Posted on 12/21/2008 12:24:44 AM PST by neverdem
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? [1][1] Richard S. Lindzen, Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 27, 2008
Abstract
For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective.
The institutional factor has many components.
One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end.
Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken.
The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific...
(Excerpt) Read more at pasta.cantbedone.org ...
btw, what is this “pastacantbedone.org”
I’m sorry but if I want to send this to friends and family with the slightest hope for credibility it needs to come from a more respectable link/source than “pastacantbedone.org”
Maybe I’ll just send it out without the link....
It's the first HTML version that I came across that wasn't cached. Send the pdf link in comment# 1. I find pdf links problematic, i.e. they won't open and you have to restart the computer. I read the pdf up to the acknowledgement on page 21. I just scanned the remaining appendices and references.
Thanks for the info and for the great article.
btw, the mentions of Enron, Lehman Bros., et al reminds me that the similarities between slovenly CEOs/financiers and the AGW hype artists are significant. Now we have the spectacle of Albore’s hype artist John Holdren becoming the #1 “science advisor” to the Obamessiah.
All of these people remind me a lot of Bernie Makoff — glib scam artists who take in so many people over a period of time that others say “it can’t be a scam because look at all those smart people who believe in it”......
btw, I notice that the Obamessiah’s #1 “science advisor” (newly announced) is John Holdren, who in the ‘70s was big buddies with the notorious Paul Ehrlich.... it seems clear that AGW became the new form of trying to terrify the public and the govt. into embracing leftist political causes.....
Ehrlich, Paul R., Anne H. Ehrlich, and John P. Holdren. 1977. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Holdren, John P., and Paul R. Ehrlich. 1974. Human Population and the Global Environment. American Scientist 62(3) 282 292.
ping
Thanks for the ping. This is an excellent treatise on the state of “science” and politics today. Bookmarked.
You're correct that the null hypothesis is important, though if someone were able to make predictions which (1) disagreed with common predictions, and (2) were consistently correct, that person's theories may bear closer examination. They should not be accepted at face value, but the person's ability to make such predictions would suggest that his understanding of the phenomena is better than others'. That doesn't mean that his claimed explanation would be accurate. Many people in centuries past have made a fortune by being able to predict eclipses, though in many cases they lied through their teeth about what was actually going on.
ping
“You’re correct that the null hypothesis is important, though if someone were able to make predictions which (1) disagreed with common predictions, and (2) were consistently correct, that person’s theories may bear closer examination.”
In that case, wouldn’t the null hypothesis be that there is no statistically significant relationship between Model X’s predictions and reality? Or alternatively, that Model X does not make predictions that are better than other models’ predictions? (Of course, that comparison would have to be measured on data the competing models were not tuned on).
Seems to me the disconnect is that the computer models are being used to prove a theory. The theory is “Man generated CO2 will cause the Earth to warm in a catastrophic manner.” To prove that, AGW advocates construct computer models that show catastrophic warming in response to CO2. The critical link in a proper scientific use of models for such proof is proof that (1) such climate models do a better job than other models at predicting temperature than alternative theories; and (2) that they are enough better than simpler models to justify the use of additional parameters on an information theoretic basis.
Even if (1) and (2) are established to be true, you are correct that the process does not prove the theory. It only establishes which of several models makes the best predictions.
Of course, one of the big problems with the AGW models is that they are constantly revised to fix incorrect predictions that previous versions have mode. Thus, there is no body of data that did not exist when the model was made on which we can judge the validity of the model. So the AGW folks have failed to date in establishing both (1) and (2). It’s their theory and the burden of proof is on them.
ping to an important thread/article.....
as I dig out from another big snowstorm it is comforting to hope that we might actually experience some “global warming”...... :^)
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.