Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:03 pm
Goodness. It's almost like people are realizing that there's a Scientific Method, and it has been ignored in the field of "global warming."
But... there is a consensus...
RIP Gordon
https://www.dtman.com/forum3/
Told you they were evil.GORDON wrote:Google contributing to the burying of the story.
Recent revelations that the peer review system in climatology might have been compromised by the biases of corrupt reviewers miss a much bigger problem.
Most climatology papers submitted for peer review rely on large, complex and custom-written computer programs to produce their findings. The code for these programs is never provided to peer reviewers and even if it was, the peer climatologists doing the reviewing lack the time, resources and expertise to verify that the software works as its creators claim.
I'd love to get a look at the sims they use. From everything I've heard, they're flawed in a couple big ways.thibodeaux wrote:That's something else I'd like to ask Mr. Begley: I write software for a living. Am I qualified to comment on the software these hucksters used?
What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.
The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.
Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.
Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.
The public (or media) have an incorrect impression of 'peer review'. I've served on a number of conference program committees, albeit in different domains, and done reviews for journals as well, so I feel qualified to say: 'Peer review' is an initial screening of submissions to see if they are fit to enter the conversation. You're looking for things such as citation of the relevant literature and knowledge of prior art, significance of the result, (non)repetition of previous work, a minimal level of readability, and making sure that the submission is not completely in left field (e.g., in computer science claiming to have solved a known NP-complete problem, without an exhaustive demonstration). No one expects a reviewer to attempt to duplicate the described results. Peer review does not validate the submission. Attempting to confirm, rebut, or refine a paper is another project, worthy of another publication - that's how the conversation proceeds. Attempting to prop up the validity of any model by calling it 'peer reviewed' is dishonest, particularly when the peer review process is corrupted into a stone wall against the unorthodox.
Doctors should give patients advice on climate change, a leading body of medical experts has claimed.
...
The Climate and Health Council, a collaboration of worldwide health organisations including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Society of Medicine, believes there is a direct link between climate change and better health.
...
They believe that offering patients advice on how to lower their carbon footprint can be just as easy and achievable as helping them to stop smoking or eat a healthier diet.
I've been saying that too.Malcolm wrote:Told you they were evil.GORDON wrote:Google contributing to the burying of the story.
I've been saying that too.