Readers may recall this piece Monckton’s Schenectady showdown in which he schools a number of students despite “en-masse” collections (to use Donald Rodbell’s words) of naysayers. Mr. Rodbell and Erin Delman, pictured below, wrote this essay (which I’ve excerpted below) in their student newspaper The Concordiensis, citing their angst that Monckton was speaking.
A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth
Erin Delman (left), President of the Environmental Club, debates with Monckton – photo by Charlotte Lehman | Department Chair and Professor of Geology Donald Rodbell (right) asks Lord Christopher Monckton a question at the event on the “other side” of global warming. – photo by Rachel Steiner, Concordiensis
By Donald Rodbell and Erin Delman in Opinions | March 7, 2012
As Earth scientists, we were torn. The College Republicans and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) were hosting Lord Monckton, a globally recognized climate skeptic, on Mon., March 5, and we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger. On one hand, it seemed ludicrous to give Monckton a second of time or thought. On the other, however, dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.
And thus, the college environmentalists – including Environmental Club members, the leaders and members of U-Sustain, concerned citizens, and renowned Earth scientists with PhDs from prestigious research institutions – decided to oppose the presence of Lord Monckton on our campus. We collected en-masse before his presentation to make it unambiguously clear that we would not allow such erroneous discourse to go unnoticed.
…
Lord Monckton does not stand alone in his beliefs on this issue; however, 97 percent of scientists overwhelmingly oppose his viewpoint. He kept asserting that this debate must follow a rigorous, science-based approach, and that the consensus of experts is, by itself, an insufficient basis on which to decide the veracity of the evidence for significant human-induced global warming.
…
Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere, nor in highly charged and politically motivated presentations either by Lord Monckton or by Al Gore. The fact of the matter is that science has spoken, the overwhelming bulk of the evidence has shown very, very clearly that global warming is occurring and is at least mostly caused by humans. While scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not.
[end excerpts]
===============================================================
Sigh, there’s that ridiculous 97% figure again. You’d think these “educated” people would bother to check such things before mindlessly regurgitating them and making themselves look like sycophants. And then there’s this: “Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere…” well, then, PLEASE tell that to the RealClimate team so they stop trying to do that on the taxpayers dime.
It seems Erin Delman is training to be a professional enviro-legal troublemaker…
She is interested in pursuing a joint Ph.D. and law degree in geology and environmental law and is considering a career in environmental policy, particularly involving water rights.
…so I suppose I’m not surprised at this article. With that California background and water rights bent, I predict she’ll be joining the Pacific Institute to supplement Gleick’s mission.
Full article here: A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth
===============================================================
Monckton responds in comments to that article
Monckton of Brenchley March 16, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
Oh, come off it, Professor!
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Professor Donald Rodbell’s personal attack on me in Concordiensis (“A Lord’s Opinion Can’t Compete with Scientific Truth”) deserves an answer. The Professor does not seem to be too keen on freedom of speech: on learning that I was to address students at Union College, he said that he “vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger”. My oh my!
The Professor should be reminded of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”. I exercised freedom of speech at Union College. The Professor may disagree with what I said (though his article is lamentably unspecific about what points in my lecture – if any – he disagreed with); but, under the Constitution, he may not deny or abridge my right to say it.
He and his fellow climate extremists ought not, therefore, to have talked of “opposing the presence of Lord Monckton”: for that would be to abridge my freedom of speech. It would have been fair enough for the Professor to talk of opposing my arguments – yet that, curiously, is what his rant in Concordiensis entirely fails to do.
The Professor says it is certain that “the world is warming, climatic patterns are changing, and humans are a driving force”. Let us look at these three statements in turn.
– The world is not warming at present. It has not been warming for almost a decade and a half, though it has been warming since 1695. In the 40 years to 1735, before the Industrial Revolution even began, the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures) rose by 4 Fahrenheit degrees, compared with just 1 F° in the whole of the 20th century.
– Climatic patterns are indeed changing. But they have been changing for 4,567 million years, and they will go on changing long into the future. However, the fact of climate change does not tell us the cause of climate change.
– Humans are indeed exercising some influence. Indeed, though the Professor implies otherwise, I stated explicitly in my lecture that the IPCC might be right in saying that more than half of the warming since 1950 was caused by us. However, that tells us little about how much warming we may expect in future. My best estimate is that the CO2 we add to the atmosphere this century will cause around 1 C° of warming by 2100. But that is not far short of the IPCC’s own central estimate of 1.5 C°.
Next, the Professor asserts, without any evidence, that “97% of scientists overwhelmingly oppose [Monckton’s] viewpoint”. Overlooking the tautology (the word “overwhelmingly” should have been omitted), as far as I am aware there has been no survey of scientists or of public opinion generally to determine how many oppose my viewpoint. I am aware of two surveys in which 97% of scientists asserted that the world had warmed in the past 60 years: but, in that respect, they agree with my viewpoint. No survey has found 97% of scientists agreeing with the far more extreme proposition that unchecked emissions of CO2 will be very likely to cause dangerous global warming. And, even if there had been such a survey, the notion that science is done by head-counting in this way is the shop-worn logical fallacy of the argumentum ad populum – the headcount fallacy. That fallacy was first described by Aristotle 2300 years ago, and it is depressing to see a Professor trotting it out today.
Science is not done by headcount among scientists. It is done by measurement, observation, and experiment, and by the application of established theory to the results. Until Einstein, 100% of scientists thought that time and space were invariant. They were all wrong. So much for consensus.
Next, the Professor says I made “numerous inaccuracies and mis-statements”. Yet he does not mention a single one in his article, which really amounts to mere hand-waving. He then asserts that I have “no interest whatsoever in pursuing a truly scientific approach”. Those who were present, however, will be aware that I presented large quantities of data and analysis demonstrating that the principal conclusions of each of the four IPCC climate assessments are defective; that the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 is 1 C°; and that, even if 21st-century warming were 3 C°, it would still be 10-100 times cheaper and more cost-effective to do nothing now and adapt in a focused way later than to try to stop the warming by controlling CO2.
The Professor goes on to say that “the fundamental building block of all science is peer-reviewed publications”. No: rigorous thought is the cornerstone of science. That is what is lacking in the IPCC’s approach. All of its principal conclusions are based on modeling. However, not one of the models upon which it relies has been peer-reviewed. Nor is any of the IPCC’s documents peer-reviewed in the accepted sense. There are reviewers, but the authors are allowed to override them, and that is not peer review at all. That is how the IPCC’s deliberate error about the alleged disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was not corrected. Worse, almost one-third of all references cited in the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report were not peer-reviewed either. They were written by environmental campaigners, journalists and even students. That is not good enough.
Next, the Professor says that, in not publishing my own analysis of “global warming” in a reviewed journal, I am “fundamentally non-scientific”. Yet he does not take Al Gore to task for never having had anything published in a reviewed journal. Why this disfiguring double standard? The most important thing, surely, is to shut down the IPCC, whose approach – on the Professor’s own peer-review test – is “fundamentally non-scientific”.
The Professor goes on to say, “It is impossible to scrutinize [Monckton’s] methods, calculations, and conclusions without a complete and detailed peer-reviewed publication that presents the important details.” On the contrary: my slides are publicly available, and they show precisely how I reached my conclusions, with numerous references to the peer-reviewed literature and to the (non-peer-reviewed) IPCC assessment reports.
Next, the Professor says that “rather substantial errors” were pointed out to me at Union College. Yet in every case I was able to answer the points raised: and, here as elsewhere, the Professor is careful not to be specific about what “errors” I am thought to have made. I pointed out some very serious errors in the documents of the IPCC: why does the Professor look the other way when confronted with these “official” errors? Once again, a double standard seems to be at work.
The Professor ends by saying that “science has spoken” and that, “while scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not”. Well, the eugenics consensus of the 1920s, to the effect that breeding humans like racehorses would improve the stock, was near-universally held among scientists, but it was wrong, and it led directly to the dismal rail-yards of Oswiecim and Treblinka. The Lysenko consensus of the 1940s and 1950s, to the effect that soaking seed-corn in water over the winter would help it to germinate, wrecked 20 successive Soviet harvests and killed 20 million of the proletariat. The ban-DDT consensus of the 1960s has led to 40 million malaria deaths in children (and counting), 1.25 million of them lasts year alone. The don’t-stop-AIDS consensus of the 1980s has killed 33 million, with another 33 million infected and waiting to die.
The climate “consensus” is also killing millions by diverting billions of dollars from helping the poor to enriching governments, bureaucrats, bankers, landowners, windfarm scamsters, and environmentalist racketeers, and by denying to the Third World the fossil-fueled electricity it so desperately needs. It is time to stop the killing. If arguing for a more rational and scientifically-based policy will bring the slaughter of our fellow citizens of this planet to an end, then I shall continue to argue for it, whether the Professor likes it or not.
He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
For the benefit of Greg House (and other scientific illiterates)
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Published on November 16, 2008 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can’t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.
Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.
In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.
The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.
johanna says:
March 19, 2012 at 9:54 pm
That doesn’t mean I don’t comprehend that global temperature changes – there is irrefutable proof that it does.
=================================================
And that irrefutable proof is…?
BTW, is it correct that if a proof is refutable, than it is not a proof at all?
I am thinking, why would you use such a doubling, if you are not a little bit uncertain about the quality of that proof? But it does not really matter, let us talk about that irrefutable proof, I am very curious.
I just hope it is not something like a dead polar bear or 200 Gt Greenland ice invisibly melted away.
The Pompous Git says:
March 19, 2012 at 10:20 pm
“Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Published on November 16, 2008 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist
…Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
===============================================
Yeah, mathematics is not science, I see.
But things like “95%” are mathematics, right? Hence if someone calculates 95% as a result, he must provide the proof, that the calculation is correct, right?
As far as I know, the IPCC stated that the probability of certain warming in the future is 95%.
Has anybody seen that calculation?
@ur momisugly all the AGW proponents here: would you be so kind and provide the proof, that this calculation is correct? It must be easy, if such a proof exists…
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 10:46 pm
You could not be wronger! Mathematics (Greek μάθημα máthēma, “knowledge, study, learning”) is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100. You really should consider obtaining an education. Seriously.
The Pompous Git says:
March 19, 2012 at 11:36 pm
So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100.
========================================
Yes, very nice. But the question remains: how did the IPCC guys or whoever get this mathematical result?
Another possibility could be, of course, that they simply lied.
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Of course not! See GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS by Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong. A guess with the number “95%” attached is still a guess and cannot be quantified.
The Pompous Git says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:11 am
A guess with the number “95%” attached is still a guess and cannot be quantified.
==============================
Looks like a fraud to me.
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 11:50 pm
It is not a mathematical result. You would know that under the following conditions:
* You knew what mathematics means
* You knew what science means
* You had read at least one IPCC Assessment Report
Briggs has a good series of articles on trend lines in temperature series. I will point you to the last one were you can find links to the rest of the series.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5190
—-
Git, don’t forget about axioms, they come before proofs.
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 20, 2012 at 12:19 am
The empty drum makes sounds, but has no idea of their meaning.
garymount said @ur momisugly March 20, 2012 at 1:27 am
This is a most important point. The Git’s learning has included the discovery that much of what we take to be axiomatic is false. Unlearning as it were.
Briggs/Matt/William [delete whichever is inapplicable] is excellent value and has taught me much. The Git very much looks forward to sharing a beer with him as suggested in the flyleaf of the copy of his book he sent the Git. Perhaps even some Marlborough district dry white wine and a gourmet meal prepared by his Gitness. Stranger things have been known to happen…
The Pompous Git says:
March 19, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Yeah, mathematics is not science, I see.
But things like “95%” are mathematics, right?
You could not be wronger! Mathematics (Greek μάθημα máthēma, “knowledge, study, learning”) is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100. You really should consider obtaining an education. Seriously.
The Pompous Git says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:23 am
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 11:50 pm
The Pompous Git says:
March 19, 2012 at 11:36 pm
So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100.
========================================
Yes, very nice. But the question remains: how did the IPCC guys or whoever get this mathematical result?
It is not a mathematical result. You would know that under the following conditions:
* You knew what mathematics means
* You knew what science means
* You had read at least one IPCC Assessment Report
The Pompous Git says:
March 20, 2012 at 2:21 am
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 20, 2012 at 12:19 am
The Pompous Git says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:11 am
A guess with the number “95%” attached is still a guess and cannot be quantified.
==============================
Looks like a fraud to me.
The empty drum makes sounds, but has no idea of their meaning.
============
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mathematics
“Mathematics
Branches of mathematics
algebra, analysis, analytical geometry or coordinate geometry, applied mathematics, arithmetic, Boolean algebra, calculus, chaos geometry, conics, differential calculus, Euclidean geometry, game theory, geometry, group theory, integral calculus, nomography, non-Euclidean geometry, number theory, numerical analysis, probability theory pure mathematics, set theory, statistics, topology, trigonometry
Mathematical terms
acute angle, addition, algorithm or algorism, angle, arc, area, average, axis, base, binary, binomial, cardinal number, Cartesian coordinates, chord, circle, circumference, closed set, coefficient, common denominator, common factor, complex number, concentric, cone, constant, coordinate or co-ordinate, cosecant, cosine, cotangent, cube, cube root, cuboid, curve, cusp, cylinder, decagon, decimal, denary, denominator, diagonal, diameter, digit, division, dodecahedron, ellipse, equals, equation, equilateral, even, exponential, factor, factorial, formula, fraction, frequency, function, graph, helix, hemisphere, heptagon, hexagon, hyperbola, hypotenuse, icosahedron, imaginary number, improper fraction, index, infinity, integer, integral, intersection, irrational number, isosceles, locus, logarithm or log, lowest common denominator, lowest common multiple, Mandelbrot set, matrix, mean, median, minus, mode, multiplication, natural logarithm, natural number, node, nonagon, number, numerator, oblong, obtuse angle, octagon, octahedron, odd, open set, operation, operator, ordinal number, origin, parabola, parallel, parallelogram, pentagon, percentage, perfect number, pi, plus, polygon, polyhedron, polynomial, power, prime number, prism, probability, product, proof, proper fraction, Pythagoras’ theorem, quadrant, quadratic equation, quadrilateral, quotient, radian, radius, ratio, rational number, real number, reciprocal, rectangle, recurring decimal, reflex angle, remainder, rhombus, right angle, right-angled triangle, root, scalar, scalene, secant, sector, semicircle, set, significant figures, simultaneous equations, sine, slide rule, solid, sphere, square, square root, strange attractor, subset, subtraction, sum, surd, tangent, tetrahedron, torus, trapezium, triangle, union, universal set, value, variable, vector, Venn diagram, volume, vulgar fraction, x-axis, y-axis, z-axis, zero
Mathematicians
Maria Gaetana Agnesi (Italian), Howard Hathaway Aiken (U.S.), Jean Le Rond Alembert (French), André Marie Ampère (French), Anaximander (Greek), Apollonius of Perga (Greek), Archimedes (Greek), Charles Babbage (English), Johann Jakob Balmer (Swiss), Daniel Bernoulli (Swiss), Jacques Bernoulli (Swiss), Jean Bernoulli (Swiss), Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel (German), Hermann Bondi (British), George Boole (English), Henry Briggs (English), Augustin Louis Cauchy (French), Arthur Cayley (English), Rudolf Julius Clausius (German), Isidore Auguste Comte (French), George Howard Darwin (English), Julius Wilhelm Richard Dedekind (German), John Dee (English), René Descartes (French), Diophantus (Greek), Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet (German), Albert Einstein (U.S.), Eratosthenes (Greek), Euclid (Greek), Eudoxus of Cnidus (Greek), Leonhard Euler (Swiss), Pierre de Fermat (French), Leonardo Fibonacci (Italian), Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (French), Galileo (Italian), Karl Friedrich Gauss (German), Josiah Willard Gibbs (U.S.), Kurt Gödel (U.S.), Edmund Gunter (English), Edmund Halley (English), William Rowan Hamilton (Irish), Hero (Greek), David Hilbert (German), Karl Gustav Jacob Jacobi (German), Herman Kahn (U.S.), Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov (Soviet), Joseph Louis Lagrange (French), Pierre Simon Laplace (French), Adrien Marie Legendre (French), Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz (German), Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky (Russian), Ada Lovelace (English), Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (French), Gerardus Mercator (Flemish), Hermann Minkowski (German), John Napier (Scottish), Isaac Newton (English), Omar Khayyám (Persian), Nicole d’Oresme (French), Pappus of Alexandria (Greek), Blaise Pascal (French), Karl Pearson (English), Charles Sanders Peirce (U.S.), William George Penney (English), Roger Penrose (English), Jules Henri Poincaré (French), Siméon Denis Poisson (French), Ptolemy (Greek), Pythagoras (Greek), Johann Müller Regiomontanus (German), Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (German), Bertrand Russell (English), Claude Shannon (U.S.), Brook Taylor (English), Thales (Greek), Evangelista Torricelli (Italian), Alan Mathison Turing (English), John von Neumann (U.S.), Hermann Weyl (U.S.), Alfred North Whitehead (English), Norbert Wiener (U.S.)”
I don’t see Pompous Git in that list, I do see “percentage” as a mathematical term. Not that the list is exhaustive, they forgot to include you, but axiom and proportion don’t make an appearance. I’ve turned to my battered COD for proportion, it says:
“proportion n. & v.t. 1. n. Comparative part, share, ( a large proportion of the earth’s surface, of the profits); comparative relation; ration, (the proportion of births to the population); price will be raised in ~ (to the cost etc., or abs.), by the same factor. 2. Correct relation of one thing to another or between parts of a thing (windows are in admirable proportion; his success bore no proportion to his abilities; exaggerated out of all proportion); hence ~LESS a. 3. (in pl.) Dimensions, size, (athlete, building, of magnificent proportions). 4. (Math.) Equality of ratios between two pairs of quantities (3, 5, 9 and 15 are in proportion); set of such quantities, (Arith.) RULE of three; DIRECT, INVERSE, proportion. 5. v.t. Make (thing etc.) proportionate to (must proportion the punishment to the crime); hence, etc.”
“So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100. You really should consider obtaining an education. Seriously”
So, percentage and proportion is mathematics, as in “is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change.” Here it is the quantity of probability.
Greg House – So, it can and has been quantified as probability, and the IPCC has set out, though not without disjunction in probables and possibles, what the numbers mean in terms of “likelies”, which is how they’re most often given. I don’t recall now where I posted an analysis of this, somewhere in an argument about prediction versus projection, but it shows the usual obfuscation.. However, the link the Git gave to Green and Armstrong well worth reading. They conclude according to strict constraints in modelling that these are opinions masquerading as mathematics to give them an appearance of credibility.
In assigning numerical values to the probabilities of various degrees of warming, climatologists apply Bayesian parameter estimation to the task of assigning a numerical value to the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS). Supposedly, TECS is the proportionality constant in a linear functional relation that maps the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 concentration to the equilibrium global average surface air temperature. Under Bayesian parameter estimation, Bayes’ theorem maps the prior probability density function (prior PDF) of TECS plus the observational data to the posterior probability density (posterior PDF) of TECS. The posterior PDF contains sufficient information for numerical values to be assigned to probabilities of various levels of warming.
However, there are a couple of catches in this scenario. First, that TECS is a constant is unproved. Second, the identity of the prior PDF is unclear.
By definition, the “prior PDF” represents the state of knowledge in the interval before the observational data were collected. In this interval, information about the value of TECS was absent. Thus, the prior PDF must be uninformative about the value of TECS. It can be shown that uninformative prior PDFs are of infinite number. Each such prior PDF results in a different posterior PDF. Thus, even if TECS were a constant, the conclusion that the probability of a particular degree of warming had a particular numerical value would be unproved. Thus, for example, that 95% was assigned to the probability that the degree of warming from a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lie between 1.4 and 7.7 Celsius would be unproved.
Furthermore, as the equilibrium temperature is not observable, the proposition that TECS has a particular numerical value is non-falsifiable, thus lying outside science. In view of the non-falsifiability, TECS is a scientifically illegitimate concept. Nontheless, it plays a leading role in the IPCC’s argument for CAGW and in Lord Monckton’s argument for non-CAGW. Both arguments are scientifically illegitimate.
Last evening I had the pleasure of attending a University of Western Ontario lecture where The Rt. Hon. Christopher Moncton of Brenchley spoke eloquently and humorously. This University Department of Applied Math actually had an open enough mind to invite Mr. Moncton to speak at the “Nerenburg Lecture” series. The Rt. Hon. Moncton was most informative, humorous and civilized in the mathematics he presented and in his evisceration of cAWG.
Myrrh said @ur momisugly March 20, 2012 at 4:31 am
By your argument then a molecule of CO2 is chemistry and the broccoli in my garden is horticulture. Wrong. The study of something is different to the objects of that study.
If you had read the IPCC Assessment Reports carefully, you would know that the “95%” is a subjective assessment of a guess about quantity, not a mathematically calculated probability. For example, I could claim that the salmon, prawns, cream, French bean and pasta dish I cook tonight will be 15.54% tastier than the version I cooked with asparagus on a certain date in the spring. Grammatically this makes sense, but it’s nonsense mathematically.
No Myrrh, even though there are several mathematical Sturms, the Git is not a famous mathematician, not even an infamous one. He is however the world’s most famousest Pompous Git according to Google.
Terry Oldberg said @ur momisugly March 20, 2012 at 11:18 am
It is however perfectly legitimate to accept the premises of your opponents and shew the flaws in their argument.
There is an example of a non-falsifiable theory that is widely accepted as scientific: Darwinian evolution.
Any situation where species exist is compatible with the Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.
This would also appear to fall outside of your claim that to be scientific, a theory must necessarily be reducible to a mathematical equation.
The Pompous Git:
I stand by my claim that Monckton’s argument for non-CAGW and the IPCC’s argument for CAGW are both scientifically illegitimate and for the same reason. This is evident by the absence from either argument of reference to the statistical population by which the claims of either Monckton or the IPCC could be tested. I don’t believe you’ve shot down my argument.
The Pompous Git says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm
There is an example of a non-falsifiable theory that is widely accepted as scientific: Darwinian evolution.
==================================================
The difference is, that acceptance of the Darwinian evolution is harmless.
AGW is not harmless.
A lot of people do not care about what the Darwinists say and are not interested in the discussions with them. To put it in a simple way, Darwinism does not matter, it is irrelevant for our lives.
AGW is different because it has been used as a political lever. The AGW people want our money and our freedom. If it were just an internal harmless theory, nobody would care.
Oh, man, I knew I shouldn’t have come back to this thread. It now has me all excited to see who has won this great discussion between Smokey, Git, and House. All very thought-provoking and had I another day to assimilate it all, I’d award a winning certificate (or two)–or at least proffer an opinion. However, it is easy to see who the definite loser is from this whole discussion:
The IPCC. And their “methodology”–wherever that is.
That’s as transparent as crystalline ice.
Terry Oldberg said @ur momisugly March 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Terry, I was not attempting to demolish your argument; I believe our arguments are orthogonal. My view of what qualifies as scientific appears to be somewhat broader and more ill-defined than yours.
The Pompous Git:
In common English, the term “science” ambiguously references the disparate ideas of “demonstrable knowledge” and “the process that is operated by people calling themselves ‘scientists’ ” That it references the first of the two ideas and does not reference this idea negates Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is a true proposition. The negated law is a false proposition.
Using the negated law as the premise to a specious argument, it is possible for a swindler to lead his dupes to believe that the conclusion of an argument is true when this conclusion is false or unproved. Thus, from ethical and societal perspectives, the ambiguity of reference by “science” in common English is undesirable.
In the United States this undesirability has been addressed by the federal courts and by many of the courts of the separate states. A consequence from this consideration is the Daubert standard. Under this standard, “science” is defined as I have defined it in conversing with you as “demonstrable knowledge.”
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin, extended Darwinism in the 1870s and this became known as Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism espouses the ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, fascism, Nazism and the struggle between national or racial groups. This in turn led to the legalised murder of millions in the death camps of the 20thC. I’d say our views on what is harmless are incommensurate.
RockyRoad said @ur momisugly March 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Rocky, I wish I were as sanguine about this as you. It seems clear that The Team can break the laws of the land with impunity. In a world where rationality prevailed, the miscreants at the IPCC, CRU, GISS etc would not be above the law. In the battle for mind-share where it counts — in Congress and Parliaments — they are not losing. This saddens me…
The Pompous Git says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Myrrh said @ur momisugly March 20, 2012 at 4:31 am
By your argument then a molecule of CO2 is chemistry and the broccoli in my garden is horticulture. Wrong. The study of something is different to the objects of that study.
The object of study is the climate.. I didn’t say that was mathematics.
If you had read the IPCC Assessment Reports carefully, you would know that the “95%” is a subjective assessment of a guess about quantity, not a mathematically calculated probability. For example, I could claim that the salmon, prawns, cream, French bean and pasta dish I cook tonight will be 15.54% tastier than the version I cooked with asparagus on a certain date in the spring. Grammatically this makes sense, but it’s nonsense mathematically.
What are doing here? You could have stuck to that theme instead in your replies, but you moved the goal posts – why don’t you re-read your disdainful replies to Greg House who asked sensible questions.
—————————
The Pompous Git says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:23 am
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 11:50 pm
The Pompous Git says:
March 19, 2012 at 11:36 pm
So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100.
========================================
Yes, very nice. But the question remains: how did the IPCC guys or whoever get this mathematical result?
It is not a mathematical result. You would know that under the following conditions:
* You knew what mathematics means
* You knew what science means
* You had read at least one IPCC Assessment Report
—————————
You were doing quite well until you blew it with “So no, “95%” in not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100.”
No Myrrh, even though there are several mathematical Sturms, the Git is not a famous mathematician, not even an infamous one. He is however the world’s most famousest Pompous Git according to Google.
Oh that’s alright then, I don’t expect have you make mathematical sense in any further comments… 🙂
Anyway, I think Terry Oldberg has given more detail of why the 95% doesn’t come from a properly constructed mathematical discipline/method required for such claims.
———-
Greg House says:
March 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm
The Pompous Git says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm
There is an example of a non-falsifiable theory that is widely accepted as scientific: Darwinian evolution.
==================================================
The difference is, that acceptance of the Darwinian evolution is harmless.
How is it harmless? It postulates ‘survival of the fittest’ which is clearly falsified, just look around.., include a mirror. And that has created no end of strange and dangerous thinking, it’s what’s driving the CAGW scare. [Which is why the eugenic ideology should be seen as not science, but opinion masquerading as science, as Monckton notes.]
It, Darwinian evolution, might well insist it be called science, but it comes with no clear proofs of anything like cause and effect, it’s all random opinion dressed up as science, exactly as the IPCC presents its opinions..
AGW is not harmless.
Yes it is. Unless you’re in a hollow near a vent on a volcano in which case it can be very dangerous indeed. Because it is heavier than air, one and half times heavier, it will sink displacing oxygen and if that vent is venting loads of it and you are in the hollow beneath and in its path you could easily be killed, suffocated by a big heavy fluid gas pillow cutting off your oxygen supply. You most definitely need to bear that in mind if you’re ever invited to a p*ss up in a brewery, don’t fall asleep on the floor..
Carbon dioxide is essential to life, the food of life in our Carbon Life food chain beginning with plants using the Sun’s visible energy directly to power the chemical change of carbon dioxide to sugars. Which reminds me, do you know of this alternative theory of evolution? That plants have driven the creation of the rest of life? To disperse their seeds with more variety. We were only created by them to produce more carbon dioxide because supplies were going to be running low.. That’s forward thinking, intelligence.
A lot of people do not care about what the Darwinists say and are not interested in the discussions with them. To put it in a simple way, Darwinism does not matter, it is irrelevant for our lives.
AGW is different because it has been used as a political lever. The AGW people want our money and our freedom. If it were just an internal harmless theory, nobody would care.
Good point in the last, though it isn’t different from Darwinism as it’s a continuation of it, they want our money and our freedom, and more. They think they are the most fit to survive and mass murder of oiks redundant to their requirements is on their agenda. And to this end they have created a fictional fisics to promote fear.
All the more necessary then that we get the science right. So first correction, Carbon dioxide is not harmful, it is not a toxic. A toxic is a poison, carbon dioxide is not a poison. Science has already worked out these categories, carbon monoxide is a poison, carbon dioxide isn’t. Carbon monoxide is harmful, carbon dioxide isn’t. There, don’t you feel better now that your own body is producing enough carbon dioxide to make the air you breathe in be a mix of 6% carbon dioxide in every lungful?
Breathe deeply, carbon dioxide is essential to your well being, without it that oxygen wouldn’t get transported through your system, and more besides. Breathe out, you’ve used 2 of that 6%, expelling 4 into the atmosphere. If there’s a plant around and it’s sunny, have a chat. The rest of the time it too will be breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide.
As for the central England temp records – it is a good indication of state of play of climate changes, because during glacials in our present Ice Age it gets covered one or two miles deep in ice and this usually doesn’t get further to the southern bits. Sort of on the edge as it were of the gazzillion tons of ice over the northern hemisphere.
There’s an ancient Cornish saying about glacials – if white you see turn the fox and the hare, beware…
From 2010:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/219594-Ice-Age-Alert-Central-England-has-coldest-introduction-to-winter-since-1659-
“When you look at the two-week period, says Bastardi, the last week of November and the first week of December, it’s the coldest since CET records began in 1659.
This puts central England back to the temperatures of the Little Ice Age.
And there’s more to come, Bastardi warns.”
http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=winter-history;sess=
The history of British winters
“Written by D.Fauvell and I.Simpson this page cover’s many winters from the 17th Century right up to the current day.”
This temperature record is invaluable because of where it is, not just because of the length of the record.
IIRC correctly, in the interglacial before our own now, southern England was african savannahish, hippos swimming in the Thames or something.
Myrrh says:
March 20, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Greg House says:
March 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm
AGW is not harmless.
——————————————
Yes it is.
=========================================
I am sorry, I meant “AGW concept is not harmless”. That’s why a later in that post talked about it being used as a lever by certain groups.
As for Darwinism, I did not want the discussion to move in that direction. I mean Darwinism does not present a substantial immediate danger to the mankind and it is not such a hot issue unlike the AGW concept.
No one proposes to build a world government to prevent people from hurting evolution, there is no evolution tax and so on, they have not even created an International Evolution Panel. So, evolution is not a clear and present danger, but the AGW concept is.
Myrrh says:
March 20, 2012 at 6:36 pm
As for the central England temp records – it is a good indication of state of play of climate changes,
=================================================
No problem with indications, generally there are a lot of things, that might more or less indicate something or not, but at the moment, when someone derives a “colder world” out of such an indication, I want to see this “colder world” proven. Since they talk about “global temperature” I want it to be proven, that the “global temperature” at that times was lower than now. If they can not do that, then they can not reasonably talk about colder world 300 years ago or generally in the past.
They may of course say “we do not know about the whole world, but the Central England was colder”, no problem. Although in this case I might ask them to prove, that they have a representative sample of indicators or that they used a correct method to calculate “Central England Temperature”, but this is another story.
Greg House says:
I am sorry, shame on me, I somehow misread your words I quoted. I answered it as if you said “both harmful and beneficial”, not harmless. Sorry again.
Of course, CO2 is harmless, I meant it so in that posting.
Then it appears that we are on the same page. Seriously, I am still looking for testable evidence that the rise in CO2 has caused any regional or global harm.
If verifiable evidence of harm due to CO2 appears, I will begin to reconsider my views. But so far, there is no evidence whatever that the rise in CO2 from 0.00028 of the air, to 0.00039 of the air, has caused any problem at all. In fact, the rise has been entirely beneficial based on real world evidence.
If I am wrong about any of this, I sincerely want to be shown the evidence. And you can be certain that the alarmist crowd is furiously searching for any shred of evidence that CO2 causes harm at current or projected concentrations. But without evidence, the CO2=CAGW [and CO2=AGW] conjecture is effectively falsified based on current knowledge.
Finally, for some good news: Hugh Pepper seems to have finally departed the thread.☺