Guest essay by Dr. Vincent Gray
Science is supposed to take place by the use of the “Scientific Method” defined in the following way.
THE FREE DICTIONARY
“The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis”
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
“a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
For most of us the scientific method is what is described in official scientific publications
Yet PB Medawar in his “Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud? http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data/sci_fraud_2927.html
argues that
“The scientific paper in its orthodox form does embody a totally mistaken conception, even a travesty, of the nature of scientific thought. .
The conception underlying this style of scientific writing is that scientific discovery is an inductive process. What induction implies in its cruder form is roughly speaking this: scientific discovery, or the formulation of scientific theory, starts with the unvarnished and unembroidered evidence of the senses. It starts with simple observation – simple, unbiased, unprejudiced, naive, or innocent observation – and out of this sensory evidence, embodied in the form of simple propositions or declaration of fact, generalizations will grow up and take shape, almost as if some process of crystallization or condensation were taking place
The theory underlying the inductive method cannot be sustained. Let me give three good reasons why not. In the first place, the starting point of induction, naive observation, innocent observation, is a mere philosophic fiction. There is no such thing as unprejudiced observation. Every act of observation we make is biased. What we see or otherwise sense is a function of what we have seen or sensed in the past”.
The procedure described by logicians as “inductive reasoning” may be shown diagrammatically as follows
In this procedure “observation” comes first. The hypothesis and then the theory arise from the observations. The validity of the theory depends on the efforts placed in its modification from future observations.
David Hume and particularly Karl Popper have asserted that this procedure is invalid. Popper says ( http://dieoff.org/page126.htm)
“By an inductive inference is here meant an inference from repeatedly observed instances to some as yet unobserved instances ,I hold with Hume that there simply is no such logical entity as an inductive inference; or, that all so-called inductive inferences are logically invalid. I agree with Hume’s opinion that induction is invalid and in no sense justified”.
So inductive reasoning is wrong. What is the alternative? An alternative logical procedure is deductive reasoning
\
\ 
Here the study begins with a proposed theory and the investigation consists of an attempt to find observations and make experiments which might confirm the theory
Medawar is equally scathing about this system
“deduction in itself is quite powerless as a method of scientific discovery – and for this simple reason: that the process of deduction as such only uncovers, brings out into the open, makes explicit, information that is already present in the axioms or premises from
which the process of deduction started. The process of deduction reveals nothing to us except what the infirmity of our own minds had so far concealed from us” So what should we do?
The alternative interpretation of the nature of the scientific process, of the nature of scientific method, is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive interpretation and this is the view which Professor Karl Popper in the Logic of Scientific Discovery has persuaded us is the correct one.”
Popper says http://dieoff.org/page126.htm)”
“What we do use is a method of trial and the examination of error; however misleadingly this method may look like induction, its logical structure, if we examine it closely, totally differs from that of induction
I assert that scientific knowledge is essentially conjectural or hypothetical.
There can be no ultimate statements in science: there can be no statements in science which can not be tested, and therefore none which cannot in principle be refuted, by falsifying some of the conclusions which can be deduced from them.”
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality”
And in
“Science as Falsification” http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
“The criterion of falsifiability is a solution to this problem of demarcation, for it says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations. “.
The methods approved by Popper can be shown diagrammatically.
These systems use a mixture of induction and deduction and they may include testing, prediction and, validation. One or other of these procedures give the best description of the scientific method as currently practised.
CLIMATE SCIENCE
Applying these methods to study the climate run into several difficulties
Scientific observations have to be repeatable and there has to be full information on the circumstances of the observation, the apparatus and the instruments used, and the name and qualifications of the observer.
These requirements cannot be met with the climate. No observation can be repeated and all the other details change over time. Although a very large number of observations have been accumulated, .the public and even scientists are prone to form premature conclusions about “trends” based on observations made in very different circumstances on different instruments by different observers.
This means that scientific conclusions based on observations alone are unreliable. They must therefore depend crucially on validation. Validation should include successful simulation of past observations, particularly the most recent and most reliable ones, but must also include successful forecasting of future observations over the entire range that the scientific theory may be used. This is the way to test for falsifiability
With weather forecasting the crucial test is the forecast itself, and the extent to which the theory is continually modified to accommodate new information.
This procedure is a routine function of all meteorological services. Its success has made it amongst the most useful of all scientific services. Its limitations are a consequence of the current inherent difficulties of climate science.
CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE
Climate Change Science claims that any change in the climate is caused by human emissions of minor trace (“greenhouse”) gases in the atmosphere, notably carbon dioxide.
The theory is in complete contrast to the assumptions behind the climate models used by weather forecasters.
It assumes
· The climate is unchanged without the effects of greenhouse gases
· The earth is flat
· The Sun shines day and night with the same intensity
· Energy exchanges are almost all by radiation
· Energy exchanges are “balanced”
· Energy exchanges are instantaneous
· No work is done on the system.
· “Natural” climate properties are not only merely “variable” but are also negligible
There is no reason in principle why such an unlikely theory could not be correct. Planck’s Quantum theory was an example of a theory which was implausible and completely at odds with existing theories of energy transfer, which Planck himself could hardly believe. It has succeeded because it has been comprehensively validated.
The question then is, can the climate change theory be validated?
Climate Change models do not make forecasts but merely projections which depend on the plausibility of the model parameters and of the futures scenario details.
These projections have never been validated by comparison with a full range of future observations They are merely evaluated in levels of likelihood and probability by scientists with a conflict of interest, subject to the approval of the Government representatives who control the IPCC
At the beginning, most of the projections were so far into the future that confirmation was currently impossible
Over the years, however, some calculations of existing climate properties have been made and there have been limited future forecasts which can be used for limited testing
Claims of the IPCC are heavily dependent on their opinion that they can successfully show changes in mean global temperature.. Temperature is an intensive property, like mass or velocity. It can only exist where it is uniform throughout any material . The globe does not have a temperature. Also there is currently no method available to measure an average temperature of its surface. Hansen at .http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html claims that even the measurement of a single value is “:elusive”
The IPCC does not even claim to measure mean global temperature. They claim to measure “”temperature anomaly”, a deviation from some average. Yet the averages which are derived from weather station or ocean records are not representative or uniform. They are subject to positive bias from urban and land use changes, quite apart fro the supposed effects of emissions of greenhouse gases. The trend of less than one degree Celsius over 100 years is lea than a degree Celsius, . . .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/surface-temperature-uncertainty-quantified/ concluded that it is impossible to measure temperature with an ordinary thermometer to much better accuracy than 1.0ºC. Weather Forecasters never deal in decimals of a degree.
Pat Frank at
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Frank_II_Uncertainties_fulltext.pdf
has made a thorough study based on the assumption of a genuine temperature record which supplies the following set of one standard deviation estimates.
This graph shows that the supposed “trend” is indistinguishable from zero,
Much more reliable temperature anomaly records have been made by weather balloons and satellites, using Microwave Sensng Units.
Model calculations do not agree with measured temperatures in the upper troposphere
CONCLUSION
The Climate Change Theory has been falsified and is therefore invalid.
I have a sympathetic ear for what Dr. Gray attempts to do in his little essay. However, the topic is so large and there are so very many points that demand substantial discussion, the essay cannot serve as more than an outline for discussion.
For those who are interested in learning about Scientific Method in some depth and being entertained at the same time, there is an excellent popular history of science, The Clockwork Universe, by Edward Dolnick (2011, HarperCollins). He clearly explains Kepler’s Three Laws and their importance. Kepler’s Three Laws are empirical generalizations; that is, they contain no theoretical terms. Empirical generalizations are bedrock in science. The story of how he created (used his genius to invent) them from the work of earlier astronomers covers the matters of induction, deduction, and validation in science. More important, the story reveals the importance of universal generalizations (hypotheses) for explanation, prediction, and validation in science.
Let me say very briefly that Dolnick covers Galileo’s two great contributions to science, namely, his experiments with marbles rolling down inclines, which gave us much of the laws of projectile motion, and his dogged application of scientific method as he used the newly invented telescope to confirm Kepler’s account of planetary motion. Galileo deserves credit for being the first to articulate and apply scientific method. (Galileo gave no credit to anyone but Galileo and, so, probably does not mention Kepler.)
Dolnick explains Newton’s invention of the calculus and Newton’s equally important applications of the calculus in calculating the planetary orbits in a mathematically rigorous way. Newton’s Law of Gravitation introduces theoretical terms, gravity, but, as Newton shows, the laws can be used to deduce Kepler’s Three Laws. Voila! Kepler’s empirical hypotheses receive explanation from Newton’s theoretical hypotheses and Newton’s theoretical hypotheses receive empirical support from the empirical laws that they imply.
The final step in the story is Newton’s Synthesis of the laws (well confirmed hypotheses) of planetary motion, taken from Kepler, and the laws of terrestrial motion (projectile motion), taken from Galileo for the most part. (Galileo did not have the math needed to complete the laws of projectile motion.) Newton explains that, given a cannon of specific proportions and a mountain of specific proportions, he could launch a cannon ball that would fall around the earth as the Moon does.
The key to understanding science as a system of validated hypotheses that are used for explanation and prediction is the fact that hypotheses are stated as universal generalizations. They are so stated for a very important reason. A set of universally generalized statement relates all of the factual conditions that must exist to the phenomenon that holds our interest. In plain terms, Kepler’s Three Laws of planetary motion specify all the factual conditions that must exist if we are to predict and observe the phases of Venus, to use Galileo’s favorite example. (Aside from secular science, Buddhists should love this. All those fabulous paintings of the landscape emerging from the fog are based on the correct belief that the object emerges only as the conditions come together.)
By the way, Dolnick’s book is actually about the competition between Newton and Leibniz as they struggle to get credit for inventing calculus. (Though I have the utmost respect for Leibniz’s genius, Newton’s application of calculus to physics goes beyond anything Leibniz might have achieved. Newton’s applications allowed others to understand the importance of calculus.) Dolnick’s account of Newton and Leibniz is excellent.
I enjoyed this article very much. Dr Gray writes:
Validation… must also include successful forecasting of future observations over the entire range that the scientific theory may be used.
In other words, a theory must make repeated, accurate predictions. The problem with the AGW conjecture [not ‘theory’] is that it cannot make accurate predictions. For example, there was never any prediction of the halt in global warming for the past decade and a half. If AGW was a theory, it should be able to predict just when global warming would resume.
Until AGW can make accurate predictions, it remains only a conjecture. An opinion. The attempts to elevate AGW to the status of a Theory are intended to provide yet another Appeal to Authority for those pushing the catastrophic AGW scare. But so far, all appeals to authority in the climate debate have turned out to be logical fallacies.
It may impress the uneducated layman when numerous professional societies are listed to ‘prove’ the existence of AGW. But honest scientists understand that such appeals never take the place of the Scientific Method: there is still no measurable, testable scientific evidence showing any “human fingerprint” in global warming. In the climate debate, Occam’s Razor becomes Occam’s Chainsaw: natural climate variability fully explains all current observations. There is no need to add an extraneous variable, such as CO2, to explain the minor ebb and flow in global temperatures.
Until and unless scientific evidence to the contrary is produced, AGW remains only a conjecture. AGW may in fact exist. But if it does, it is such a minuscule forcing that it can, and should be, completely disregarded when discusing national and international Policy.
CONCLUSION
The Climate Change Theory has been falsified and is therefore invalid.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusion, Dr. Gray. What appears to have been falsified and proven invalid are the Climate Change MODELs and the theories upon which they are based, not the accepted fact that the climate changes. Fro example it now appears that the CO2 model doesn’t work, but still no one knows why the climate changes. The PDO is a likely suspect, but the reasons for an approximately 27 year cycle are unknown – yet it greatly affects the climate.
So I think you need to make a minor change to your conclusion as follows:
The Climate Change Theory Models have been falsified and are therefore invalid.
Thank you for a most interesting analysis! Much research remains!
negrum says:
January 21, 2014 at 9:38 am
Concept of “Truth” is very different in science and in our ordinary life. My understanding of what Feyerabend is saying is that the concept of “Truth” in physical sciences can be perverted serving to oppress different opinions. The history of science is full of examples and currently some climate scientists, some string theorists, some nonlinear optics scientists, and so on, are trying same old trick of using “True” science to suppress “dissidents”.
Now regarding what Gekkel1 says: this rigid application of “scientific method” and judging the “truth” is not new and actually is not such a big deal and, for sure, is not a reason for developing “a chip on a shoulder” attitude becoming somewhat combative.
John Robertson.
The models have not been falsified. models are never falisified. even Popper knew this.
Suppose I have a model, undertand a model is just a collection of inter related facts and equations
A = B+C
C = D + I
D = .9y * 7x
I = z^3
y = 42
x= 35
z= 15
and so forth.. so we have a series of inputs and equations tying it all together
in the end I calculate that Temperature = 15.
Now I check the temperature. it’s 12
The model is wrong. what do we know? really know?
1. My observation was wrong, repeat the experiment
2. my inputs were wrong, check them and re run.
3. one of the statements in the model or more may be wrong
4. I may have missing inputs or statements
The issue is we cannot know which until we look further.
We dont falsified ‘the models” there are 43 of them. In the first place they should not be averaged, so if the average is wrong that tells you nothing about individual models.
you want to know which ones are better and which ones are worse
And when you find the better ones, you want to know what parts to keep and what parts to improve.
In short, the models, any or all, that dont match reality tells you nothing about what to keep and what to improve and what to throw away.
In other news..
is this “science”
http://io9.com/what-caused-a-10-year-winter-starting-in-536-1505213873?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Thank you, @dbstealey. Your observations are cogent.
I became interested in science some 60 years ago, reading an otherwise untouched book in my high school library. The revolutionary idea was simple: where is the authority? Does some earlier writing govern natural philosophy, or can earlier writing be falsified by experiment? You must put yourself into the mindset of the philosopher of the Middle Ages, running everything through the four causes and the four elements, to grasp the revolution. The Renaissance was as revolutionary in its time as was the Greek philosophical school, which overturned the notion of all forces being controlled by capricious gods.
Consider Galileo. He had an authority, Aristotle, who described how things move through the air. Aristotle was wrong. But not wrong based on logic. Wrong based on what actually happens.
So who do you believe? The Authority? Or the experiment? The same was true with Maxwell. His equations led to the conclusion that pushing an alternating current through a wire would resujlt in less energy coming out the other end. Where did it go? So the question: can energy be destroyed, or does the energy change its form? Thus radio was born. I am simplifying greatly here, I know that. The same is true with Pasteur and the spontaneous generation of life, and Semmelweiss and hand washing. Who are you going to believe, me our your lying eyes?
Today we have ancient authorities who tell us that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere will cause the temperature to rise. Alas. 1) the ice cores tell a different story. 2) the physics tells a different story. What, by the way, are we going to do when the Sun goes quiescent? Freeze?
Better get more global warming quick, as the snow piles up outside my window!
If we can’t have the data used to produce the hockey stick in the first place, then there is simply no science involved in the first place.
I’m not sure this is true. I think it’s probably ok to conclude that models that predict high sensitivity (e.g. 3 deg per 2xCO2) may be in error but current observations still support warming of around 1 deg per 2xCO2. It’s the magnitude of the warming rather than the basic theory which is currently in question.
Walt The Physicist says:
January 21, 2014 at 11:17 am
” … some climate scientists, some string theorists, some nonlinear optics scientists, and so on, are trying same old trick of using “True” science to suppress “dissidents”. …”
—-l
I think that this is the main point of our disagreement. I hold that the “climate scientists” seem to have done no “true” science at all and used social mechanisms to ensure that their version of the truth be the only one heard. I see the problem as being not with the scientific method they followed, but rather with the lack of it, as well as contributing social factors.
Some of Feyerabend’s ideas are interesting, but his solution of “anything goes attitude towards methodology” seems to me to be worse than the problem. From what I can see, his views on the “alternative sciences” (such as astrology) disqualify him as a competent authority on the scientific method or its shortcomings.
If you can define clearly and succintly what you understand under “scientific method”, I might be able to respond more to the point. What, for instance, are your views on the falsification/testing of theories as a part of the scientific method? Do you feel that it is of any use?
John Peter says:
January 21, 2014 at 5:20 am
I think the author forgot about “man made changes” as documented by Steve Goddard here and in earlier blogs. He is quite fantastic at it and I don’t understand why nobody has sued NASA and USHCN because the evidence of “tampering” with temperatures seems to be there.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/if-the-present-refuse-to-get-warmer-then-the-past-must-become-cooler/
Indeed, the data tampering pattern is missing in the analysis – adjust the data so long until it confesses:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/hansens-data-tampering-cleared-the-path-for-mikeys-fake-hockey-stick/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/uhi-made-simple/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/ushcn-v2-tobs-adjustment-is-double-what-it-is-supposed-to-be/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-summary-279.php
A graph who is changing from version to version to look more and more like the models and further and further away from the raw data.
This part of the “science” leaves an incredible bad taste.
One can simply look at the data and foresee future adjustments for past temperatures.
This new way of thinking appears to exist for the simple need to expedite the use of science to drive policy within one’s lifetime, and for fund raising. All you need to start both balls rolling is a new theory – one which happens not to be based on observation. Very creative. It is obvious too that it is intended for scientists who are bad at science.
Great article, but once again misses the greater point. Climate Change isn’t a scientific issue at all, but a religious (group psychology) one. The motif that the sea levels will rise and vile weather will ensue due to mankind’s transgression against the Divine (in this case Mother Earth) unless repentance is offered is a timeless religious narrative that exists in most folklore and religious mythologies. The power-lusting elite have once again seized upon human religious instincts to dupe and impoverish the masses, only now days it is not the illiterate they exploit, but the scientifically illiterate as this article points out. Science has been hijacked and misconstrued to become the Earth Worshipers holy authoritative Scripture!
The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded…
Steven Mosher,
Thank you for the your explanation on whether or not models (climate, etc.) can be falsified.
So I’m still skeptical of Climate Change Theory being falsified. Of course it also depends on who’s Climate Change Theory we are talking about…
I do think that while climate change (ask the Mayans) is a given, the principle drivers for it are simply unpredictable (PDO not withstanding) or unknown as the current hypothesis (theory) of CO2 concentration being the primary influence appear to have failed to deal with the last 17 odd years…not to mention the missing hot spot in the troposphere – which, as I recall, was supposed to verify the warming influence of CO2 years ago. However that missing proof appears to be forgotten by the very people who put it forward.
All of what is written on my favorite subject of the scientific method above leave me little to contribute tonight.
except this…
It is a line in the Christian Bale Movie “AMERICAN HUSTLE”
The two main character’s refer to a microwave oven as “Science Oven”
I saw it and Al Gore came to my mind.
The first half of the post is pretty good. Many people naively think there is a “scientific method” as taught in many high school classes (as outlined in the first figure). Dr Gray does a fine job showing that is if far too simplistic to describe the way ‘real science’ actually proceeds. This section is interesting (although nothing there is particularly ‘new’).
But unfortunately the middle of the paper makes some rather wild, unsupported (and incorrect) claims.
No. Science recognizes that many factors affect the climate over varying time frames, including …
* earth’s orbit
* the sun
* volcanoes
* continental drift
* land use changes
Science merely claims that SOME change will arise as a result of changes in the CO2 that affect the energy balance. (Unless we are defining some new idea called “climate change science”, in which case I suppose you can give your newly invented any properties you like.)
Again, this is simply false. Sure, some simplified presentations have pictures that might lead the uninformed to believe that eg Trenbreth’s energy balance diagram is a state-of-the-art climate model, but no ‘serious’ climate model makes the sorts of simplifications presented in this list.
Toward the end, things get much better again. The data DOES have a lot of noise, which suggests more careful measurements & analysis are needed. The models DO fail to predict recent ‘pause’, showing that the models are missing something important.
@Tim Folkerts 5:42
Not the Team IPCC TM Science.
Real science absolutely, hence the rise of the sceptical blogs.
The presumed authoritarian science, as accepted by my (Canadian) government, is the IPCC drivel, which has spawned policy and regulation all focussing on CO2.
Magic gas mitigation is the official policy citing the IPCC as the supporting science.
Climate change science is currently as useful as Environment Canada’s SCience.
Neither of which appears to comply with the scientific method.
Tim Folkerts says:
January 21, 2014 at 5:42 pm
OK, Tim. Prove it.
For the past 20+ years (since the mid-1990 eruption of Pinatubo), there have been NO substantial volcanic eruptions, earth’s atmosphere has been steadily clearing worldwide, and there have been NO claimed changes in the sun’s intensity (per the recognized solar “experts”) and certainly, the earth’s orbit has not changed. Therefore, you have the “perfect” test case for “your” climate models.
Therefore, show us ONE climate global circulation model output on a spherical earth plot for the months of March, June, September, and December at the end of 20 years: Show the entire earth’s surface temperatures on a degree latitude x degree longitude basis with all oceans, land areas, land ice, and final sea ice displayed. You may add mountains and deserts as fixed entities – if “any” GCM actually do process such trivial features.
Oh, by the way, make sure that model runs for 18-20 years, displays 18 years of NO increase in surface average temperature, a steady decrease in the Arctic sea ice over the entire period, AND a record-breaking all time Antarctic sea ice extent. Now remember, all this after 18 years of steadily increasing CO2.
So all you will need to show is the initial conditions and final conditions of ONE model run on a spherical earth plot that is actually correct over one 20 year period.
That’s all. Just one model run. Should be a piece of cake. Ought to to be able to produce that display in minutes since your 23 some-odd GCM’s have run tens of thousands of computer runs over the past 30 years, right?
Then again, if they don’t or can’t produce such an easy output, maybe they really are worth only what goes in? Prejudiced garbage.
You aren’t paying attention.
Averaging different temperature readings at one location over time is fine, as far as it goes. But do you really think that averaging the temp at your house, my house, the South Pole, the North Pole, Death Valley, London, the middle of a rain forest, etc, all into one is physically meaningful?
Thanks for including my graphic on the uncertainty in global air temperatures, Vincent. Those confidence intervals are from the systematic error of modern calibrated MMTS temperature sensors, and so represent a lower limit of uncertainty of the 1850 – 2000 record.
Your linked paper is the second of two. If anyone wants to see in detail where those CIs came from, the first paper is freely available here (870 MB pdf).
I have most of the work done for two more papers along that line, and so far don’t see the CI from systematic error getting any smaller. The surface air temperature anomaly trend since 1850 could well include a large amount systematic error drift, as sensors changed, moved, improved, and were added or removed.
I’ve been working on climate models, too, and presented a poster at the Fall AGU meeting in San Francisco, last December. The title is, “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections.”
I’ve developed a way to propagate GCM systematic error through their temperature projections, and can now demonstrate they have no predictive value whatever. If you or anyone are interested, the poster can be downloaded here (2.9 MB pdf).
[“CI” is “Confidence Interval” ? Mod]
Steven Mosher (Jan. 21, 2014 at 12:32 pm):
When you conclude that “models are never falsified” you are guilty of drawing a conclusion from an equivocation on the polysemic term “model.” To draw a conclusion from an equivocation is logically improper. This shortcoming of your argument can be eliminated through disambiguation of the term “model.” Under disambiguation that is pertinent to governmental policy making, a model is of the type that I’ll call “a model-1” or of the type that I’ll call “a model-2” but not of both types.
A model-1 is insusceptible to being falsified or validated; however, it is susceptible to being evaluated. A model-1 conveys no information to a maker of governmental policy on the outcomes from his or her policy decisions. Thus, a model-1 is unsuited to the task of making policy.
A model-2 is susceptible to being falsified and validated; however, it is insusceptible to being evaluated. A model-2 conveys information to a maker of governmental policy on the outcomes from his or her policy decisions. Thus, a model-2 is essential to the task of making policy.
Each of the climate models referenced by AR4 is a model-1. The apparent pertinence of the IPCC climate models of AR4 to policy making is a product of the fallacy of drawing an improper conclusion from an equivocation of the type that is illustrated by your post. Further information on this topic is available in the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .
Doug Huffman says:
January 21, 2014 at 7:56 am
“Climate science is adhockery (after Bruno de Finetti) formalized.”
Why not call it “Post-Hockey Science” ?
Climate Science is not the only controversial major section of science which makes fast and light of the scientific method and reason. The presumption of certain other scientific theories and using any method or invention necessary to support that is common. Too much of science is allegiance to preconceived ideas at any cost rather than going wherever the facts and evidence lead.
I don’t think you can say that a ‘theory’ has been falsified if the basis for asserting that falsification is saying that the ability of ‘scientists’ to develop robust and sensible computer models is fatally flawed.
I’m not a believer in CAGW, but the reason the models fail is that they do not model several key physical processes properly, rather than the theory is wrong.
I am of the opinion that the theory is wrong, but what has been falsified is that conclusions drawn on the basis of current computer models should carry any weight whatsoever.
The next question is whether it is POSSIBLE to develop effective computer models for climate change. If the answer to that is NO, then politicians should cease providing funds to continue ‘developing’ them.
What is the meaning of this sentence, or fragment: The trend of less than one degree Celsius over 100 years is lea than a degree Celsius, . . .
Sounds like some slightly misspelled tautology.
Simply consider sites with different RH; they may have identical temperatures and vastly different heat content per m^3. Two such sites with different temperatures certainly would not settle on the arithmetic average if their air volumes were mixed; the higher RH one would be more heavily “weighted”, and dominate to some degree (so to speak). That’s before even considering the T^4 calculation.
negrum says:
January 21, 2014 at 1:27 pm
I agree with what you say “that the “climate scientists” seem to have done no “true” science at all and used social mechanisms to ensure that their version of the truth be the only one heard”. These fellows suppressed different opinions claiming that their science is “true science”. Perhaps, one of the steps toward getting rid of such intellectual tyranny that, is wide spread in whole academia these days, is to get rid of notion of “truth” in science. All our knowledge is approximation, more or less accurate, and only time “falsification” shows the accuracy and area of applicability of any theoretical model. Near-term falsification (experimental, gedanken or any other) is highly restricted as it is subject to human imperfections such as lure of tenure, pride, stupidity, etc. This presents quite a challenge for government funding agencies which have to choose “better” research proposal – hence all this “political hoopla” that we observe.