There has been a development over the last 10-15 years or so in the scientific peer reviewed literature that is short circuiting the scientific method.
The scientific method involves developing a hypothesis and then seeking to refute it. If all attempts to discredit the hypothesis fails, we start to accept the proposed theory as being an accurate description of how the real world works.
A useful summary of the scientific method is given on the website sciencebuddies.org.where they list six steps
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
Unfortunately, in recent years papers have been published in the peer reviewed literature that fail to follow these proper steps of scientific investigation. These papers are short circuiting the scientific method.
Specifically, papers that present predictions of the climate decades into the future have proliferated. Just a two recent examples (and there are many others) are
Hu, A., G. A. Meehl, W. Han, and J. Yin (2009), Transient response of the MOC and climate to potential melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the 21st century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L10707, doi:10.1029/2009GL037998.
Solomon, S. 2009: Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print January 28, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106
Such studies are even reported in the media before the peer reviewed process is completed; e.g. see in the article by Hannad Hoag in the May 27 2009 issue of Nature News Hot times ahead for the Wild West.
These studies are based on models, of which only a portion of which represent basic physics (e.g. the pressure gradient force, advection and the universal gravitational constant), with the remainder of the physics parameterized with tuned engineering code (e.g see).
When I served as Chief Editor of the Monthly Weather Reviews (1981-1985), The Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (1996-2000), and as Editor-in-Chief of the US National Science Report to the IUGG for the American Geophysical Union (1993-1996), such papers would never have been accepted.
What the current publication process has evolved into, at the detriment of proper scientific investigation, are the publication of untested (and often untestable) hypotheses. The fourth step in the scientific method “Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment” is bypassed.
This is a main reason that the policy community is being significantly misinformed about the actual status of our understanding of the climate system and the role of humans within it.
Leif Svalgaard (12:49:36) : “It is more the unwashed masses that are to blame for lapping up the media stuff. You may counter that they have little choice as where would they otherwise go? If this is so, then how would you ‘correct’ a free press? make it less ‘free’? or argue that we don’t have a free press because it is beholden to advertisers, owners, and interest groups? And how would you correct that? tell owners etc what they should say?”
Dr. Svalgaard – You are doing on this forum, and elsewhere, exactly what you should be doing – counter-speech. As part of the unwashed masses, I can comprehend only about 10% of what you write here, but [most of the time] I can get the gist. In a former life, far, far away, I represented local TV affiliates in libel lawsuits [I soon stopped watching the local news] and taught First Amendment Rights at the local law school. I appreciate your sentiments on freedom of the press.
TV reporters have incredibly big egos, but the smart ones know what they don’t know and don’t like to be wrong. Two problems with journalists today: 1) In surveys taken at journalism schools, the majority of would-be journalists [80% to 90% of whom are of a “liberal” or “progressive” bent] don’t enter the “profession” to report the news, they enter it “to change the world” [damn RMN, Woodward, Bernstein and the journalist professors that teach such tripe] – AGW stories fit right into this mindset: 2) The talking heads at large MSM outlets live in an echo chamber, listening to the reverberations of the AGW alarmists – thus they have not, as of yet, been sufficiently challenged.
In an earlier time I would have despaired. But, with a forum like this and its extremely knowledgable posters/commenters, eventually, if you all persevere, the “truth will out.” Don’t ask me about the state of the US and its economy by the time “truth wills out.” About that I do despair.
Signs of hope, AGW doctrine crumbling as doubt predicting sea level rises is published in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060501342_pf.html
@ur momisuglyanna v (11:46:49) : Says,
“Gravity is not a model, it is a theory.” and continues by saying, “If you do not know the difference you cannot be taken seriously.”
Sorry Anna, but it’s you who don’t know the difference. Sure, the MODEL we use to predict the effects of gravity may be much more simple than a model we use to try and predict climate, but they are both MODELS!
@ur momisugly Gilbert (13:34:58) :
“Jump up and down a few times. If Anna is wrong, you will find yourself in orbit.”
What I was asking for is EVIDENCE for the existence of gravitons, and evidence for the existence of a mechanism of how one mass feels another.
What Anna laid down was indeed speculation, but nobody here denies gravity. Nobody here questions gravity, but nobody here knows how gravity works.
“Leif Svalgaard (15:16:13) :
I’ll not blame the ’system’. It is the people that screw it up. Kansas and Texas come to mind…”
Leif, buddy, you better take that back. Them’s fighting words.
Mike Bryant
Re: Leif Svalgaard (15:16:13)
Ok, so how about blaming a culture that prioritizes convenience over truth?
Leif,
The reporter you linked to for the Texas school Board is probably a product of the type of education that some here are talking about. Here is a sample of Greg Laden’s writing:
“…is a knon anti-gay homophone,”
Huh???
Mike Bryant (16:52:31) :
“Leif Svalgaard (15:16:13) :
I’ll not blame the ’system’. It is the people that screw it up. Kansas and Texas come to mind…”
Leif, buddy, you better take that back. Them’s fighting words.
But they are the truth. How can one take back the truth? Unless one wants to be dishonest. Now, there’s a thought, you suggest I try that instead?
Paul Vaughan (17:00:27) :
Re: Leif Svalgaard (15:16:13)
Ok, so how about blaming a culture that prioritizes convenience over truth?
I’m sure the good folks in Kansas and Texas [and about 45% of all Americans] are convinced they are pushing the truth. Their truth, and it is not convenience, because it is very hard to push that kind of ‘truth’. Many AGWers feel the same way, I’m sure. They are well-meaning folks, just like the people that come to my door and urge me to repent and save my soul.
Thank you, Leif, for describing one of your eureka moments. They are truly the “miracles” that advance human knowledge and understanding.
My own special eureka moment came after ten years of measuring forest stands. After compiling my umpteenth tree age distribution, I suddenly realized that no “nature-only” theory could explain it. There had to have been human influences that shaped that stand hundreds of years before.
Since then I have been devoted (professionally) to understanding historical human influences on our environment. Few realize like I do that wilderness is a myth, and that human beings have resided in and profoundly impacted the vegetation and wildlife populations of the Americas for the entire Holocene.
Fortunately for me, those who do understand it have studied historical human influences at length, written great books and articles, and taught extensively. I came late to the party, I now realize. Hopefully the rest of society will someday grasp the enormity of anthropogenic fire and anthropogenic predation. If you think modern man affects the climate, you should study the actions of prehistoric man, who routinely set most of the world on fire and generated CO2 in vastly greater quantities than we do today.
Mike Bryant (17:00:42) :
The reporter you linked to for the Texas school Board is probably a product of the type of education that some here are talking about.
The reporter is not important, the text books that the school boards mandate are. I had lived in the Great State of Texas for many years and know the issues well. I say again: people get what they want.
Mike D. (17:12:28) :
Few realize like I do that wilderness is a myth, and that human beings have resided in and profoundly impacted the vegetation and wildlife populations of the Americas for the entire Holocene.
Reminds me of how people complain about damage to the pure ‘Natural Environment’ in the case of changing the water level of Lake Powell – a man-made lake to begin with…
Leif Svalgaard (15:16:13) :
Paul Vaughan (14:58:05) :
I’ll not blame the ’system’. It is the people that screw it up. Kansas and Texas come to mind…
Whoops!!
Don’t throw us babies out with the bathwater.
Gilbert (17:24:13) :
“I’ll not blame the ’system’. It is the people that screw it up. Kansas and Texas come to mind…”
Whoops!!
Don’t throw us babies out with the bathwater.
Tell that to your school boards…
Benjamin P. (16:48:33) :
Nobody here questions gravity, but nobody here knows how gravity works.”
Sounds like AGW.
Re: Gilbert (17:24:13)
This quoting convention is misleading. For the record: Those are not my words.
Leif Svalgaard (17:07:58) :
I’ll not blame the ’system’. It is the people that screw it up. Kansas and Texas come to mind…”
Leif, buddy, you better take that back. Them’s fighting words.
But they are the truth. How can one take back the truth? Unless one wants to be dishonest. Now, there’s a thought, you suggest I try that instead?
Leif,
I have a lot of respect for your abilities as a Solar Physicist, but maybe you should stop short of starting a childish rock fight. I’m sure there are a lot of pot shots I could take with respect to every state and every country, but the process is counterproductive and could make you look like an ass.
Leif Svalgaard (15:59:40) :
Ron de Haan (15:49:39) :
And how do you propose to regulate the earth’s temperature when as much as 3/4 of the variability is due to variations in solar activity, with the remaining 1/4 due to changes in the earth’s orbit, axis, and albedo (reflectivity)?
If anything it is the other way around.
Leif,
What do you expect? The guy is an economist for goodness sake.
Paul Vaughan (17:48:59) :
This quoting convention is misleading. For the record: Those are not my words.
My apologies. Was not intentional. But you have to understand that Kansans aren’t particularly bright.
A question for you Leif. Were your early teachers and textbooks up to your current expectations? You seem to have done quite well with your analytic capabilities in spite of overcoming early learning inadequacies. No matter what we each think, parents are responsible for teaching their children, not the state.
Paul Vaughan (17:48:59) :
Re: Gilbert (17:24:13)
This quoting convention is misleading. For the record: Those are not my words.
Who cares? it is clear from the context what is what.
Leif,
“But they are the truth. How can one take back the truth? Unless one wants to be dishonest. Now, there’s a thought, you suggest I try that instead?”
I would assert that Thomas Jefferson was very well educated in spite of the fact that he did not have access to current federal requirements and the advantages of union teachers. I feel certain that his education would not be approved by the current crop of educators.
I have no doubt that you speak your truth as you believe it, however you are not the fountain of all truth. This is not an insult only a request for a little humility.
The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth.
W. Somerset Maugham (1874 – 1965), The Razor’s Edge, 1943
Thanks,
Mike
Gilbert (17:51:47) :
I have a lot of respect for your abilities as a Solar Physicist, but maybe you should stop short of starting a childish rock fight
Takes two to fight…I’m not starting a fight, you are…
Mike Bryant (17:58:34) :
No matter what we each think, parents are responsible for teaching their children, not the state.
Parents vote for school boards, etc. And my point stands: people get what they want, so don’t blame the system.
And my “early teachers and textbooks were up to your current expectations”. Richard Feynman recounts how important the Brooklyn schools he went to were for him, so I’m not alone in thinking that things were better a while back.
@Mike Bryant (17:58:34) :
Parents are woefully disengaged from the education of their children it seems. My step mother taught 3rd grade for 35 years. Same district, same classroom. At the start of her career, parents would ask “What can I do more of?” during parent teacher conferences. At the end of her career, parents would ask, “Why aren’t you doing more?”
Ben
Leif, I’m sure you’d be amused by the irony of one side pointing out the faith the other side has that certain highly complex biological processes and structures have evolved naturalistically despite the absence of a mechanism for that evolution.
================================================
Re: Leif Svalgaard (17:11:45)
I hear you.
It is cultural. ‘Convenience’ is subjective – and [most] North Americans prefer aggressive fighting over appropriate restraint & clear thinking.
Epiphanies can’t easily be FORCED to match the beat of the administrative calendar.
Necessity is the mother of invention?
Do ‘good’ folks apply cosmetics so findings pass as epiphanies …& kids eat?
Others’ are capitalizing on the opportunity to hit the accelerator HARD while North Americans (& perhaps ‘the West’ more generally?) continue with the fatal distractions of narrow infighting.
Overtaxation?
Absolutely – and I’m not even talking about money.
(overtaxed by *incessant* infighting …while (wiser?) others OVERtake…)
Glass half-full view:
Back to work…
[enough of this luxurious indulgence]