More Nonsense In The IPCC - Who Would Trust Their Reports?

[BrentAllen]

Someone who is Mentally Awake would look at the shoddy science behind the glacier report in the IPCC and start asking questions, not just brush it off to a fringe element.

 

Someone who is Mentally Awake would look at how the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have reduced the number of weather observation stations from 6,000 in the 1970's to 1,000 and wonder how they can do an oranges to oranges comparison on global temperature. That Mentally Awake person would also look at how they are averaging temperatures in a grid several hundred miles in area, and then cherry-picking the stations to support their agenda.

 

A Mentally Awake person would NOT bury their head in the sand, just because they are told the science is settled.

[BadenP]

And one who is Mentally Awake would not get all his scientific information from the news media whose ability to present an unbiased report of the facts is sorely lacking.

 

One who is Mentally Awake would not be so closed minded to potential environmental problems just because his political party says it aint so.

 

One who is Mentally Awake would care about the preservation of our environment especially if he is a scout leader, otherwise he should resign from that position instead of poisoning the minds of the youth he leads with his own misinformation and personal prejudices.

 

Shame on you Brent!!!

[HICO_Eagle]

Let's see, I have no political party just Science. I've been living by the Outdoor Code and recycling for over 30 years and do plenty else for the environment when the science supports it so let's just shed the "mentally awake" nonsense shall we? If the science was so credible, why do you think leading physicists like Freeman Dyson are criticizing it? Why are meteorologists, astrophysicists and geophysicists among the most critical of the AGW hypothesis? You can continue the tactics of avoiding a discussion of the real science and throw out ad hominems (inaccurate ones at that) like Al Gore and Greenpeace or we can discuss the relative merits of the studies by Jones, Mann, Singer, Lindzen, Soon et al.

 

You might put Monckton in the same category as Merlyn but Watts, Spencer, Soon, Lindzen, Choi, Dyson, Singer, Coleman and Revelle (yeah, the same guy who planted AGW in Al Gore's head and refuted it weeks before he died of a heart attack) aren't. They all challenge AGW based on the state of the science (or lack thereof). Liljejen and Pielke, Jr. are in the lukewarm camp -- they feel there's probably an effect somewhere but are disturbed by the poor scientific practice and how it's been misused for political agendas. Curry is in the AGW camp seems to be appalled by the evidence of scientific malpractice.

 

Lindzen's not a god, he and Choi are revising the paper they just released a couple weeks ago based on legitimate comments but they claim the fundamental conclusions still stand. I'm not sure, haven't read their paper yet, but they followed the Scientific Principle and released all their data and supporting code -- Mann and Jones have yet to do that despite FOIA requests.

 

In the meantime, the sea level marks in Tasmania are still roughly where they were when Capt Cook engraved them in the cliffs over 200 years ago, Viking farms in Greenland are still buried under glacial ice, the Briffa tree-rings are still unable to be used as a proxy for the last 40 years (but are somehow to be believed for the previous 960 years with an accuracy of +/- 0.1 C?) and the GISS models can't "predict" the last 10 years of cooling even in hindsight.

[vol_scouter]

Stosh,

 

You have a common misconception about science. So called 'facts' are used to form theories. In the past, some theories were called laws but they should all be called theories. Accepted theories can correctly predict future events. Models are used when the basic physics is not well known or, as in the case of climate models, the initial conditions and interactions are too complex to perform first principle calculations so models are used. Models typically require assumptions whereas calculations based upon theories may or may not require some assumptions. Facts do not make predictions and thus are not theories. There are no serious scientists that doubt the correctness of special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, et cetera. These will remain theories forever because that is the way science looks at the world. Those theories are unlikely to be shown to be wrong but may be shown to have special cases that allows a new way to look at physics. Evolution is an incomplete theory. The basic ideas genetic changes producing phenotypic differences that increase the likelihood of successful procreation are not challenged by serious scientists. However, there are some phenomena that are not yet explained by natural selection. Until everything can be explained by evolution, it will remain incomplete. Natural selection does not speak to the processes that yielded life on earth but does make predictions about the processes that has led to the life on earth but in the past and present.

 

Climate models are not theories. A theory would be to say that if the amount of some thing changes, the following would happen. For instance, if the average amount of water in the atmosphere were to significantly increase, then such and such would happen. Typically, the model would be run with increased values of water in the atmosphere holding most everything else constant to see what happens. Then the model would be refined by saying that if the H2O content is increasing then something else happens which leads to other changes. When this has been done carefully over many variables, then one could postulate that if the water content of the atmosphere certain things would happen. Those ideas could be further developed into a theory if some experiment can be performed to demonstrate at least some of the predictions. Unfortunately, the experiment to verify the predictions cannot be performed because we cannot make such things happen on the earth. So the climate models will remain models at least until they have made consistently correct predictions over several centuries into the future.

 

Beavah,

 

You left out the American Physical Society which is the professional society for physicists. At least 120 prominent physicists, some are fellows of the society, requested a review of the stance of the APS. The APS confirmed the belief in AGW but has referred it to another committee. These are some of the best physicists in the country who have made a studied decision based upon the current knowledge. They are not fringe or a talking head on a network. I do not go to the anti-AGW websites so I do not know if they post there or not. I do know that they are well respected and were taken seriously. Majority votes do not make science or a theory. Accepted scientific theories do not require a vote because the predictions and correlations speak for themselves.

 

That was before the models have all failed to predict the severe winter in the northern hemisphere. The models are by definition flawed because none can be made to predict this cooling even now that it is known. The models cannot be trusted at this time. There is considerable concern about the exclusion of some data and how the temperature data is treated. We should not base large economic and political change upon models that are clearly flawed and perhaps entirely wrong.

[BrentAllen]

BadenP,

How hard can this be to understand? The information I am reading IS the science! The IPCC report isn't some media-created document (wait - after the Himalayan glacier fiasco, it might just be, afterall).

 

For the record, I am a conservationist, as defined by Theodore Roosevelt. I am not an environmentalist, as defined by current liberals. I recycle, teach LNT, love the outdoors, am a member of PETA*. I am not a vegetarian, and do not believe in significantly altering my lifestyle to reduce my cabon footprint because of wild speculations based on "consensus science."

 

BadenP, better turn off your computer and your lights and go live in a cave. All that electricity you are using is causing lots of global warming! Stop breathing, you are poluting the air with carbon dioxide! You are killing the planet! Shame on you!!!!

 

 

* People Eating Tasty Animals

[Beavah]

Let's see, I have no political party just Science.

 

Yah, Science is a reputable journal, eh? Official journal of da American Association for the Advancement of Science. Possibly the preeminent scientific publication in the world.

 

Seems like there's quite a body of literature in Science which supports the notion of climate change. Perhaps you'd be good enough to point to a research article there which provides evidence to falsify the theory?

 

I wonder, though... do yeh even subscribe?

 

Beavah

 

[JoeBob]

Just a quick note to second HICO, BA, WAKWIB, and jblake. Y'all have already made the arguments that I would make, but you made 'em better.

 

The way I keep score, logic beats emotion.

 

I've deleted several lines this response, because I don't want to degrade the quality of our argument. It's difficult for me to hold back the sarcastic ridicule when responding to emotional arguments.

 

But it's the passion with which the emotional arguments are defended that has really caught my attention. These are good and intelligent people who have willingly suspended their disbelief to push AGW. Why?

 

[Stosh]

Vol,

 

I don't think I have a misconception about science, but you do bring up a relative issue of chicken and egg.

 

Do theories promote the quest for proof or do proofs develop the projection of theories? You also refer to scientific Laws.

 

I differ in the fact that I don't adhere to the idea that Theories will always remain Theories. I believe that eventually many of what was deemed Theory will in fact develop over time into understandable Laws once they are proven out using scientific methods. To Jules Verne, nuclear power was only a theory and at the time of his writings, they were just that. Now they are solid science, able to be duplicated and confirmed.

 

The problem with "scientific" models is that they are for the most part formulated on assumptions. This immediately draw them into question and opens the door to questionable results.

 

Would a scientific model that is premised on a human cause for global warming show the same results as one that is premised on a cyclical climate pattern indicative of thousands of years of history?

 

Our climate has fluctuated back and forth over the centuries due to natural causes. I don't know how many ice ages have inflicted the part of the world in which I live, but it's been proven there have been quite a number of them still showing evidence.

 

If our recent "changes" been a result of 200 years of industrial development of humans or the natural consequences of a climate in constant fluctuation? The jury is still out and thus draws the world of the scientific under intense scrutiny.

 

I guess I'm not all that worried about scientific data as I am with the untested assumptions that interpret that data in questionable ways. Is moving towards renewable energy a good thing? Yep, but because it will be beneficial to my grandchildren, not because it's going to stop speculative climate theories about global warming.

 

The only problem I really have is with the words: "scientific assumptions". Science deals with facts and proofs, not speculations and assumptions. Those things are the goals towards which science moves to clarify and explain with provable certainty. Assumptions, speculations, myths, legends and magic all fit into the categories of Maybe, but I don't know for sure.

 

After all, at one point in human history a circular earth was only a theory. Once proven, it is now scientific fact. A consensus of medieval scientists does not produce true reality, only proof does.

 

Strip away the myth, the legends, the assumptions, the speculations, and the "sounds about right" and maybe we can just take a look at the reality of what we have and start from there.

 

Stosh

[scoutingagain]

The word "theory" has several meanings. Before a discussion continues on what is theory, fact or scientific law, all should understand the context in which people are using the word. Many folks confuse the meanings no. 1 and 2 below.

 

Theory, Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

noun, plural -ries.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, perhaps some definitions of "proof" would also be in order. Generally speakin', it's nearly impossible to "prove" that something caused somethin' else. Especially when yeh don't have the luxury of bein' able to do a few thousand repetitions of somethin' under different circumstances in isolation.

 

So we've established some standards of proof, eh?

 

"Beyond Reasonable Doubt": A strict test. Not beyond doubt, just beyond what a prudent person would consider reasonable doubt. We believe enough in this "proof" to sentence people to death or a life of imprisonment.

 

"Clear and Convincing Evidence": Not the same level as beyond reasonable doubt, but the evidence makes a convincing case. We believe enough in this "proof" to take a child away from his parents.

 

"Preponderance of the Evidence": There is more (or substantially more) evidence on one side than on the other. We believe enough in this level of "proof" to take large sums of money away from one person or corporation and give it to another, even if it results in bankruptcy.

 

Other fields have some other standards, eh? In statistics, they consider 95% likelihood to be clear and convincing.

 

So when we're talkin' about "proof" of climate change, we have to be clear what we're talkin' about.

 

My guess is that at present we have "clear and convincing" evidence of global warming, and a "preponderance of the evidence" that a substantial part of that warming is caused by human activity. Just my estimate, but it seems like it fits what's goin' on. Put a 12-person jury of scientists together and you'd have more than enough to find for the plaintiff, but yeh might perhaps have a single juror holdout in a "beyond reasonable doubt" capital case.

 

We accept standards less than absolute proof because it's necessary in human society to act. Yeh can't wait for absolute proof to put a murderer behind bars, because the risk is too high. Yeh can't wait for absolute proof of child abuse, because the risk is too high. Yeh can't wait for absolute proof of civil liability, because the risk of justice not being done is too high, and then yeh get people takin' justice into their own hands.

 

So a question is, "What would cause you to act in defense of your children and your nation?" My guess for most of us is that our standard of proof for that would be even lower, eh? I reckon we'd choose to act on reasonable suspicion to defend the welfare of our kids. We acted on reasonable suspicion to invade Iraq, eh?

 

In da case of global warmin', I reckon we're talkin' about the welfare of our kids and our nation, eh? I think it's just fine to act based on reasonable suspicion, but I think what da scientific community is tellin' us right now is that they've got the same level of proof that we expect when we take kids away from parents or award judgments that bankrupt companies.

 

It ain't beyond a doubt. Probably isn't beyond reasonable doubt. But it seems like enough to act to me.

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

Your argument is only correct if the models have used valid data AND can predict the future to at least some extent. All of the models failed to predict the northern hemisphere cooling which means that the models are flawed. There is considerable doubt that all of the data has been used which means that neither of the conditions may have been met. Since you bring up science, go read the news on climate today where the IPCC is stating that they need to educate the members on how to present their data. So in your legal analogy, the case is getting ready to go to the jury when you find out that the evidence has been altered and some of the key witnesses are lying. So are you going to let your client get convicted or are you going to bring up the altered evidence and the prevarication of some of the key witnesses? That is the current AGW discussion.

 

jblake47,

 

None of us know how language and standards will change in the future but today's scientific would term all 'laws' as theories. Further, any theory can be overturned by a finding that disagrees with the fundamental tenets of the theory. So by today's definitions, there will never be any laws of science.

 

As to experiment versus theory, the examples are best illustrated in physics. Physicists generally work as theorists or experimentalists. A group of experiments that find anomalous results to known theories will spur theorists to extend the theories or to develop new theories that explain the anomalies while other experiments will be done to look at the anomalous results in a different way. Conversely, theorists may come up with a new theory. As I said in my previous post, theories make predictions. So the theorists will say that their theory predicts such and so. Experimentalists will then do experiments to look for whatever was predicted. If the results do not demonstrate the predicted results then either the experiment was not performed correctly or the theory is wrong. That is the way science is performed.

 

You are certainly right about your climate comments. By the way, a flat earth was a consensus opinion.

[Beavah]

That is the current AGW discussion.

 

Nah, that's da current line of argument bein' used by the attorneys for the defendant, eh?

 

Yeh see attorneys makin' those kinds of strained arguments all the time when they have a weak case. It's a really poor argument, but it's all they've got. What they really need to do is settle the thing, so they're just tryin' to delay enough to get the best settlement that they can.

 

That's what's goin' on here too, eh? It's ordinary political strategy as well, since politicians and lobbyists are a bunch of bad lawyers. What's sad is when regular citizens actually think it's a good argument. They just don't know how to recognize the tactics of bad lawyers.

 

Beavah

 

[BrentAllen]

vol,

I'm not sure who has the worse tin ear - Obama or Beavah.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[BadenP]

Brent

 

Truly you are one of the most despicable people I have ever come across on any forum. Your arrogance and outright nasty demeanor really highlights your ignorance of many important issues facing humanity today. Additionally you excel at portraying the stereotypical image that many people have of southerners as being intolerant,backwards and uneducated, and if I was a southerner I would be totally disgusted by your behavior. Your Limbaugh style of bullsh#t doesn't impress or intimidate me either, you truly are a sad and bitter person. So continue to play your little games here but as far as I am concerned you have not one ounce of credibility, honesty or kindness. IMHO you represent everything that is wrong with a certain uninformed and unenlightened group in our country, and with some leadership in the BSA.

 

So take your potshots because as far as I am concerned you are a total waste of time and humanity.

[BrentAllen]

lol - Now, that is really funny, BadenP. I'm the unkind one, but look at who is doing all the nasty name-calling. That is just too rich! Thanks for letting everyone see who you really are.

Have a nice day! :-)