Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Charles Koch has given a rare interview to the [Washington Post] New York Times, covering a range of issues, including Climate Change.
So what does Koch think about Climate Change?
Q: Are you worried about climate change?
A: Well, I mean I believe it’s been warming some. There’s a big debate on that, because it depends on whether you use satellite measurements, balloon, or you use ground ones that have been adjusted. But there has been warming. The CO2 goes up, the CO2 has probably contributed to that. But they say it’s going to be catastrophic. There is no evidence to that. They have these models that show it, but the models don’t work … To be scientific, it has to be testable and refutable. And so I mean, it has elements of science in it, and then of conjecture, ideology and politics. So do we want to create a catastrophe today in the economy because of some speculation based on models that don’t work? Those are my questions. But believe me, I spent my whole life studying science and the philosophy of science, and our whole company is committed to science. We have all sorts of scientific developments. But I want it to be real science, not politicized science.
Is Koch right about climate models not being falsifiable?
Leaving aside hilariously indefensible ridiculae, such as the predicted the end of snow, predictions of an imminent ice free arctic, the missing global warming fingerprint, and the record busting growth of Antarctic ice, the aspect of alarmist climate science which most offends my sense of scientific propriety, is the shifting statements about the pause.
In 2008, NOAA suggested that Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate..
In 2011, Climategate star Ben Santer extended the deadline to 17 years, stating that the lower troposphere pause had to be at least 17 years long before a clear signal that human-made CO2 warming theories should start to be questioned.”. That 17 year pause came and went.
The Royal Society in a recent meeting with British skeptics shifted the goalpost again, with a suggestion that a pause of 50 years, in addition to the 18 years we have already experienced would be required, before we should start to question alarmist climate models.
Of course, the alternative is to try to make the pause go away, with highly questionable adjustments.
A few alarmists, such as German climate researcher Hans Von Storch, have broken ranks with their peers, and admitted there are serious problems reconciling climate models and observations. But Von Storch’s frank admission of the issues is more the exception than the norm.
In my opinion, this shameful display of unscientific goal shifting, and the repeated unfounded assertions of certainty, in the face of serious scientific discrepancies, simply isn’t good enough. In my view the shoddy science practiced by climate alarmists more than justifies Charles Koch’s suggestion, that alarmist climate models are not falsifiable science.
@Weber: “Only warmist dolts believe that CO2 is capable of providing heat all by itself without an external source of energy (photons).” Can you say “Straw Man”? I knew you could.
No warmist (and no, I am not a warmist myself) ever said that CO2 added heat. The claim (and it’s simple physics) is that it’s an insulator, helping to hold in energy that would otherwise radiate out to the blackness of space.
If you don’t understand, try a simple experiment. Put two metal cans of water (like soup cans) on a stove plate. Cover both of them (to prevent loss of heat by evaporation/ convection), preferably with something transparent so you can watch (ideally, you’d stick a thermometer in each). Wrap one of them with some kind of insulator (like a dish towel) and turn the stove plate on low, simulating a *constant* input of energy from the Sun. (Make sure not to set the dish towel on fire!) If they’re both on equally hot locations on the hot plate (one’s not more towards the center of the plate than the other, say), I guarantee the one with the insulating blanket will get hotter than the one without the insulator.
The question is not *whether* CO2 acts as an insulator, but *how effective* it is (and whether its effect is amplified by other things, as many models assume). It may well be that its effect is much smaller than solar variation, and/or that amplifying effects are relevant (they could even be anti-amplifying effects). On the other hand, its effect may be greater than solar variation. That’s not something you can guess at.
the real difference between science and religion is that scientific hypotheses have to be falsifiable and that any established fact will fall by the wayside if nature shows different results. (Karl Popper) So the models have been falsified by interrogating nature over and over again. Unfortunately there are no scientists running them.
Patrick:
The models can’t have been falsified because they are not falsifiable. The appearance that they are falsifiable has been created by climatologists and fellow travelers through applications of the equivocation fallacy. These applications feature polysemic words such as “model,” and “science” and word pairs such as “predict/project,” and validate/evaluate. A word is “polysemic” when it has several meanings. A word pair is “polysemic” when each word has a different meaning but the two words are treated as if they were synonyms.
When a word or word pair is used in making an argument and changes meaning in the midst of the argument this argument is an example of an “equivocation.” An equivocation looks like an argument having a true conclusion ( a syllogism ) but isn’t one. As the conclusion isn’t true one cannot logically draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is the “equivocation fallacy.”
This certainty chart should be advertised everywhere in Paris from now to December 2015 and turned into drink mats, t-shirts, balloons, etc etc etc.
What does the chart say about the IPCC and its hypothesis? F R A U D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Is Koch right about climate models not being falsifiable?”
Trick question? the climate models have already been falsified by reality.
Chris Moffatt:
Not so!
Real data is the firm enemy of the alarmist crowd. The guys earlier who quoted satellite data ought to look here. In fact everyone look here and scroll down.
For all the scientists who call “carbon” and who is culpable.. Game over.
http://fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect16/Sect16_10.html