global warming?

[Phone]

Cory,

 

It's odd how sometimes a person can be on both sides of the issue at the same time. For the most part I'd say I understand Chesters1 better than I understand your points.

 

Scientific Theory - “a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

 

Why do you want to incorporate "science" in a political debate?

 

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere.

 

“""Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology""""

 

Eventhough the above is from the internet - and from 2003 - I could not have said it better myself 10 years later.

 

IMO Global Warming Theory now amounts to computer models “tweaked” with politically manipulated history. Predictions based on the (unscientific) facts about global warming should be left to Hungarian mystics. Computer models are so fragile, complex, and loaded with extrapolated inferences do you think we should be basing multi-trillion dollar policy decisions on them in the name of SCIENCE?

 

Phone

[Guest polaris]

But Phone, we are not talking about consensus. That the majority of climatologists are convinced by the observations and the results from the modelling is not the same thing as a consensus in the meaning of the quote, which incidentally is not from a scientist but a popular novelist (unless there is another MC).

 

How would you tweak a computer model with "politically manipulated history"? Have you ever done any computer modelling? I have. I don't know what you mean by fragile. These models solve fluid dynamics equations numerically, using inputs from observed data and a number of parameters drawn from the physics. In principle they are quite straightforward. In reality they are large and complex because the dynamics of climate are complex. Yet they do a remarkably good job of modelling the climate, so predictions from these models should be taken seriously. And most people who work with them or have an idea of how they work do so. Those who disbelieve the conclusions rarely have any understanding of the field, which after all does require specialist training, but prefer instead to listen to ... who?

[Phone]

polaris,

 

An example, most, if not all, leave out the data from the dust bowl era as an climate aberration, a recent bump if you will.

 

You do not have to be a good swimmer to be a good swimming coach. What does you data entry skill have to do with the results? I can read - I can observe, I can see previously quoted studies are used for current modeling. I can see there are as many "predictions of the future" used as fact as there are facts.

 

I would say a paycheck to arrive at the desired conclusion is equally as important as my ignorance. Odd how a paycheck becomes a "variable" isn't it.

 

As for who to listen to? - - - - - - I'm sticking with Hungarian fortune tellers for the moment. They have an equally good track record as the climate folks and it certainly takes specialist training to be a good one.

 

The issue is one of politics not science. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, hangs around with ducks and has webbed feet - it is a duck. NOT GOOD SCIENCE

 

Phone

 

In post 181 I underscored a "STATEMENT" Do you disagree with the statement?

[chesters1]

I'm getting a bit hot under the collar ,here virtually imprisoned by big business in the form of chaps in clown suits riding push bike openly breaking laws on roads they never contributed to stopping those that have going about their business

Watching it on telly i now see why the road was repaired thats been wrecking cars for 18 months it wasnt it seems the accidents but a lot of global viewers watching some race

Edited September 21, 2013 by chesters1

[Guest polaris]

polaris,

 

An example, most, if not all, leave out the data from the dust bowl era as an climate aberration, a recent bump if you will.

 

You do not have to be a good swimmer to be a good swimming coach. What does you data entry skill have to do with the results? I can read - I can observe, I can see previously quoted studies are used for current modeling. I can see there are as many "predictions of the future" used as fact as there are facts.

 

I would say a paycheck to arrive at the desired conclusion is equally as important as my ignorance. Odd how a paycheck becomes a "variable" isn't it.

 

As for who to listen to? - - - - - - I'm sticking with Hungarian fortune tellers for the moment. They have an equally good track record as the climate folks and it certainly takes specialist training to be a good one.

 

The issue is one of politics not science. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, hangs around with ducks and has webbed feet - it is a duck. NOT GOOD SCIENCE

 

Phone

 

In post 181 I underscored a "STATEMENT" Do you disagree with the statement?

A swimming coach needs to know a lot about swimming, and they are usually ex-swimmers. Science is not about data entry.

I don't know any scientists who are paid to reach certain results - not in universities anyway. There may be some who work for companies who have to toe a line: they are probably the deniers.

 

As to that statement, I would say that the range of forecast temperature rises implies some very uncomfortable possibilities.

Are you qualified to determine what is good and not good science? It has nothing to do with ducks.

[chesters1]

"

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage..."

[chesters1]

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

[chesters1]

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary. I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

[chesters1]

 

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] whats included and what is left out.

[chesters1]

Notice the rise in temperature? Its books being cooked