Posted on 12/29/2016 3:15:06 PM PST by PJ-Comix
I keep hearing people say that 97% of climate scientists are on the same side of the issue. Critics point out that the number is inflated, but we don’t know by how much. Persuasion-wise, the “first offer” of 97% is so close to 100% that our minds assume the real number is very high even if not exactly 97%.
That’s good persuasion. Trump uses this method all the time. The 97% anchor is so strong that it is hard to hear anything else after that. Even the people who think the number is bogus probably think the real figure is north of 90%.
But is it? I have no idea.
So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.dilbert.com ...
Since the claim about what these purported 97% support is vague, the first step is to clearly define what the Hell we are trying to determine scientist might possibly agree on.
WHAT THE HELL is it, EXACTLY, that 97% of scientists are supposed to agree with?
Answer that question first.
NEXT: Define what you mean by a climate scientist. Your local news weather(wo)man who may or may not have a bachelor’s degree in meteorology? Your high school earth science teacher? Dr. Lindzen, who virtually invented the field?
Once you’ve answered those two questions, then you can take a nose count of whom from the set of what we have agreed to call climate scientists agree with what specific propositions.
I am a scientist. A computer scientist, in fact, with a strong background in the natural sciences. I know the models are BS, never mind the data. The most notorious, if not the most egregious, perhaps, is Mann’s model which is the source of the infamous Hockey Stick Graph. Pretty much any dataset put into it will generate the same results. None of those results, however, match reality. That is just on the model side.
It turns out that the data selected for his (Mann’s) adventure in creative modeling is equally cooked, a sort of double-whammy cheat so that if you tested the data or the model independently with an honest model or honest data you’d still end up with his results or something close, and if you didn’t use either you could easily be discredited for allegedly doing what Mann et. al. actually DID do.
Globull warming is nothing but an attempt to shame and blackmail the West into transferring most of their wealth to turd world dictators in the insane hope that it will somehow raise the people under those dictators out of abject poverty.
The 97% claim is a myth. It is the result of an extremist alarmist group divining the beliefs of the authors of a number of papers on climate change by reading those papers rather than by actually asking the authors. Any rational individual can see the problem with that.
When the actual authors were interviewed later the real result was something like 52%. Keep in mind that these are people that make their living doing climate research on your dime, not representative of the larger scientific community. What would you expect them to say?
The first fact any honest scientist should admit is that it’s simply impossible to build an accurate model of any dynamic system as complex as climate. It’s impossible to even build an accurate model of a relatively simple dynamic system like the three body problem, which is orders of magnitude simpler than the climate. It has nothing to do with model design, or computing power; we simply don’t have sufficient understanding of the underlying mathematics to do anything of the sort.
Therefore, any model that they make is very likely to be “cooked”, because they know the models will produce garbage in any case, so the temptation to force the model to produce the kind of garbage that will get them funding is going to be very strong.
Princeton Professor Denies Global Warming Theory Jan. 12, 2009
Princeton Physics Professor Discredits Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory Dec. 21, 2016
German scientists reject man-made global warming
Real Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]
'Consensus' On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008
Perth electrical engineer's discovery will change climate change debate October 04, 2015
Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama 'Took the Wrong Side' on Climate Change October 14, 2015
Global Warming Petition Project Scientists who reject AGW
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' * 'Based On Nonsense' * 'Leading us down a false path' November 19, 2015
Garbage in, garbage out. And of course there is the money.
This is really simple. Start the model in 1960 and see if it fits today. If so, count me a believer. If not . . . . .
Thank you for that.
As someone with a background in the physical sciences, I have long operated by a simple and universal axiom:
The model is never the thing itself; any model can only be termed as being more or less accurate, never on being equatable with reality - never on being the literal truth.
A 1/72 scale model of a North American P-51D-25-NA is almost certainly less accurate than a 1/48 scale model of the same aircraft. To say that because the 1/48 is more accurate makes the 1/72 somehow false is itself false.
Both are equally, one hundred per cent, models. One is more accurate than the other; neither is equatable with an actual Mustang with its Packard-built Rolls-Royce Merlin roaring away.
I have never been caught up in the quest for the UFT for the reason of my personal axiom.
I do not sneer at a Neils Bohr atom just because SPDF, Orbital, Quantum, and anything else, came along to produce more sophisticated results. I am not going to use anything but Bohr to explain an atom to a little child.
Models are very useful if they are fairly accurate, and if their deficiencies are recognized.
The climate change models are very poor models that have been contrived for communist purposes of global redistribution of wealth. Their vast deficiencies are not recognized, and the dubious method for choosing the vaunted 97% of scientists is, in a word, crap.
Science is a tool, not a god. It is often abused by incompetence. Nowadays, it is deliberately abused by leftists.
Unfortunately, a majority of these kind of activist scientists are extreme leftists who subordinate all, including professional integrity, to political ends.
Trofim Lysenko has got nothing on what these frauds are doing today.
What hypothesis are the data meant to test?
Is it, "In the absence of human activity, climate is invariant"?
Is it, "Past swings in climate were caused by something else, THIS one is caused by humans"?
Really. What is it?
Consensus is not Science, Consensus is Politics or Business or the kiss at the door at the end of a Date.
The best take down of climate science “models” was an older scientist saying that if they were valid, we wouldn’t have competing models with wide ranging projections but a single MODEL that was correct.
“For the planet” justifies more totalitarian policies than “for the children” since it applies to people who don’t have children, never gets challenged by the next generation that is was supposedly in the name of and can apply to everyone worldwide.
How reliable are climate models?
How reliable were election models built by the same data scientists?
Models depend on several things.
First is a large amount of data to establish the norm, the current state.
Then analyze the data. Find the patterns. Patterns occur in small and large granularity. They occur over many dimensions.
Then determine why the patterns exist. Where is the cause and effect. Correlation is not causation is the common warning.
Eventually you use this data to predict the future.
So let’s look where data scientists have massive amounts of data, the best tools available. Most large IT shops have data scientists who build models to predict the response time and cpu consumption of critical systems.
These data scientists collect massive amounts of data on current production systems. They collect massive amounts of test data on new systems not yet in production. They build models that predict the behavior of the new system when it goes into production.
The track record of these highly educated, highly skilled data scientists who (for the most part) lack bias in the desired outcome are only marginally better than the flip of a coin. They have a high rate of false positives and a high rate of false negatives.
Over their objections systems are put in production that perform very well despite the dire predictions. And with their endorsement systems are put in production that bring down the entire business.
These data scientists have far more data than climate scientists. So how reliable are the climate scientists’ models? In computer systems we find out shortly after put in production... if not in test. With climate it will take many decades to validate a model.
The real climate science challenge is for the weatherman in all 50 states to produce an accurate down to the degree weather forecast for the next day.
Love that cartoon.
Good points. Lindzen’s view is that there is a most likely a small amount of warming due to man-made (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide. Whether that amount of warming is a net benefit - if it even exists - or detriment is not clear.
Hypothesis testing is not necessarily useful, this is not grant writing, and there is no obvious “signal” or test statistic that can be used to verify or refute these claims.
The best signal would be the mid latitude winter atmospheric thermal profile, and in this case the evidence is completely lacking. There is no signal. If global warming is occurring due to carbon dioxide, the models have got it all wrong, because their mechanism does not occur in the real world.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.