Science

[BugI02]

Flipper went into real estate

 

[jamil]

For those of you who feel qualified to make assertions about the science of climate change, let's use the same test I use to assess my confidence in climate scientists. Since the raw data is available, and you have such an understanding of the science, create your own models, pump the raw data through your models, and make some predictions. We'll see how well you understand it by how accurate your models are.

 

[KLB]

For those of you who feel qualified to make assertions about the science of climate change, let's use the same test I use to assess my confidence in climate scientists. Since the raw data is available, and you have such an understanding of the science, create your own models, pump the raw data through your models, and make some predictions. We'll see how well you understand it by how accurate your models are.

That's the kicker isn't it. Humanity doesn't know how the planet's climate really works. I wonder if it will ever truly be understood.

 

[T.Lex]

Speaking of models, this popped up in my feed today... and it is just awesome.

Wasn't sure where to post it until jamil referenced accurate models.

[video=youtube;CV83PMiotV8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV83PMiotV8[/video]

 

[Dead Duck]

For those of you who feel qualified to make assertions about the science of climate change, let's use the same test I use to assess my confidence in climate scientists. Since the raw data is available, and you have such an understanding of the science, create your own models, pump the raw data through your models, and make some predictions. We'll see how well you understand it by how accurate your models are.

OK...
I created my own science model. Now what?

 

[jamil]

That's the kicker isn't it. Humanity doesn't know how the planet's climate really works. I wonder if it will ever truly be understood.

I think there's enough evidence that it's not truly understood. And I'm not convinced that the people who really want to understand it are in the positions they need to be in to work on it. I think science, at least the important people, are too activist minded to be honest enough to want to just figure out how the hell stuff works. They need certain things to be true to satisfy their activism. And I kinda think that's true for both ends of the political spectrum.

 

[chipbennett]

For those of you who feel qualified to make assertions about the science of climate change, let's use the same test I use to assess my confidence in climate scientists. Since the raw data is available, and you have such an understanding of the science, create your own models, pump the raw data through your models, and make some predictions. We'll see how well you understand it by how accurate your models are.

What if I told you that your test is invalid, because the variables that feed into the models aren't well-enough understood to create useful models?

You know what model does show some actual, predictive value? The solar activity cycle model.

 

[jamil]

Oh. And Duck wins the internet. His model is obviously most accurate.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dead Duck again."

 

[jamil]

What if I told you that your test is invalid, because the variables that feed into the models aren't well-enough understood to create useful models?

You know what model does show some actual, predictive value? The solar activity cycle model.

Well. Then incorporate that knowledge into your model and let us know your predictions.

My point is a lot of people make a lot of statements about things they actually don't know enough about to make. It's basically parroting what you've read on the internet. But it's fair to make statements about things you do know, that are discernible without being a real ass climate scientist. Like, historically, predictions of future doom based on climate models haven't materialized. So I don't need to be a real ass climate science expert to know that they don't know enough about how the world works to make those predictions. Also, I can use critical thinking to determine that they're acting like they're hiding information. So I don't need to be a real ass climate science expert to suspect that they're hiding information. I can also read scientific journals and still understand enough to know that what the real ass climate scientists are saying about climate science doesn't really live up to the doom and gloom the politicians and activist scientists are saying about it. So no. The world isn't ending in 2031 because of global warming. It doesn't take a phd in climate science to figure out that's nonsense.

So I think you and I can come to similar conclusions, without actually being real ass climate science experts, and having to rely on google to prove our points. Now if you are actually a real ass climate science expert, of course none of this applies to you. But I'd rather the climate skeptics who aren't real ass climate scientists stick to the parts that can be logically deduced without being real ass climate experts. If I really want to argue the real ass science, I'll go back to school and earn a degree in it.

 

[2A_Tom]

For those of you who feel qualified to make assertions about the science of climate change, let's use the same test I use to assess my confidence in climate scientists. Since the raw data is available, and you have such an understanding of the science, create your own models, pump the raw data through your models, and make some predictions. We'll see how well you understand it by how accurate your models are.

I don't know a thing about the science.

I do know that NASA tried to pump the data into their computers for years and could not get the results that others were getting. This gave me pause.

Then the East Anglia e mails were hacked and we found out they had been making it all up for money.

Barack Hussein Obama was a lawyer for a large Carbon Exchange prior to becoming President. I don't have the reference. He fought for green tech and pushed us toward carbon credits.

Al Gore has made millions with this schitk.

That is why I do not trust this crowd.

Please tell me some of the people that say MMGW is not true that are making millions. Not the oil companies, but their scientists that are stumping for them.

 

[T.Lex]

SR-71 v. Kelly LeBrock

Ok, I concede.

 

[jamil]

I don't know a thing about the science.

I do know that NASA tried to pump the data into their computers for years and could not get the results that others were getting. This gave me pause.
FACT CHECK TRUE

Then the East Anglia e mails were hacked and we found out they had been making it all up for money.
FACT CHECK TRUE

Barack Hussein Obama was a lawyer for a large Carbon Exchange prior to becoming President. FACT CHECK KINDA TRUE I don't have the reference. He fought for green tech and pushed us toward carbon credits. FACT CHECK TRUE

Al Gore has made millions with this schitk. FACT CHECK TRUE

That is why I do not trust this crowd.

Please tell me some of the people that say MMGW is not true that are making millions. Not the oil companies, but their scientists that are stumping for them.

This is all reasonable. We can be skeptical of what we're being told without being real ass climate science experts. Something that has served me well with reading people, when they have a really good reason to lie to you, and they're telling you things that don't appear to match the fact patterns, they're probably lying to you.

 

[chipbennett]

Well. Then incorporate that knowledge into your model and let us know your predictions.

My point is a lot of people make a lot of statements about things they actually don't know enough about to make. It's basically parroting what you've read on the internet. But it's fair to make statements about things you do know, that are discernible without being a real ass climate scientist. Like, historically, predictions of future doom based on climate models haven't materialized. So I don't need to be a real ass climate science expert to know that they don't know enough about how the world works to make those predictions. Also, I can use critical thinking to determine that they're acting like they're hiding information. So I don't need to be a real ass climate science expert to suspect that they're hiding information. I can also read scientific journals and still understand enough to know that what the real ass climate scientists are saying about climate science doesn't really live up to the doom and gloom the politicians and activist scientists are saying about it. So no. The world isn't ending in 2031 because of global warming. It doesn't take a phd in climate science to figure out that's nonsense.

So I think you and I can come to similar conclusions, without actually being real ass climate science experts, and having to rely on google to prove our points. Now if you are actually a real ass climate science expert, of course none of this applies to you. But I'd rather the climate skeptics who aren't real ass climate scientists stick to the parts that can be logically deduced without being real ass climate experts. If I really want to argue the real ass science, I'll go back to school and earn a degree in it.

This entire line of thought is based on a false premise. I don't have to know how to create accurate models in order to refute the existing models. I don't have to have intimate understanding of climate science in order to point out the actions, analyses, and conclusions that would have gotten me flunked - and laughed - out of a 200-level engineering course.

When you create a model that outputs the same thing regardless of the data that are input, then that model fails. When you fail to produce falsifying tests for your models, your models are useless. When you "adjust" raw data (and/or replace raw data with "estimated" data) that a) always adjusts the raw data in one direction, and b) results in changes of slope/peak reversals, your data adjustment methods are wrong. When you systematically exclude - by refusing to conduct legitimate peer review - dissenting studies and data and blackball/deny funding to their authors, you are no longer conducting scientific pursuit.

I could go on.

What is being pushed as "climate science" does not pass scientific rigor.

 

[Dead Duck]

But Bill Nye has his own show. So obviously he's right.

 

[chipbennett]

But Bill Nye has his own show. So obviously he's right.

Bill Nye is absolutely the most perfect front man for the Church of Climate Change.

 

[rhino]

And, the real kicker with CO2 is: it's a lagging, not a leading, indicator of temperature. All of our long-term temperature data corroborate that CO2 responds to changes in temperature, rather than causing those changes.

As we know, the bulk of CO2 on planet Earth is dissolved in the oceans and large lakes. A rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics or chemistry lets us understands that when the water is cooler, more CO2 can be held in solution. When the water is warmer, less can be held. So while it would be a challenge to conduct experiments that demonstrate the causal relationship, the actual data are consistent with the hypothesis that temperature changes are driving the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around. I remain unable to understand why this isn't obvious to more people.

It is a factual reality that I've tried to keep in the collective consciousness both on INGO and in real life, but with little reaction. When I had more control of the curriculum of my classes and the subject arose, it was one of the points I raised in an attempt to encourage my students to seek a more comprehensive body of information regarding human influence on climate change. I will add that when one tries to teach students about the processes we call science and encourage them to ask questions and think critically, the majority will reject the challenge and choose instead to receive and accept information they receive from agenda-driven popular media.

 

[jamil]

This entire line of thought is based on a false premise. I don't have to know how to create accurate models in order to refute the existing models. I don't have to have intimate understanding of climate science in order to point out the actions, analyses, and conclusions that would have gotten me flunked - and laughed - out of a 200-level engineering course.

When you create a model that outputs the same thing regardless of the data that are input, then that model fails. When you fail to produce falsifying tests for your models, your models are useless. When you "adjust" raw data (and/or replace raw data with "estimated" data) that a) always adjusts the raw data in one direction, and b) results in changes of slope/peak reversals, your data adjustment methods are wrong. When you systematically exclude - by refusing to conduct legitimate peer review - dissenting studies and data and blackball/deny funding to their authors, you are no longer conducting scientific pursuit.

I could go on.

What is being pushed as "climate science" does not pass scientific rigor.

I've covered that. You don't have to know the science to know whether models have predicted outcomes accurately. When reality doesn't produce the predicted result, we know the thing the prediction was based on was faulty, whether it's a whim, prognostication, or modeled outcomes. There are legitimate reasons to "adjust" raw data, possibly even in one direction. If you have evidence that the reasons are suspicious, I think that's a good reason for healthy skepticism. A non-transparent rationale for "adjusting" raw data, like "trust us, we totally didn't put our thumbs on the scale" would be a good reason to be skeptical. And of course, acting like you're hiding something, including systematically coercing peer reviews, blackballing dissenters, ruining careers of naysayers, promoting kindred ideologues, doesn't require real ass climate science knowledge to know someone's probably hiding something.

If you keep it just to those things that can be deduced without being a real ass scientist, I have no problem with that. But when people get deeper into the gritty science of things, I think I'd like to have a real ass scientist's rebuttal before I take it seriously.

 

[jamil]

But Bill Nye has his own show. So obviously he's right.

I think Bill Nye might be a closet **********.

 

[rhino]

For those of you who feel qualified to make assertions about the science of climate change, let's use the same test I use to assess my confidence in climate scientists. Since the raw data is available, and you have such an understanding of the science, create your own models, pump the raw data through your models, and make some predictions. We'll see how well you understand it by how accurate your models are.

I do not foresee anyone successfully modeling climate conditions on a meaningful level in the near future. The system is too big and too complex, while even smaller components such as the water cycle are not that well understood. I admire anyone who tackles that monumental task honestly and objectively as much as I despise those who are obviously engaged in fraud or at the very least seeking to justify their conclusion without regard for the possibility that the results may likely refute their desired outcome.

However, the burden of proving that human activity is driving global warming or climate change does not rest with me. I'm sitting on the null hypothesis: human activity does not have a significant effect on climate. If and when someone actually provides evidence sufficient to refute that null hypothesis, I'm always open to learn more about it. That has not yet happened, as much as some would like all to believe.

 

[Dead Duck]

But.....

[video=youtube;26qzmw_xG58]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26qzmw_xG58[/video]