of light it takes exponentially more energy with each incremental increase in v.
Particle accelerators, like the LHC, require massive amounts of electricity to accelerate bunches of protons to near light speeds prior to smashing them into other nuclei and protons moving in the opposite direction in the ring collider. At those velocities, it is far more convenient to use a unit of energy, the electron volt, eV, to convey the combined mass and kinetic energy of a particle into one term, since Einstein showed us that mass and energy are equivalent by E=mc^2.
Mosher writes “The question is how big is the error”
Well quite big after just a decade or two. That pretty much rules them out as useful over centennial time scales.
That’s not the question anyway. The question is whether they are even modelling climate at all. If they’re not modelling climate change due to anthropogenic CO2 then it doesn’t matter what error they have.
I’d think it would be better to say that the best models are the least wrong.
You may have a point but the issue still remains that they may well be less wrong for the wrong reasons. No-one has a good model of the random*, chaotic, always-changing-slightly-or greatly climate because no-one knows what all the drivers are let alone understands them. All we can say with certainty is that all climate models are wrong but we don’t know what is missing from them. Proof that something is missing is provided by the fact that the models cannot even approximate past history.
* I have used the word random and I realize this is problematic for the determinists but since we don’t know all of what makes climate change that change might as well be random.
If your multitude of model outcomes cover a wide enough range, surely a couple might come close to reality.
Its called “pot-luck”!
I bet if you asked beforehand which models were going to be the ‘best’, they would not have chosen those couple of fortunate ones that by pure chance actually come within cooee of reality.
Andy: given the state of climate knowledge as expressed in the models even if a model did replicate reality we wouldn’t know it was doing so for the right reasons. Given the large amount of fudging AKA “fine tuning” of models sooner or later some model will produce a run that approximates reality for a given period because that is what the “fine tuning” is supposed to produce. But it won’t prove the model if it’s just an artifact of fudging.
Well in the field of optics; both imaging, and non imaging, a whole host of models are used, starting from thin lens theories, to geometrical ray tracing, which is a zero wavelength approximation to real physical optics based on EM wave propagation Physics. There’s a hierarchy of optical path length models that give more accurate results when needed at real wavelengths, and there are even models that model optical “rays” as a series summation of orthogonal , multi modal Gaussian beam EM mode functions. I assume there are even QM versions of those Gaussian Beam propagation models as well.
So you use the simplest models that will give you the results you need to as good an accuracy as the task calls for. And if not, then you move up the food chain to the next level and do it all over again, with something much more difficult and time consuming, but with even better agreement, between theory and real world behavior.
And you can intermix them. I can construct a geometrical ray model of a system, but then analyze it with real Fraunhofer diffraction theory. And if I’m off the target, the ray optics is good enough to tweak the design back to where it should be, so I only have to use the royal jelly stuff, when I have a good tweaked model to share it with.
But we are not dealing with that kind of science in climate; it’s far too chaotic. I’ve never built a system (optical) that didn’t work the way the model said it was supposed to work.
Chris
Random and chaotic are not the same. Chaotic systems are determinant and CANNOT be accurately modeled; random (stochastic) systems are different, and some of them may indeed be accurately modeled.
Any model beats the skeptics whine of ” it’s too hard”
Or “I don’t know”
Steven Mosher
January 7, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Any model beats the skeptics whine of ” it’s too hard”
Or “I don’t know”
=============
I can’t believe you wrote that.
If the model is not representative of reality it is not worth a shit.
@ Steven Mosher
January 7, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Any model beats the skeptics whine of ” it’s too hard”
Or “I don’t know”
—
However, you would have the mainstream media and public accept that via your present pet models, that you know something, some advanced insights others are not privy to, and that you should therefore be awarded an unchallenged free-pass to blab a series of fake or false, else grossly misleading pro AGW blah-blahs, which costs the public billions in taxes, which they worked long hours to earn, and mostly involuntarily payed?
[Sorry if that last part was particularly tedious for you, it’s just that most people think it’s the most important consideration of all, and it’s perpetually lost in the technocratic politicizing of research funding and psycho-babble which you guys tout for, like a bunch of vigorous of slappers at 10 PM on a Friday night.]
What other use could such models possibly be put to, but to try and scare-up yet more tax dollars to abuse and waste under similar false pretenses? Or should no one ever plainly point out that all the pet models you have ever cited, at any time in the past, have been shown to be complete rot, which don’t match the Earth’s observed dynamics, nor its trends with anything like a real-world predictive utility?
Don’t give the warmest any more stupid ideas George.
I have more than enough stupid ideas to satisfy the needs of everyone.
But as I say: ” ignorance is NOT a disease; we are ALL born with it !”
But stupidity has to be taught; and there are plenty, fully qualified to teach it, and willing to do so.
g
Mark, from my inexpert point of view, it seems the best models have utterly failed with respect to everything. Is there anything they have got right?
Climate Models– ‘Merde’
CACA: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism.
There is no evidence as yet of man-made global warming. Indeed if there has been any human effect on climate it’s more likely cooling, which would before dangerous. But our CO2 emissions have been beneficial for plants & other living things.
I think that the modelling approach may be changing , and quite clearly that can only be for the better in many people’s opinion.
What leads me to this thought is the arrival of Electrochem Soc’s latest “Interface ” magazine with an article about applying “inverse problem analysis” to corrosion problems . It involves working from the data , with models, to obtain the important parameters – hence the “inverse”.
I had never heard of this . Y’all probably know all about it , but I looked for applications in the climatology field , finding a book by Carl Wunsch on Ocean Circulation, several papers too mathematical to begin to understand, something very interesting about ocean heat transfer from Univ of Southampton and a paper, just a few days old about the application of this technique to hydrological problems in Turkey .
If I understand it correctly the authors of the latter say that starting with GCMs and downscaling is too inaccurate (I think that we have heard that also lately) and they need to start from the local precipitation and weather and find the most suitable model to predict the future supply of water, given the climate prediction that results .
So things may be changing , but not from the top down , from the Trenberths and Manns of this world but from the applications men and women working in the field (metaphorically and literally).
I heard that climate models won’t get out of bed for less than 10K a century.
Recently, I’ve heard they are willing to go INTO bed for less…
Meanwhile, Truth has just woke up and is putting on it’s shoes.
Oh, just think of all the jokes we can make about hot climate models!
Yes models aren’t data. But in regards to Star Trek could Data be a model?
He is fully functional…
uumm.. how do we know that ?
Andy, he’s been programmed.
“This does not mean that they deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming.”
======
I do if the cause is claimed to be CO2.
I do if they think they’ve found the temperature control knob.
Well, they have the equation that says dT is a f(dCO_2/CO_2), predicting that an increase in CO_2 results in an increase in temperature. And then there’s the satellite data showing no warming for X amount of months yet CO_2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise. Which is real? Both can’t be correct…
They can both be real. That formula is correct under lab conditions with one variable, CO2 concentration. Unfortunately when you introduce more variables and dependencies it all goes a bit pear-shaped.
Seriously? We’re told that releasing CO_2 into the air makes said air warmer, yet for almost twenty years the concentration of CO_2 has risen and there has been no warming. Maybe the equation is wrong, eh?
No; the Chemist is flat out wrong. As a chemistry major I learned “good science”. Good science is not an unproved theory backed by an unproved model. Good science is observation of facts (that’s measured facts with recognized error margins); followed by theory which may comprise a model; experimentation to prove that theory/model; modification of the theory/model, as experimentation proceeds, if necessary to meet the facts shown by the experiment. Confirmation by independent researchers of the theory through replication of results.
With CAGW they are still at the stage of trying to gather facts with reliable error margins and trying to assemble a model.
Either the Chemist is not really a chemist or he was not trained in what constitutes “good science”.
Reread the article, the “trust me crowd” uses the good science bar, not the author.
Patrick, I sort of agree with you. I’m willing to “explore” The Chemist’s “Type I” / “Type II” model, but it seems to me that he has reversed them. The warmists have drawn a false-positive conclusion (viz: “Humans are causing warming”) so they can’t be “Type I error avoiders.” And sceptics like me say “there is no clear evidence that warming is occurring or that humans are causing it, so let’s not draw a false-positive conclusion,” so we are acting like “Type I error avoiders”. In fact I have heard warmists say “well we better act even if we are not sure, because there is so much at stake if we do nothing” which is clearly type-II avoidance behaviour.
That last statement “well we better act even if we are not sure …” reminds me of a mechanic that “helped me” when my ’67 Dodge Dart broke down in Tofino when I was 21. His approach to car repair was “form a hypothesis of what is broken / replace that piece / see if the car runs / repeat until the car is fixed.” Those of you not awash in cash will understand why I put a stop to that strategy, and insisted that we prove or disprove the cause before implementing the expensive solution. Turned out the problem was broken teeth in the small gear that drove the distributor rotor.
As captured in the folksy aphorism, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
If the distributor rotor wasn’t turning, no spark at plugs. Problem should have been diagnosed within minutes.
Earthling: thanks! but it was made a bit more complicated because the rotor was turning, just in a different phase relationship with the pistons each time we spun the starter. Every once in a while the car started, and kept running – just wouldn’t start again the next time.
Suggest you reword “…experimentation to dis-prove that theory/model; …”.
It is my understanding that a model, theory, etc. CANNOT be proved, only tested and retested so that it gradually becomes accepted as a good representation of reality.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein
You are correct. Your statement is more accurate than mine.
Agree except that the “theory” is the “model”, not “…theory which may comprise a model”
Please please please stop calling it the “pause”. That’s an incorrect use of the language and it’s what the alarmists want in order to control the dialogue. Global warming has STOPPED.
Agreed.
If it resumes, then we can call what is happening a “pause”.
If it begins to cool, then we will call what is happening a “peak”.
IMHO
Also, what little ‘warming’ there was (a fraction of one degree per century!) was insignificant.
What difference did it make anywhere?
The greatest work of science fiction ever, worthy of Isaac Asimov.
I was thinking more of L Ron myself seeing as it has morphed into a religion.
How about a Nebula Prize?
Perhaps the rate of change of global warming has stopped.
How about “the Plateau?”
Using the word “pause” presupposes that warming will resume, and, therefore, there is no need to discuss the importance of such stoppage.
Now that you mention it I can’t say I ever saw a “Pause Sign”. http://www.beatcanvas.com/pics/pause_sign_go.jpg
Here’s a culinary tip for a fine repast of climate catastrophe equanimity:
Take one Pause. Embrace it. Add the right amount of irony. Toss it around and serve.
A hiatus can be prepared in much the same way, but with sardonicism. Do not season with pedantry or umbrage as they are both sour and bitter.
Makes sense. Avoiding type 1 errors assume that you have enough money to fix everything. Avoiding type 2 errors assumes that your funds are limited. Academics rely on governments for funding and thus assume funds for avoiding errors are unlimited. Engineers rely on profits for funding, and thus know that funds for avoiding errors are directly tied to success.
Academics believe we have enough money to avoid every problem, even problems far in the future, or problems that may indeed turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Engineers believe we have barely enough funds to deal with today’s problems, let alone solve problems 100 years in the future. If and when it becomes a problem, then add it to the list of things to solve.
Well said,
Academics ‘believe’ their current theory is correct. Engineers ‘accept’ what has worked so far.
As an engineer I would also add to that: The probability of zero nor one exists with the exception of the probability of one being zero.
Nice!
Anthropogenic Climate Change just generated 9 earthquakes in less than 24 hours in the Dallas, Texas area – trust me!
Do you have a Web site where we can buy stock?
/sarc
If I’m not mistaken, he sold his last “sarc tag” just before he made that comment.8-)
/sarc on sarc/ on /sarc – geez who’da think I was serious . . .
I do if they think they’ve found the temperature control knob.
“best guesses”
I see the problem right there.
Any time you’re guessing, you’re not stating FACTS. And without better results of prediction from your models, you’re not even stating good estimates.
But they understand how complex the chaotic system they’re trying to model is.
Plus there are unknowns unknowns. We know a lot of the data that is present in the system but do we know all of it? Are there missing some measurements that are not being taken or that cannot be taken in real time and that the equations thus will ALWAYS BE WRONG?
Until a model can show they would have predicted the known weather of a particular instance then they cannot say those models are reliable. And I’m sure we’d allow them some level less than 100%.
But they can’t and they know that and the majority of the warmists are not computer modelers so they don’t know what needs to be done nor can they participate in that quest so they ignore it and claim it’s been achieved. Solely so they can garner the kudos and prizes. Let alone the grants and speaking fees.
I’m not convinced the warmists are driven by Type I error avoidance. From the Chemist in Langley’s post this is done in part by utilising 95% confidence intervals. Let’s ignore the fact that the mean and standard deviation of different runs of a chaotic model or the mean and standard deviations of ensembles of different chaotic models are utterly meaningless. If the warmists put the confidence intervals on their predictions they must be held up to those intervals. Since the recent data is outside the 95% confidence intervals of the model predictions the models are wrong and a Type I error has occurred. The problem is that the warmists don’t accept this simple, demonstrable fact because it would result in career and reputation destruction and loss of funding on a very wide basis. The skeptics and warmists aren’t talking past each other with different error detection philosophies, the warmists simply aren’t listening because to listen would be to acknowledge their egregious failure and lose their jobs.
Their problem is biased application of what they reportedly “know” and guessing about all the rest.
Don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.
Hillary Clinton’s October 24, 2014
This explains the avoidance of type 1 errors. The belief that money is created by governments, and is thus unlimited. Spending money on climate change isn’t an expense, it is an investment, and thus we can afford to invest as much as we want. That wealth isn’t the result of business or jobs, it is created via taxes and the printing press.
I would say not that there is the belief that money is created by government but rather that the belief is the government owns all the money created and only through benevolent ruling does the government allow you to keep some of it. That is why they refer to lowering taxes as corporate welfare.
LOL!! Yes, that Hillary quote is a classic leftist non sequitur….
That’s like someone saying, “Don’t let anybody tell you eggs come chickens.”….
What’s so sad is that people in the audience actually cheered when Hillary made that statement…. To make matters even worse, Hillary may well be the next POTUS….
It’s no wonder CAGW is still taken seriously by so many leftists…
Back when Bubba was President and she was promoting “HillaryCare”, she testified before a Congressional committee. Rush Limbaugh had his TV show at the time. He showed a clip. In it she was asked if she wanted to control people’s behavior through taxes. She answered, “I would if I could.”
Carbon tax anyone?
(I think the context of the question was a 1,000% tax on ammo. I might be wrong about that. I’ve looked for the clip but can’t find it. It would make a great campaign ad if she raises her head in the race.)
Ya I think she should be jailed for a quote like that.
It’s ‘funny’ that this self-same, Zero-Sum mindset on Wealth is held by Climastologists concerning energy and CO2.
If money is created by gubbmint, why does I has to pay taxes?
Don’t worry Babsy, the gubbmint, in its infinite wisdom, has it covered….
Any tax revenue shortfall is simply being printed by the Federal Reserve.
If the Federal Reserve keeps this up, we’ll soon all be millionaires! woo hoo!…. Of course, Big Macs will cost $550, but hey, we’ll all be millionairs so we’ll be able to afford it…. right?….
Theory vs Application. Physicists vs Engineers. etc. etc.
Hypothesis testing is basic science. Often poorly implemented due to overspecialization.
The assumption/hypothesis that humans have casued “some” climate change in the past can not be tested due to lack of data designed to test that assumption/hyposthesis. You must have enough good data to QUANTIFY the amount of climate change.
Climate models can predict the future of Earth’s climates about at well as a Disney animation video can predict the future of Mickey Mouse.
I’m a physicist and work with other scientists of various disciplines and we agree that hypothesis testing is basic science and that data trumps models. Just like engineers do. It’s not physicists vs engineers, it’s warmist-pseudo-scientists vs people who actually understand how real science is done.
Well said, thank you.
“This does not mean that they deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming”
####
So much for the “show me” types by this fellow’s lights.
I say “show me global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise”. There is none, not for 26 years, not in any significant sense.The chemist from Langley seems to miss the main point.
“The trust me crowd can show that some anthropogenic climate change has happened in the past and that models suggest that future conditions are going to get worse. They produce their documentation via the peer reviewed press and in doing so address all the touchstones of the scientific method. Having met the high bar of “good science” they anticipate that their word will be taken as good.”
Bold mine
Whoa! Not so fast … the “trust me crowd” wants us to trust them that they have met the high bar of “good science”, not that they actually have.
Meanwhile, it should be noted that the “show me crowd” also agrees that some anthropogenic climate change has happened in the past (and probably still is happening).
Clearly climate models that do not reflect direct observation should not be used to determine a course of action. Anyone saying “trust me” that these climate models should be used to determine a course of action, in my opinion, should not be trusted.
Moreover, it can not be stated more clearly: “good science” is predicated on “show me”. (Re: The Scientific Method)
This statement remains relevant:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”(Oregon Petition Project)
Note that it does not deny that “greenhouse gases” exist, it does not deny that CO2 is part of those “greenhouse gases”, it does not deny that said “greenhouse gases” contribute the atmospheric gases, and it does not deny that human activity contributes to the atmospheric CO2 which is part of the overall “greenhouse gas” total.
It does imply that it has not been shown – “show me crowd” – that this increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing, or will cause in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
mpainter –
We were posting at about the same time.
Better I should have said:
“Meanwhile, it should be noted that the “show me crowd” also agrees that some anthropogenic climate change may have happened in the past (and probably may still is happening).”
This allows for a little “wriggle room”, don’t you think?
JohnWho:
Cloud data shows a decrease in global cloudiness since the mid eighties. Thus decreased cloud albedo—> increased insolation—warmer surface and SST. The increased insolation is several times any calculated GHE through CO2 increase and explains it all.
Bottom line: hard, incontrovertible data shows that the warming trend circa 1977-97 was due to reduced global cloud coverage. There is not one speck of data which supports AGW.
@ mpainter
So how to explain the pan evaporation paradox? CAGW says pan evaporation rates should have increased with increasing temperature, but they haven’t; they have declined over the last 50 yrs. This is supposedly due to increased cloud cover (aka Global Dimming).
Git:
Go argue with the data which shows significant decrease globally in clouds since the mid-eighties.
Pan evaporation? Salt pans?
Farmers rely on pan evaporation rates to work out how much irrigation is needed for crops.
The Pan Evaporation Paradox (PEP) arises as I said above; increasing temperatures increase evaporation rate of open water yet measured evaporation rates have declined over the last 50 years. And that’s real data:
http://www.bom.gov.au/watl/evaporation/
If temperatures have increased and cloudiness has decreased and wind speeds have remained about average then there’s a real paradox. Or at least one dataset is in error. I note that the PEP is world-wide and not confined to Australia alone.
Git:
Paradox, yes. I can’t imagine why.
This the first I’ve heard of pep.
@ mpainter
It’s an interesting area of climatology, not least because there is vigorous debate over the cause(s). So much for “settled science”…
“The case for carbon taxes has long been compelling,” Summers wrote. “With the recent steep fall in oil prices and associated declines in other energy prices, it has become overwhelming. There is room for debate about the size of the tax and about how the proceeds should be deployed. But there should be no doubt that, given the current zero tax rate on carbon, increased taxation would be desirable.”
============
rather than seeing falling oil prices as a means to stimulate the economy and create jobs by increasing disposable income, the academic sees this as an opportunity to increase taxes, to gain further control over people’s spending habits and thereby channel more money to the academics preferred areas of spending.
rather than allow people to spend the money to solve their day to day problems, the academic wants the money to go towards a more noble goal, saving the world for future generation. to hell with solving your problems at the gas pump, lets solve the problems your grandchildren will face. your problems today are nothing in comparison and do not interest the academic.
Of course some of that tax money will make it’s way into their bank accounts so they can continue to tell us what to do.
Watch for the ratchet effect – one day, oil prices will rise again. Will they then remove the extra taxes? Is the Pope Presbyterian?
It’s so frustrating to watch the most expensive scientific scam in human history plod along year after year despite no global warming trend for 18+ years, even though almost 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 have been emitted over just the last 18 years…
The discrepancies between the CMIP5 model ensemble mean vs. RSS temps already exceed 2 standard deviations and lie outside the model means’s 95% confidence interval.
According to IPCC’s AR reports, the larger the discrepancies between hypothetical projections and reality becomes, the higher their level of confidence is in the efficacy of the CAGW hypothesis.
What criteria would be sufficient to finally disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis with 95% confidence?
2+ standard deviations off from reality for 20 years? 25 years?
There must be a statistically justifiable criteria under which CAGW no longer becomes a viable hypothesis..
Samurai
You’re not dealing with scientists here.
You’re dealing with the most amoral, unethical creation on the planet: politicians…and some scientists who have willingly sold their souls to the devil.
These people have one and only one goal: power. All the details are merely interesting (or not).
Patrick B wrote: “With CAGW they are still at the stage of trying to gather facts with reliable error margins and trying to assemble a model.”
That’s not the CAGW behavior we’re observing. Their models are flawed, but they are demanding public policy action based upon these failed models. I’m sure they are working to improve the models, but they still insist on trumping observed facts with the output of their models.
That is model-based decisioning. Not fact-based decisioning.
The chemist nailed it.
given the current zero tax rate on carbon, increased taxation would be desirable.
====================
Fuel taxes in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel.[1][2] On average, as of April 2014, state and local taxes add 31.5 cents to gasoline and 31.0 cents to diesel, for a total US average fuel tax of 49.9 cents per gallon for gas and 55.4 cents per gallon for diesel.[3]
“But there should be no doubt that, given the current zero tax rate on carbon, increased taxation would be desirable.”
I am not OK with adding to that tax rate, but, I’m OK with doubling that “zero” tax rate.
/grin
As an engineering student, I was taught that if the observations and data don’t agree with the model, you change the model or scrap it and start from scratch. The CAGW crowd believe in changing the data, al la Dr James Hansen and NASA’s TOD (time of day) adjustment instituted in 2000. Raised the temperatures from 1950 on and lowered the temperatures in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s. How convenient! And totally unscientific.
Bill
As we know, there are many and various aspects of the climate fiasco to be skeptical about.
Gavin Schmidt says “…models are not right or wrong; they’re always wrong…” and I am happy to agree with him about that. He goes on to say a bunch of other stuff that I don’t agree with, and when all is said and done he’s a warma and I’m a deniah.
But I am puzzled by the extensive preoccupation with the semantic value of the word ”data”. The dispute used to be simply about whether you should use a singular or plural verb form but it’s now about its lexical identity, with great outrage expressed when it’s used to refer to anything less than the certified, guaranteed, unqualified Truth.
As we know, linguistically, there’s good data, bad data, raw data, adjusted data, old data, new data, missing data, electronic data, genetic data. And if it’s not 100% incontrovertible fact, we have to come up with another name for it. The word ‘garbage’ is already taken; it means plastic wrappers and chicken bones that people carry to the kerb for disposal!
Yes, the etymology of ‘data’ is the Latin for ‘given’ and, by coincidence, the Germanic word ‘given’ is also used to denote ‘fact’. And that’s a given!
Personally, I have no objection to the expression “This data is garbage!” because it often is.
The scientific method involves repeatability. Peer review only checks if the science supports conventional “wisdom” in the area. This is a very low bar to get over unless you are challenging the conventions. Then and only then will peer review apply the full scientific method and demand repeatability. Remember cold fusion was published with peer review and then the scientific method was applied and it all fell apart. Any peer reviewed ‘science’ that does not publish enough of their data and methods to allow for accurate replication is not science but simply a scientific opinion. Why do sceptics need to resort to FOIA to get this information?
Because peer reviewed climate science is a scientific opinion that cannot stand up to the scientific method.
And I thought it ‘pier review’. Shove it off the pier, and see if it floats, or not.
What floats, apart from ducks and witches?
I agree with your comment, but cold fusion would be a bad example, as much effort and research is still in progress. Let us wait for the proverbial fat lady. GK
A better example might be N rays which were a form of radiation described by the French physicist Blondlot in 1903. They were initially confirmed by others, but subsequently found to be illusory. However, they were and still are “used” in therapy in France! Other examples are: biogenic radiation, phlogiston and many others – all shown to be false when examined scientifically.
Astrology is also another “good” example. It has much in common with AGW, especially as a cash cow – there are many more astrologers than astronomers.
The ether! The ether! There must be some medium to allow light to make its way from a star to our eye.
From Weather Underground:
Number of major world stations which set their all time highest temperature in 2014: 198 (for comparison, this was 389 in 2013.)
Number of major world stations which set their all time lowest temperature in 2014: 15 (for comparison, this was 12 in 2013.)
So fewer all time high temperature records in 2014 than 2013 shows the world is cooling.
My three favorite ‘skeptical’ observations.
1. No warming for 18 years.
2. Planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback, by an increase in cloud cover in the tropics) rather than amplifies forcing changes (positive feedback, required by the IPCC models to create ‘dangerous’ warming ,more than 2C warming is apparently dangerous, with negative feedback models indicate less than 1c warming for a doubling of CO2) forcing changes.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
3. Almost no observed warming of the tropical troposphere (at 8km). Tropical troposphere warming is the signature of AGW warming and is a major component/reason for the GCM predicted AGW warming (8km warming in the tropics warms the tropical region by infrared back radiation. There is almost no tropical tropospheric 8km warming and there is almost no tropical region surface or topical ocean warming.) The majority of the warming observed is at high latitudes which is not predicted by GCMs and matches past cyclic warming that correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
My favorite top 3 warmists’ 2014 discoveries from Roy Spencer’s list.
OT as ‘tip page’ not working, at least not on my iPhone
Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data†
Abstract
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends. Recent studies have attempted to attribute this so called temperature hiatus to several causes, amongst them incomplete sampling of the rapidly warming Arctic region. We here examine zonal mean temperature trends in satellite-based tropospheric data sets (MSU/AMSU and GNSS Radio Occultation) and in global surface temperatures (HadCRUT4). Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period. Instead, the dominating causes of the global temperature hiatus are found at low latitudes. The combined use of several independent data sets, representing completely different measurement techniques and sampling characteristics, strengthens the conclusions.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062596/abstract
Mt post at http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.com/2015/01/further-thoughts-on-type-i-and-type-ii.html ”
Of course, if you can sample the future, your model is unnecessary…
Best guesses are seldom correct unless there is a history, (experience), to calibrate that guess. For the AGW crowd the history in a guess. And a guess built upon a guess quickly deteriorates to random outcomes.
Climate seems to behave as multiple cycles, with different periods, amplitudes and interactions, all super-imposed. If a quasi-cycle (with indeterminate or variable period, like the Solar Cycle) is included, I do not think any model can be an adequate predictor.
I’m unaware of any proof that humans have caused global warming. Correlation is not causation.
Every living organism affects the environment. The problem is determining how and how much.
…and then determining if the effects are good or bad (usually both).
Does that make me a “Lukewarmer” ?
How come butterfly wings and cow farts are natural, but if I go for a surf I’m destroying the waves?
Probabilities, error Types, + or – SDs of model outcomes, that’s not even material yet.
Consider the hypothesis being tested (and its obvious bias).
They failed to address the null hypothesis:
AGW = or ≠ 0 (however you want to phase that)
And instead assumed an alternate/rival hypothesis:
GW=A, skip that we’ll just jump to AGW = C
It is not a scientific process to begin with a conclusion in order to compute an extent, shoot the blunderbuss supercomputer runs onto graph paper, and then draw a linear straight ascending line through the scatter.
Truth is they don’t have a hypothesis (and don’t care); they have a conclusion and now onto the money . . .
Re: AGW (much less C) and data
including this mpainter
The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere
Link below with Open Access. My bold.
http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=21810
hmmm
Type I and Type II errors – now formally Type A and Type B errors
Climate science has ignored the international standards on uncertainty. See:
GUM: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, BIPM
See: Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement JCGM 100:2008 (GUM 1995 with minor corrections)
Yeah, I know, and it shows I’m aging. No error there.
As i understand it, there is no consensus on which computer model of CAGW is best, so an average of all “accepted” models is used for IPCC “predictions”.
From a chemist in Langley: “Global climate models are complex computer programs filled with calculations based on science’s best understanding of climate processes (geochemistry, global circulation patterns etc) with best guesses used to address holes in the knowledge base”.
When I was trained in science and engineering, best guesses were known as fudge factors – seems there is still a lot of fudge in climate science.
Computer models are worthless. It started with Hansen in 1988. We have lived through most of his “business as usual” model and it’s way off reality. He used an IBM mainframe but now they have supercomputers running million-line code. It hasn’t helped a bit, their predictions are no better than Hansen’s were. They have now had twenty six years to put their house in order but they have not done it. If a businessman is told that all the statistics for his business for the last 26 years have beenn wrong he would not hesitate to close it dow. Just close down the models and do some honest climate science for a change.
Arno
Yea, but, but, but…
…Hansen was paid by NASA, not a private businessman.
It is not just about models. Much of my skepticism is based on our best understanding of Earth’s climate history. All historical evidence indicates that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has very little impact on temperature. Secondly, lab measurements indicate that the impact of a doubling of CO2 would be about 1 degree, all else being equal. Thirdly, that the tripling effect of water vapor is based on nothing more than speculation. And finally, no one has been able to find any evidence in such a large positive feedback. In fact, there is growing evidence for negative feedbacks, reducing the already small impact CO2 has on temperature.
The models are secondary to the above and are not much of a factor in my skepticism.
You are absolutely right. There is no tripling effect as the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT, proves. Instead we get a CO2 sensitivity zero (0). What actually happens is that water vapor and carbon dioxide create a joint absorption window whose optical thickness in the IR is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide it will start to absorb in the IR. But this will increase tyhe optical thickness. And as soon as this happens water wapor will begin to decrease, rain out, and the original optical thickness gets restored. The carbon dioxide that was added will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor will keep total absorption constant and no warming is possible. And that is the end of the alleged greenhouse warming yhat Hansen told us about. It is tis phenomenon that is responsible for the current lack of warming that has lasted 18 years by now, despite constant increase of carbon dioxide that according to Hansen should cause warming. And since there is no greenhouse warming there is no CAGW either. IT is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific fantasy, cooked up to justify their greenhouse hypothesis which is now shown to be false.
mpainter
January 7, 2015 at 10:01 am
JohnWho:
Cloud data shows a decrease in global cloudiness since the mid eighties. Thus decreased cloud albedo—> increased insolation—warmer surface and SST. The increased insolation is several times any calculated GHE through CO2 increase and explains it all.
Bottom line: hard, incontrovertible data shows that the warming trend circa 1977-97 was due to reduced global cloud coverage. There is not one speck of data which supports AGW.
But doesn’t that imply that the Green House Gas Effect does not exist? Since it does, adding CO2 to the atmosphere should increase the warming from that effect.
However, let me be clear on my position: I do not believe that the additional CO2 that we add to the atmosphere is having a measureable (with todays’ instrumentation) warming effect. If it were, once could point to that additional measured (observed) warming as proof of AGW (but not necessarily CAGW).
AFAIK, that evidence has not been presented.
JohnWho
I cannot see that implication, that the GHE does not exist. But that has been mischaracterized. For example, water vapor, the main GHG, moderates temp., it does not increase it. Compare max temp. Sahara with max temp. humid tropics.
Also, it is not true that CO2 can have an effect on SST. Water is _opaque_ to IR.
SST is determined solely by insolation, minus any heat loss via evaporation, etc.
My point would be that if one agrees that CO2, as part of the GHE gases, has a warming effect, then it logically stands to reason that increasing that CO2 (up to a “saturation” point) would increase that warming.
Again, whether that warming effect is measurable has not been demonstrated.
@ JohnWho
You wrote in part:
That does not follow. Some physists have hypothesised that CO2 helps to thermalize the oxygen and nitrogen in the lower atmosphere and hence aid with convection which cools the lower atmosphere. They claim that on net CO2 is a cooling agent and not a warming one. You may disagree with that theory all day, but it just shows that calling CO2 a “GHE” does not mean that it increases warming.
Another point is that the “Greenhouse Effect” is a horrible name. It is an attempt to win the debate via definition. I prefer the term “Atmospheric Effect” for the fact that having a thick atmosphere on this planet warms the surface over what it would be without an atmosphere. We have yet to see definate proof that CO2 does much of anything. It may cool. It may warm. It may do both depending on location in the atmosphere. It may do nothing. The science is not settled on that.
Agree: “Greenhouse Effect” is a horrible name.
However, even based on the idea that CO2 may have a cooling effect, adding to the CO2 level should increase that effect. This hasn’t been measured/observed either. If one believes CO2 has a warming effect then adding to that level should increase that effect. This, too, has not been measured/observed.
Whether cooling or warming – either would cause, dare I say it, “climate change” – if the amount of the anthropogenic portion of that cooling/warming can’t be measured/observed, why worry?
@ JohnWho
If we don’t know if CO2 warms or cools on net, it may be it does not do either. It may balance out, or it may be that CO2 does not really warm or cool. The science is not settled on the question by a long shot.
However, it is true that since we can not measure the alleged effect, much less the anthropogenic portion of the effect, then why worry about it indeed.
I am looking through a two-glass window. It is -20C outside and +20C inside. If I fill the space between these two glasses with 100% CO2 no heat escapes ?? Quite many doublings from 400 ppm, I assume. Why is no-one selling these kinds of insulation windows?
Sceptic, who are they?
Take this:
“But is the RSS satellite dataset “cherry-picked”? No. There are good reasons to consider it the best of the five principal global-temperature datasets.”
From here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again/
And this:
“An additional complication is that subsequent satellites are launched into alternating sun-synchronous orbit times, nominally 1:30 a.m. and p.m., then 7:30 a.m. and p.m., then back to 1:30 a.m. and p.m., etc. Furthermore, as the instruments scan across the Earth, the altitude in the atmosphere that is sampled changes as the Earth incidence angle of view changes.
All of these effects must be accounted for, and there is no demonstrably “best” method to handle any of them. For example, RSS uses a climate model to correct for the changing time of day the observations are made (the so-called diurnal drift problem), while we use an empirical approach. This correction is particularly difficult because it varies with geographic location, time of year, terrain altitude, etc.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/why-do-different-satellite-datasets-produce-different-global-temperature-trends/#comment-178584
So: How wrong is it wrong to use models?
Uh, I don’t understand: are you saying the models must be good because the satellite data may not be perfect?
Sorry, but I’m really skeptical about that.
/grin
Did I say that models must be good because the satellite date may not be perfect?
Where did I say that?
But as you see: there are some who trust climate models are good enough to adjust diurnal drift of satellites.
But of course: That might not be you. If so: Make a comment in the post where Monckton declares his trust in climate models.
Rooter,
Can you clarify your statement that “RSS uses a climate model to correct for the changing time of day the observations are made”?
Do you mean that RSS is corrected using a gridded, time-stepped GCM model, or that it is corrected using a location/time specific model of the structure of the atmosphere? The term climate model as used on this site generally refers to the former which are widely acknowledged to have fundamental problems. The latter is a completely different type of model which can be tested directly against empirical observations of the atmosphere.
Cheers
Joseph Shaw:
“Can you clarify your statement that “RSS uses a climate model to correct for the changing time of day the observations are made”?”
That is not my statement. It is Roy Spencer’s. Ask him. Or RSS of course.
Rooter,
Thank you for the clarification.
Cheers
There are five principal global-temperature datasets and dispute as to how and when to use them. From a layman’s point of view it looks like there is no agreement as to how correct the correct data is and how wrong the wrong data is.
So maybe the question is, how right is it right to be skeptical of humanity driving climate behavior?
The “reality of anthropogenic global warming” is that if it does exist, we haven’t found it yet, and the same with so-called “anthropogenic climate change” (whatever the heck that is). It appears to be a figment of Climatists’ overwrought imaginations.
Bart January 7, 2015 at 9:35 am
As captured in the folksy aphorism, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Whereas the Warmistas go with Red Green’s famous “If it ain’t broke, you’re not tryin’ hard enough.”
The system is both unwieldy and incompletely characterized. Not even mechanical enhancements will be sufficient to elevate the human ego to godhood. It’s telling that the modern cult is using the same strategy and tactics as the original consensus, flat-Earthers, and visibly with the same motives.
That said, they can tune their models and predict warming next week with 50% confidence. Each day. Every day. Next week, they will be able to forecast warming with 72.666% confidence.
The only rational assumption about the underlying order is that it is characterized by a fitness function that seeks and preserves semi-stable states. The other attributes are anthropomorphized overlays on physical processes by humans. Not even the theists were so ambitious, where a partition of faith and science became the standard, only corrupted by the recurring megalomania of ambitious men and women.
Big argument about global sea rises. I asked where? I was insulted by a another person when he said I didn’t know what I was talking about, and called me dumb, If the sea had risen a metre in the Maldives it must be so. I picked up my glass of water and tipped it out on the table, and made the comment, “funny it doesn’t stay in a heap”, and then “who’s the dumb one here” that put a stop to the argument.
“The Oceanic hills of the Maldives”
Soon to be showing on a Science fiction channel near you.
@ Nivlek: Re Truman having low popularity when he left office…just speculating here (you have probably studied it more than I) I’m thinking that since mass media was really gaining in importance in the decades leading up to WWII, and considering that the mass media sector has a slew of folks who value appearance more than actual truth, and they have their own agenda, perhaps Truman didn’t have enough “star quality” to suit them. The fact that he did a lot of good after WWII relatively unimportant to them. And if you can get the media to smear someone, lots of the population will follow that lead without much thought.
@ George: It sounds like Maryland Heights got hit a couple of times like Moore, Oklahoma, got hit three times. Two of the Moore tornadoes took almost the same path. That really gets me thinking…. Does it get you thinking?
Could one of the statistics wizards please kindly advise how many standard deviations the CMIP5 Lower Troposphere model ensemble mean temperature is currently off from the current UAH/RSS temperature mean?
From looking at the graph, it must already exceed two standard deviations:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Thank you.
Your question :…Could one of the statistics wizards please kindly advise how many standard deviations the CMIP5 Lower Troposphere model ensemble mean temperature is currently off from the current UAH/RSS temperature mean?…”
I’m sure some mathematical guru will soon fill in the technical gaps, but the layman response is “a whole hell of lot; so much as to be ridiculous”.
Ohhh, I love that graph!
Well no reason to be so critical. they were more less right.
Once.
Around 1980.
Yep once around 1980, can’t fault that.
Alx,
Didn’t the models start around then? If so, then they would surely begin as the same as real world temps.
But they began to diverge almost immediately. Models = WRONG.
This psychobabble is crap. …type 1…type 2…who cares. Real world data does not support political BS climate models…no matter what you call it. No supporting data – your model is crap.
We may allow our pre-adolescent children to play soccer/baseball/etc without keeping score; that does not mean 30+ year-old PhD students/graduates get to publish crap science without consequences. The consequence is lose of credibility.
Petulant children frequently throw a tantrum to get their way, but PhD students/graduates – not so much.
Chip Javert
January 7, 2015 at 5:18 pm
Type 1 and Type 2 errors refer to possible errors in results of scientific studies that have to be dealt with (false positive and false negatives, respectively). Imagine clinical trials with a medicine that give some contradictory results. False positives are the most dangerous as you may kill people if you administer it. False negatives may encourage you to discontinue trials and we would miss out on an efficacious medicine.
I think you are confusing Type A and Type B personalities. This, too might be worthwhile to investigate. Type A are more likely to succumb to clinical depression, like the kind that is becoming more frequent among mainstream CAGW scientists. Type B probably is more common among skeptics – more laid back. It’s less stressful to say “Show me” than to have to deal with uncooperative natures decimation of your ideas that you have to “Show”.
Misses the important point that the skeptics have two separate grounds:
The first, that the transition from historically observed 1C ECS in the 20thC to alarmist 4C for the 21stC is either unproven or disproven.
The second is that even anyone believing alarmist science must show that the economic / political response is valid and effective.
Taxing the EU to replace with the same emitting activities in China, or building unreliable windmills to be backed up by coal, or burning Vermont forests in Drax instead of coal, should be rejected by even the most pessimistic of alarmists.
Thank you, from Vermont.
Oh dear, Since my wife has never been to the US I had promised that our next big holiday would be a Fall trip incorporating New England and its amazing Autumn spectacle. Last year the press claimed that it was Georgia forests that were being harvested for Drax. If they have already deforested Georgia and are moving onto Vermont then at this rate of predation there will be nothing to see by the time we have saved enough for the trip.
mikewaite,
come on anyway. It’s a big country. There will still be lots of autumn foliage to see.
Is the alarmist depiction of global warming in error because of a simple, logical fault?
Let us concede that infra red radiation from the surface travels upwards; assume that it interacts with GHGs and causes local heating, probably close to the ground. Let us agree that the GHGs impede some of this radiation from going to space. Let us NOT agree that this causes global warming.
Why not?
Because the upwelling IR that is stopped by GHGs would have gone on further and warmed layers of the atmosphere higher up. To the extent that lack of a warming is equivalent to a cooling, all that has happened is to warm the ‘layer’ where the GHGs are encountered, and fail to warm (leave cooler) layers higher up.
We thus have a redistribution of heat by GHGs, not an increase.
Let us try an analogy, with the blanket over the sleeping person. The blanket stops some body heat from rising. The air volume above the blanket is made less warm than it would have been. Overall, the room is absolutely insensitive to the blanket effect. The blanket merely redistributes, it does not generate.
Back to the atmosphere, our simplistic model has GHGs causing a warmer zone low down and a cooler zone above. In time, these two zones will mix and the temperatures averaged over a column will be the same as before.
We, the people, feel some effects from this redistribution of temperatures, because many of us live in the slightly warmer zone. Our interspersed thermometers in their Stevenson screens or whatever will show an increase because they are situated to do just that. Sadly we have few measurements higher up where this simple model says it is cooler than it would be without GHGs.
Real life is more dynamic. The process is ongoing so long as there are GHGs and we will feel and measure some of their effects. There are short term portions of the process, as short as the near-instant cooling that you feel on a hot tropical day when a cloud covers the sun.
What we DO NOT have, is a fear that the globe is getting warmer from GHGs. They are not creating more heat from their solar ‘constant’ input, they are merely redistributing it.
Despite a couple of decades of pertinent reading, I have never seen this effect postulated.
Is it too simple to be real?
I’ve put it up, will you all please try to knock it down?
Geoff Sherrington;
Because the upwelling IR that is stopped by GHGs would have gone on further and warmed layers of the atmosphere higher up.
No. Once you get a bit higher in the atmosphere, temperature falls and water vapour precipitates out as a consequence. Once you get past the point where water vapour is significant, the upward IR would not warm layers of the atmosphere higher up in the absence of GHG’s, it would instead just zip out into space.
Thanks David,
So if you add more CO2, absent feedbacks, does more or less radiation escape to space?
I’m thinking of the main GHG absorption being done in the first tens of metres, with GHG absorption of IR continuing until hundreds of metres when essentially all has been absorbed. How high above the surface is your hypothetical point where you are ‘past the point where water vapour is significant?
But, there are GHGs in the higher regions where you say GHGs are absent. It’s a well mixed gas, showing up at Mauna Loa, some 3,400 metres above sea level.
So if you add more CO2, absent feedbacks, does more or less radiation escape to space?
At equilibrium, the amount of radiation that escapes to space before CO2 doubles is exactly the same as the amount that escapes after CO2 doubles. The difference is in the average altitude from which any given photon escapes, which is higher for the case of CO2 doubling.
What happens in the first tens of meters is immaterial, because it happens again and again and again as you traverse up the atmospheric air column, with any given photon being absorbed and re-emitted many, many, many times.
Geoff, a fitting analogy would be that GHGs act as a time- delay circuit, merely slowing the rate of radiation of energy to space. CO2 also facilitates photosynthetic conversion of sunlight to plant tissue, suggesting that CO2 plays a time- delay role beyond any consequence of it’s atmospheric presence.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/20/agu14-nasas-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-surprising-co2-emissions-in-southern-hemisphere/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/29/three-scenarios-for-the-future-of-nasas-orbiting-carbon-observatory/
Thank you Alan,
The references you gave are well read.
There seems to be an assumption that daytime is the dominant state of the globe. More time is spent on daytime mechanisms.
For example, many papers carry the inference that energy in = energy out when there is no overall heating or cooling. Spectra are measured, to create diagrams of how the escape to space is achieved despite their being a daytime incoming radiation, causing competition complications.
In my simple model, the escape to space is not a concern. I agree it is part of the concept.
And it has all night to happen.
However, night is of one duration at the equator, a half a day, but at the poles it is half a year. Therefore, night conditions when escape to space can happen should vary the outgoing spectrum and transfer dynamics according to latitude. Does anyone have a reference to such latitude studies?
Here’s some show and tell global warming at the end of the hottest year evah:
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30711789
Here’s some show and tell global cooling at the beginning of the new year
..
http://time.com/3656522/australia-eggs-frying-sidewalk/
It’s clear that Samantha Grossman and David Socrates know nothing of Australian summers, and egg frying pranks. Nothing odd about 44C daytime temperatures, noting odd about heat in summer in Australia.
And more:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30716563
Wow, who ever imagined weather could be ‘dangerously cold’?
David – the Antipodean climate record is so utterly fictional that the film rights have already been obtained by Peter Jackson.
Patrick……tell me, when air temps hit 44C, can you get us a reading on the temp of some black asphalt in direct sun?
Black asphalt? Moving the goal posts, are you?
44C (111F). So what? Minimum temp to cook an egg is somewhere between 135F-155F.
Thank you for once again publishing a comment here with BoguS information. You are a big help to any new readers, who are learning to separate the wheat from the chaff in the ongoing conversation.
Too funny David, too funny. I’ll leave you alarmist types who are ignorant of the climate in summer in Australia (I’ll give you a hint; it’s not called the sunburnt country for nothing). Your Time.com link linked to a Gaurdian article. I need say no more!
http://www.dorotheamackellar.com.au/archive/mycountry.htm
Frying an egg on a black surface isn’t *quite* as scientific as we would like. But that crowd uses what it has. It has frying eggs. But frying eggs on the sidewalk has always been in the news; at least for the past 60 years that I’ve been paying attention.
The entire discussion is based on global warming of only about 0.7ºC, over a century and a half. Sensationalism may work with folks like Socks, but for thinking people, a 0.7º fluctuation is extremely mild. It would be hard to find a flatter temperature record covering 150 years.
But based on that non-event, an entire alarmist industry has sprung up, fed by scientifically illiterate True Believers. Even so, the public is coming around, and viewing alarmists as Chicken Littles.
A few years ago it was hard to find a mass media publication that didn’t contain a lot of concerned comments. But now? The large majority of reader comments consistently ridicule the man-made global warming scare. Now skeptical comments outnumber alarmists’ comments by 10 : 1.
Once the public turns on you, you’re toast. Best for folks like Socks to jump ship before enduring further embarrassment.
Mr Alan Robertson
..
RE: Black asphalt.
.
Watch the video
…
Now…please tell us all what color the frying pan is.
..
Thank you in advance
Look at socks, still digging. ☺
Over the top, uncalled for, and abhorrent.
[Note: if the following few comments make no sense, it is because an objectionable post has been deleted. ~ mod.]
This is inexcusable.
Please mods!
[Reply: Just noticed this. Thanks. Deleted. ~ mod.]
Thanks.
It is -20F and descending here at 3 AM and I am feeding the fire with sticks of my local wood. We’re fine even though I expect another -10F. That is cold by any scale. If we depended upon some politician’s view of wind saving us, I fear there would be tragedies in the morning.
Thanks for supporting civility.
Unusually deep cold about to impact Lebanon, Syria, Kurdish areas, Turkey. Situation dire for exposed refugees.
From Lebanon Daily Star
“Refugees primary victims of the storm – Jan. 08, 2015 | 12:14 AM”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2015/Jan-08/283349-refugees-primary-victims-of-the-storm.ashx
Winter storm kills three – Lebanon NOW, Published: 7/01/2015 04:17 PM
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/564631-winter-storm-kills-three
That’s all relatively mild, so far, but it’s just the beginning of a much worse cold pulse to come. Nullschool for tomorrow shows much worse conditions than those so far, with ‘feels-like’ temps plunging to -15 C (rather than the approx -2 C it’s been so far in this winter storm) with continuing high humidity, so some deep snow falls to come.
Conditions at time of posting:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
Tomorrow morning at 3 AM local begins a 3 to 4 day plunge into much colder regional ME temps:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/09/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
Relative Humidity initially remains virtually saturated:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/09/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=relative_humidity/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
‘Feels Like’ about -13 C in central Lebanon tomorrow morning:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/09/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=misery_index/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
The following day gets e]significantly colder, with Saturday morning 3AM approx -17 C ambient (!) temps and humidity levels remains moderate to high:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/10/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
While ‘feels like’ drops down to -21 C … this is in Central Lebanon! … And there are millions of refuges in that region living in canvas tents and not dressed for such bitter exposure.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/10/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=misery_index/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
Needless to say this will be the next major emergency area, and it’s going to affect all of Syria and Northern Iraq just as badly, worse even within Damascus and far worse in northern Kurdish areas.
Sunday and Monday are barely any warmer:
Sunday 3 AM
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/11/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
Monday 3 AM
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/12/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-328.12,35.45,1454
So it looks like it will be Tuesday before this bitter cold snap eases, then there will be a LOT of snow to complicate relief efforts.
I hope Governments and relief agencies are preparing, now, for the mess next week.
Here in Australia, the pro-cAGW MSM report only heat events and bush fires. The only news outlet that actually has reported these cold events, that you linked to, was Al Jazeera, usually late at night/early morning. David Socrates above links to an article which also links to another article claiming Perth, Australia, was “melting” in 44.4C afternoon temperatures (Y’know, the afternoon, the hottest part of the day). Well, sadly for those who fall for this sort of media tripe, 44+C days for Perth in SUMMER, is not unusual.
And did you notice how the ABC’s Apocalypse NOW style hyped excessive coverage (picked up and run with by BBC and AJ again) which claimed a large but unknown number of houses burned down, with an extreme ‘change’ in the weather later in the [week] (which was heavy rain and a cold front with high humidity … a real worry that!), was then downgraded to only 38 properties burned, then yesterday ABC dropped it again to only 32 properties burned. Then this morning they dropped it again to only 27 properties and houses burned.
Well, by tomorrow morning it should rate as one of the more minor bush fire outbreaks during the past 100 years of prosaic bushfire seasons.
But the global hyperbole was sent though, the message of cAGW doom speculation went around the globe again (Mission Accomplished) and AJ and BBC won’t correct the record and do a follow up story and ask the salient questions about why it is that this pattern exists of the ABC and State fire dept services, plus the ever unscientific BOM, keeps talking-up to a ridiculous degree common-place rural bushfire events of a fairly typical and predictable nature?
The little boy who cried wolf.
In another thread, someone posted a link to an article, in The Australian I think, that reported a 49 year old woman was arrested for starting 41 fires in Victoria. Not covered by ABC, SBS, channels 7, 9 and 10 newscasts. I tried to post that link in an SMH article that allowed comments, but that comment was rejected.
Which would be anthropogenic after all! lol
Good work Patrick. Do you have a link to that arrest info you can post in here?
Strangely, I found a link at The Age…
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-braces-for-dangerous-fire-conditions-20150102-12h48i.html
‘Steven Mosher January 7, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Any model beats the skeptics whine of ” it’s too hard”
Or “I don’t know”’
Mr. Mosher-
I would first point out that you seem to be lumping a spectrum of skeptics together unfairly. I think you are particularly sensitive to this due to your work with instrumental temperature fields and the large amount of unfair criticism you have received for this. I think the skeptics of models are being much more fair.
From a scientific/academic standpoint there is merit to your statement (we certainly should be investigating/modeling to some degree). However, in the big picture these models are being taken so far beyond their simple use for science & understanding and are being applied directly to policy in a way that will cost society immensely, with highly uncertain benefit. We are being told to switch to costly low-carbon energy sources ASAP (with focus on costly renewables) based on future threat as projected by these models. With the tag line “The science is settled”. And if you don’t believe in the likelihood of model projections being accurate, you are a “denier”. From the mouths of prominent scientists, activists, and even our president.
There is value from these models, but perhaps they will ultimately cost us more in misapplication than the value they ever produce for us.
What skeptics see is models going up and temperatures flat-lining for a significant amount of time and then a moving of the goal-posts after the fact. We see weather staying relatively stable while being sold that it will all be worse. We see anything negative happening being attributed (at least partially) to global warming, and working in any/all directions. We do not see any statistic given by which models are disproven, or anyone prominent in the field exploring how bad they could be. We see the mainstream press give this entire field a free ride because alarmism sells. It is entirely appropriate for skeptics to point this out. Why would you call this whining?
You often prod skeptics for not coming up with their own models, but who is funding teams of them to do such? Do you really think there is a life-long career field for skeptical climate science, in comparison to the alarmist government and activist funded gravy train? It would be self-defeatist from the onset, which is perhaps part of the problem. I’m coming to the opinion that in a politicized/polarized/specialized science question such as this with such big potential risk, big gov ought to be sending funding to outsiders respected by both sides, to attempt to analyze potential problems and uncertainties. We shouldn’t rely on self-auditing in this case.
“Are you a skeptic-denier?”
“No, I am a ‘show-me’.
Nice. I’m going to use that one.
Ralph
Not sure how type 1, type 2 world views relate to practicing good science. False positives and false negatives are risks or factors in any kind of testing. The whole reason false positives and false negatives are a concern is because good science is inherently skeptical. Therefore good science is always skeptical and always includes “show me”.
The adage “Scientists by nature are skeptics” seems to have been turned on its head to, “Scientists are skeptics of everything except their own work”, which pretty much ruins the whole concept of good science.
Steven Mosher
January 7, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Any model beats the skeptics whine of ” it’s too hard”
Or “I don’t know”
LOL
C’mon man – a scientists’ admission that “I don’t know” trumps any model that makes up data to support a conclusion.
Honest science will beat dishonest, deceptive science all the time, given enough time.